# Why is 4'33" disparaged, while Western forms of sacred music get their own forum?



## millionrainbows

*Why is 4'33" disparaged, while Western forms of sacred music get their own forum?*

Why do members here frequently disparage and invalidate *John Cage's 4'33",* _which is essentially a sacred statement,_ while Western/Christian forms of sacred music seem to get much more respect, and have their own forum?

Surely this implies that these *Western* forms of sacred music deserve a special degree of respect, while *4'33"* seems to be "open game" for disparaging posts, threads, and comments.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Why do members here frequently disparage and invalidate *John Cage's 4'33",* _which is essentially a sacred statement,_ while Western/Christian forms of sacred music seem to get much more respect, and have their own forum?
> 
> Surely this implies that these *Western* forms of sacred music deserve a special degree of respect, while *4'33"* seems to be "open game" for disparaging posts, threads, and comments.


Because it's not sacred and not music. It's a clever idea that gives it a pseudo-intellectual status with certain people!

Mind you, I'll say this in its favour. From what I have heard of the unholy din Cage's other 'music' 4'33" appears preferable!


----------



## Fagotterdammerung

I'm the wrong person to ask. I make fun of all music, even music dear to me. Nothing is "sacred", no matter what set of beliefs it comes from.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

millionrainbows said:


> Why do members here frequently disparage and invalidate *John Cage's 4'33",* _which is essentially a sacred statement,_ while Western/Christian forms of sacred music seem to get much more respect, and have their own forum?
> 
> Surely this implies that these *Western* forms of sacred music deserve a special degree of respect, while *4'33"* seems to be "open game" for disparaging posts, threads, and comments.


How exactly is this music sacred and why do you oppose it to "Western" music? Was John Cage not a Westerner?

Personally, I make fun of it because it is nothing but a musical joke. Or rather it is the musical equivalent of internet trolling, designed to stir up controversy and thus to make the composer famous.


----------



## TresPicos

It always amazes me how people cannot see the conceptual importance of 4'33'', or Duchamp's Fountain, for that matter. You may ridicule them all you want, but you're only revealing your own ignorance.


----------



## Morimur

TresPicos said:


> It always amazes me how people cannot see the conceptual importance of 4'33'', or Duchamp's Fountain, for that matter. You may ridicule them all you want, but you're only revealing your own ignorance.


4'33'' was certainly a great concept and nothing else.


----------



## dgee

TresPicos said:


> It always amazes me how people cannot see the conceptual importance of 4'33'', or Duchamp's Fountain, for that matter. You may ridicule them all you want, but you're only revealing your own ignorance.


BOOM -yes!! There's a reason why these works of art are some of the most talked about


----------



## Guest

People disparage 4'33" because they can't wrap their minds around it.

Likewise, a few people still disparage religious music because they can't wrap their minds around religious ideas enough to accept its existence (they need not believe it, merely accept it...)


----------



## DavidA

TresPicos said:


> It always amazes me how people cannot see the conceptual importance of 4'33'', or Duchamp's Fountain, for that matter. You may ridicule them all you want, but you're only revealing your own ignorance.


No we've just realised that the emperor has no clothes!


----------



## DavidA

arcaneholocaust said:


> People disparage 4'33" because they can't wrap their minds around it.


What is there to wrap your mind around? Nothing!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> What is there to wrap your mind around? Nothing!


I rest my case.


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> How exactly is this music sacred and why do you oppose it to "Western" music? Was John Cage not a Westerner?
> 
> Personally, I make fun of it because it is nothing but a musical joke. Or rather it is the musical equivalent of internet trolling, designed to stir up controversy and thus to make the composer famous.


I'm also interested in answers to this.


----------



## SixFootScowl

arcaneholocaust said:


> People disparage 4'33" because they can't wrap their minds around it.


That is because there is nothing to wrap their minds around.


----------



## DeepR

It may have value as a concept, but to me it does not have value as music and I don't think it's worth all the attention it gets. That is all.


----------



## Guest

DeepR said:


> It may have value as a concept, but to me it does not have value as music and I don't think it's worth all the attention it gets. That is all.


If people think I go around listening to 4'33" in my headphones, they'd be wrong (Here I'm talking about the empty audio tracks on Cage albums). An ideal setting of 4'33" is in a rain forest or something anyway (oh hello, entire genre of field recordings!), but I wouldn't say no to a concert hall setting either. I think this misconception might be what drives a lot of the disparaging comments.

Of course the strength of 4'33" is in its concept. The fact that people can't let it go is, if anything, only a testament to the strength of that concept.


----------



## ArtMusic

SiegendesLicht said:


> How exactly is this music sacred and why do you oppose it to "Western" music? Was John Cage not a Westerner?
> 
> Personally, I make fun of it because it is nothing but a musical joke. Or rather it is the musical equivalent of internet trolling, designed to stir up controversy and thus to make the composer famous.


Agree entirely, perfectly stated. He should have turned his creativity to actual music composition that would have positive impact music of his time in the 50's etc. instead of making classical music more alienating.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Agree entirely, perfectly stated. He should have turned his creativity to actual music composition that would have positive impact music of his time in the 50's etc. instead of making classical music more alienating.


Considering the ratio of his massive non-4'33" musical output to 4'33", I have to wonder who you're trying to offend here?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

I think my post in the other thread got missed.



SeptimalTritone said:


> Yeah, it's an audience piece. That's a great way of putting it! The combination of the ambient noise and the audience's personality... it sweeps your mind like a laser.
> 
> It definitely is a piece of music. If musique concrete uses the tools of sine waves, white noise, recorded natural sounds, recordings of recordings... then 4'33" isn't too far different from something like Bird Cage or Roaratorio. Just think of 4'33" as a more intense, visceral, and pithier version of those works.
> 
> As for as Zen meditation goes, I've had my personal struggles with Buddhism... but that's a topic for the religious discussion group. I just want to say to Ken that a good piece of music (like 4'33", or Cage's other works, or Xenakis, or Beethoven) can take one to a visceral experience of the present moment. If one just enjoys this for what it is, rather than worrying about 'reaching' the Buddha, then it's a beautiful thing. I think that doing certain things as religious practice, like sitting zazen meditation, or chanting, or listening to music... without worrying about 'reaching' the Buddha is what people meant by 'kill the Buddha'. Buddhists do certain things as spiritual practice with the goal of taking one to the present moment, and from there all of life gradually becomes a more present experience.


----------



## KenOC

I like 4'33" jokes as much as the next guy. But hey -- the piece actually seems to bother and irritate some people. Why do you think this is?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

KenOC said:


> I like 4'33" jokes as much as the next guy. But hey -- the piece actually seems to bother and irritate some people. Why do you think this is?


I think that if one is used to musique concrete... then 4'33" is a wonderfully positive experience, just like other works in the genre.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> I like 4'33" jokes as much as the next guy. But hey -- the piece actually seems to bother and irritate some people. Why do you think this is?


It only irritates when people insist on taking it seriously!


----------



## echo

its a bit too loud for me


----------



## ArtMusic

arcaneholocaust said:


> Considering the ratio of his massive non-4'33" musical output to 4'33", I have to wonder who you're trying to offend here?


I'm not trying to offend anyone. The poll asked why is the piece so disparaged? I offered my opinion. Moreover, all composers before him since year "dot" wrote massive amounts, multiples more, without novelty. They got on with it. But if he intended the piece to be a musical joke, I accept that and can laugh jokingly in appreciation. (Incidentally, Mozart wrote a piece called Musical Joke, Mozart termed it as that, we all then appreciate it as that.)


----------



## ArtMusic

echo said:


> its a bit too loud for me


Not if it was performed outdoors in the city on a weekday day at lunchtime. And you would experience differently there and then, and I think that was his point.


----------



## echo

ArtMusic said:


> Not if it was performed outdoors in the city on a weekday day at lunchtime. And you would experience differently there and then, and I think that was his point.


then what do you think my point was ?


----------



## Woodduck

TresPicos said:


> It always amazes me how people cannot see the conceptual importance of 4'33'', or Duchamp's Fountain, for that matter. You may ridicule them all you want, but you're only revealing your own ignorance.


One of the favorite "Modernist" shibboleths - and fallacies: You don't like it (or respect it, or think it's good, or whatever) because you don't "understand" it (or "see its conceptual importance").

Horsepuckey.

I am perfectly willing to concede that Cage's 4'33" has just as much "conceptual importance" as Duchamp's urinal "fountain." I get the point of both and find neither important. As for Cage as minister of the "sacred," just yesterday I was reading that audiences have "learned how to behave" at performances of 4'33," and that at a concert featuring the "orchestral version" of the work (I did not just make that up!) they sat in respectful silence, presumably attuned to the aural revelation of breathing, suppressed throat-clearing, fidgeting, planes going over, and whatever else the "orchestration" permitted them to hear. We may presume that they were grateful to whatever gods they fancied for the opportunity to buy expensive symphony tickets, drive through horrible traffic, pay an absurd parking fee, and sit in a crowded (?) concert hall in order to do something - listen to environmental noise - which they hadn't sufficient interest, imagination, or discipline to do without submerging their individuality in the ritual devised by the Reverend Cage.

Perhaps it's similar to the gratitude people feel to their church for giving them a refuge, once a week, where they are not at the mercy of the usual temptations to depravity - thinking evil thoughts, or the desire to listen to actual music - whose allurements they normally cannot resist.

As for that urinal, I've yet to hear contemplation of it described as an experience of the sacred, but why not? Anything is sacred - just as anything is music - if you only think it is.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> I'm not trying to offend anyone. The poll asked why is the piece so disparaged? I offered my opinion. *Moreover, all composers before him since year "dot" wrote massive amounts, multiples more, without novelty.* They got on with it. But if he intended the piece to be a musical joke, I accept that and can laugh jokingly in appreciation. (Incidentally, Mozart wrote a piece called Musical Joke, Mozart termed it as that, we all then appreciate it as that.)


I'm not sure who we're talking about here. A complete *John Cage* box would certainly contain as much music as nearly any other. A typical 4'33" critic, of course, usually has no idea of this, seeing John Cage as "that 4'33" guy", but considering the post you were responding to, you could've done some research...


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> One of the favorite "Modernist" shibboleths - and fallacies: You don't like it (or respect it, or think it's good, or whatever) because you don't "understand" it (or "see its conceptual importance").
> 
> Horsepuckey.


You are absolutely right. In some cases, understanding does not equate to a liking and/or appreciation. However, given the nature of some of the responses in this thread, I think it is incredibly clear that this is not such a case for most, but rather, a simple and pervasive ignorance.


----------



## Giordano

SeptimalTritone said:


> I think my post in the other thread got missed.


Hey, I also said something in the other thread.



Giordano said:


> Chop wood carry water.
> Grin broadly.
> Best Zen.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Woodduck said:


> As for Cage as minister of the "sacred," just yesterday I was reading that audiences have "learned how to behave" at performances of 4'33," and that at a concert featuring the "orchestral version" of the work (I did not just make that up!) they sat in respectful silence, presumably attuned to the aural revelation of breathing, suppressed throat-clearing, fidgeting, planes going over, and whatever else the "orchestration" permitted them to hear.


For the record, I think that such an experience can be powerful.

A good youtube version of the work is here. I like the crowd's eager energy: there's such a peace and space.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

--------------------------------------


----------



## Guest

SeptimalTritone said:


> For the record, I think that such an experience can be powerful.
> 
> A good youtube version of the work is here. I like the crowd's eager energy: there's such a peace and space.


Glad to see you thinking outside the box, SeptimalTritone. But I should warn you that such thinking isn't particularly welcome to an audience who saw music die the day the piano stopped playing along nicely in C Major.


----------



## ahammel

SiegendesLicht said:


> How exactly is this music sacred and why do you oppose it to "Western" music? Was John Cage not a Westerner?


Cage was famously interested in non-Western forms of spiritual expression such as Zen Buddhism and Indian philosophy. I'm not sure whether 4'33" was intended primarily as an expression of Zen. I've always understood the point to be something like: all sounds are music, and there is no such thing as the complete absence of sound. There is therefore no such thing as the absence of music.


----------



## Guest

ahammel said:


> Cage was famously interested in non-Western forms of spiritual expression such as Zen Buddhism and Indian philosophy. I'm not sure whether 4'33" was intended primarily as an expression of Zen. I've always understood the point to be something like: all sounds are music, and there is no such thing as the complete absence of sound. There is therefore no such thing as the absence of music.


It's almost like he didn't write a piece at all, but rather took a long-legendary piece called "Silence" and transcribed it for performers. And yes, your statement is completely correct (well, perhaps not inside a black hole): there is no "nothing" - which is a scientific point that supports the conclusion that the "THERE'S NOTHING THERE TO UNDERSTAND" crowd in previous pages are... lacking some crucial understanding. If they'd just use their ears...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

TresPicos- It always amazes me how people cannot see the conceptual importance of 4'33'', or Duchamp's Fountain, for that matter. You may ridicule them all you want, but you're only revealing your own ignorance.

That's rather presumptuous on your part... and typical of the assumptions repeatedly made by the self-appointed champions of Modern Art/Music. I certainly know far more about the history of Duchamp's _Fountain_ and the tradition in which it was conceived, the true author, the deception behind the work and its reputation... in America than I suspect you are even aware of. In other words, one can be fully knowledgeable of a work of art... have a great understanding of it... and still not like it... even despise it.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> TresPicos- It always amazes me how people cannot see the conceptual importance of 4'33'', or Duchamp's Fountain, for that matter. You may ridicule them all you want, but you're only revealing your own ignorance.
> 
> That's rather presumptuous on your part... and typical of the assumptions repeatedly made by the self-appointed champions of Modern Art/Music. I certainly know far more about the history of Duchamp's _Fountain_ and the tradition in which it was conceived, the true author, the deception behind the work and its reputation... in America than I suspect you are even aware of. In other words, one can be fully knowledgeable of a work of art... have a great understanding of it... and still not like it... even despise it.


Apparently knowledge =/= understanding.


----------



## arpeggio

The critics can not hear anything.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

arcaneholocaust- ...the strength of 4'33" is in its concept. The fact that people can't let it go is, if anything, only a testament to the strength of that concept.

But then it might just be that some people are interested in listening to music... not entertaining "concepts".


----------



## Giordano

I would recommend a little more moderation of the excitement with such "conceptual significances." Keep chopping wood and carrying water, and things that appear fascinating now may fade away as not so significant tomorrow.


----------



## tdc

Giordano said:


> I would recommend a little more moderation of the excitement with such "conceptual significances." Keep chopping wood and carrying water, and things that appear fascinating now may fade away as not so significant tomorrow.


Conversely, it could be found that the conceptual significance of 4' 33'', is precisely the same as your prescription of chopping wood and carrying water.

But I disagree that the chop wood and carry water approach leads to one finding things in general less fascinating or significant. I think the end result is the opposite of what you are suggesting.


----------



## SixFootScowl

DiesIraeVIX said:


> --------------------------------------


A most insightful post! Thank you for elucidating on a such a vast topic.

That said, I am not trying to be mean or nasty against 4'33". I even checked out a You Tube of an orchestral version of 4'33" and was delightfully entertained by the production itself. The best part was a cough in the middle of it and the massive applause the conductor received as he left the podium. Seriously, I was entertained, though I only watched enough to get the cough and the applause parts. Perhaps the real problem is that it was never a suitable work for piano. The orchestral version being so much richer.


----------



## Fagotterdammerung

If someone starts playing something in 4'33", is it still 4'33"? I think I might bring a penny whistle and do some crazy ad lib improvisations just to keep the audience amused.


----------



## Guest

Funny.

We've gone over this ground before, numerous times, but it's as if no one has ever said anything about 4'33" before this thread, because all the usual canards come rushing in, fresh as daisies, as if no one had ever said anything about what the piece really is.

Of course, I know why.

Anyway, not that it will do any good: _4'33"_ was something John had been thinking about for around ten years before he finally wrote it. Although you can find quotes where he also refers to it as the "silent" piece, it is not about silence at all but about intention. It is not a piece with no sounds; it is a piece that consists entirely of sounds that the composer did not intend. It is very much a piece about sound. It's just that in _4'33",_ the sounds are not under the control of the composer. That's called indeterminacy, and there are lots of pieces, by lots of different composers, both before and after _4'33",_ that are indeterminate.

While the actual sounds that occur in any given performance--I have seen this live several times, and there are definitely good performances and bad ones--are not caused by Mr. Cage in the same way that the sounds in a Beethoven piece are caused by Herr van Beethoven,* the framework is very much a thing that Cage has made. And it is a musical piece. It has three movements, with precise timings. It is a piece for performers. It has musical instructions.

It can be seen as the musical equivalent of the framing one does when taking a picture. Funny that no one seems to mind if people take photos or if some of those photos are displayed on museum walls as art. But so many people get really bent out of shape if Cage frames some environmental sounds and calls the result music.

It also very obviously includes the audience in a way no other piece had done before. This is not a piece where the composer arranges a bunch of notes in a particular order for a musician to perform for you. This is a piece where both composer and performer step aside and invite you to make this into music. You know that one result of this piece has been a thing called the sound walk. They're very popular; you may have heard of them. They all come from the idea that music is about listening. In a traditional concert, the sounds you hear have been organized for you. In a sound walk, or at a performance of 4'33", you do that work.

You may not like it. You may not like what it says or seems to be saying. But claiming that it is not a piece of music is kinda silly. And all this talk about it's being _only_ conceptual is so much special pleading. Name me a piece of music by anyone from any age that is _not_ conceptual.


----------



## Albert7

4' 33" is not for me a musical joke but the first major time that principles from Zen Buddhism have entered into Western composition.


----------



## echo




----------



## Bulldog

Is it music? Sure - I've said before that if one person finds particular sounds to be music, I'm not one to disagree.

Is it sacred? Not to me, but hardly anything is sacred to me beyond individuality and family.

Is it boring? Well, it never sounds exactly the same in a "live" setting.

Is it tied in to one or more non-western religions? I don't care.

Is disparaging the piece disrespectful? No, I understand why many folks find it to be nothing.

Is finding value in the piece unreasonable? No.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But then it might just be that some people are interested in listening to music... not entertaining "concepts".


And here I thought you might be above this.

Try listening to music with your ears rather than with an old theory textbook and you might be able to broaden your horizons a bit.


----------



## KenOC

Bulldog said:


> Is disparaging the piece disrespectful? No, I understand why many folks find it to be nothing.


I consider 4'33" to be "nothing." I don't consider that disparaging, but think it's exactly what Cage had in mind. All this talk about "ambient sounds" and so forth is silly. It's nothing. No, not even nothing, because that would be something. And it's not even that.


----------



## Albert7

KenOC said:


> I consider 4'33" to be "nothing." I don't consider that disparaging, but think it's exactly what Cage had in mind. All this talk about "ambient sounds" and so forth is silly. It's nothing. No, not even nothing, because that would be something. And it's not even that.


But the question is: can music exist in true nothingness? I think that 4' 33" is an homage to nature... capturing the ambient noises. We can have our own inner peace everywhere... 4' 33" pervades the total universe.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> I consider 4'33" to be "nothing." I don't consider that disparaging, but think it's exactly what Cage had in mind. All this talk about "ambient sounds" and so forth is silly. It's nothing. No, not even nothing, because that would be something. And it's not even that.


I can't agree. It's certainly more than nothing. I walk my dogs for at least one-half hour every day - no music piped into my ears, all I hear are the sounds around me (some close, some distant). That is NOT nothing. I do the Cage piece but for almost 8 times the 4'33". Funny thing is that I know two guys here in Albuquerque who speak highly of the piece; each of them plays his MP3 on every walk with their dogs, saying that the walks are an absolute bore without the piped-in music. I find that odd.

Anyways, I have no problem with those who don't consider 4'33" music and no problem with those who do.


----------



## Bulldog

arcaneholocaust said:


> And here I thought you might be above this.
> 
> Try listening to music with your ears rather than with an old theory textbook and you might be able to broaden your horizons a bit.


Those are insulting comments that are beneath you. Can't you see that?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

KenOC said:


> I consider 4'33" to be "nothing." I don't consider that disparaging, but think it's exactly what Cage had in mind. All this talk about "ambient sounds" and so forth is silly. It's nothing. No, not even nothing, because that would be something. And it's not even that.


From wikipedia's 4'33" article:

They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn't know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began pattering the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out.

- John Cage speaking about the premiere of 4′33″


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> Those are insulting comments that are beneath you. Can't you see that?


You're right. They are beneath me. Didn't particularly feel right from the minute I made those keystrokes.

Also, I haven't got a single drop of self esteem within me, so typing "beneath me" is equally painful.


----------



## Dim7

I think all this talk about taking 4'33'' seriously is a part of the joke, as well as people taking those people seriously who pretend to take the piece seriously.


----------



## Bulldog

arcaneholocaust said:


> You're right. They are beneath me. Didn't particularly feel right from the minute I made those keystrokes.
> 
> Also, I haven't got a single drop of self esteem within me, so typing "beneath me" is equally painful.


It's because you do have self esteem that you wrote the above. You're a good man.


----------



## Bulldog

Dim7 said:


> I think all this talk about taking 4'33'' seriously is a part of the joke, as well as people taking those people seriously who pretend to take the piece seriously.


More insults from the other end of the spectrum. Pretend? If that's correct, you are calling those folks liars. And why? Because they don't agree with your musical sensibilities. Tough cookies.:tiphat:


----------



## Giordano

tdc said:


> But I disagree that the chop wood and carry water approach leads to one finding things in general less fascinating or significant. I think the end result is the opposite of what you are suggesting.


I would agree with you on that. What you are disagreeing with is not what I said.


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> *Funny.*
> 
> We've gone over this ground before, numerous times, but it's as if no one has ever said anything about 4'33" before this thread, because *all the usual canards come rushing in*, fresh as daisies, as if no one had ever said anything about what the piece really is.
> 
> *Of course, I know why.*
> 
> *4'33" was something John had been thinking about for around ten years before he finally wrote it.* ... It is not a piece with no sounds; it is a piece that *consists entirely of sounds that the composer did not intend... in 4'33", the sounds are not under the control of the composer. That's called indeterminacy*, and there are lots of pieces, by lots of different composers, both before and after _4'33",_ that are indeterminate.
> 
> And *it is a musical piece*. It has three movements, with precise timings. It is a piece for performers. *It has **musical instructions*.
> 
> It can be seen as *the musical equivalent of the framing one does when taking a picture.* *Funny that no one seems to mind if people take photos or if some of those photos are displayed on museum walls as art. But so many people get really bent out of shape if Cage frames some environmental sounds and calls the result music.*
> 
> This is a piece where both *composer and performer step aside and invite you to make this into music. *
> 
> You may not like it. You may not like what it says or seems to be saying. But *claiming that it is not a piece of music is kinda silly.* And *all this talk about it's being only conceptual is so much special pleading. Name me a piece of music by anyone from any age that is not conceptual.*


Where to begin? Well, being no fan of indeterminacy, I'll begin at the beginning.

"Funny" is the right word. 4'33" is, to many people, funny. It makes us laugh. It tickles our funny bones. We realize that it was not intended to be amusing. That makes it funnier. People to whom it is a very serious matter are often offended by the fact that we are amused by it. We understand, we even sympathize - and we still find it funny! In saying this, I am _not_ trying to be funny. I mean it sincerely. I find 4'33" irresistibly amusing. I can't even think of it without smiling.

You say that you know why people are still saying the things they're saying about 4'33." But you don't tell us what it is that you know. That's all right. Some of us already know why we think what we think, without your telling us.

When you inform us that Cage had been contemplating the idea of 4'33" for ten years before he "finally wrote it" - excuse me, the word "wrote" is making my face crack a little - I recall that Wagner conceived the idea for _Tristan und Isolde_ around 1854 and completed that most intense and astonishing opera in 1859 - the whole musical revolution embodied in that work took him only five years - while taking a little break from composing his epic _Der Ring des Nibelungen_. Just a brief hiatus, a little I-think-I'll-alter-the-course-of-Western-civilization-while-taking-a-sitz-bath sort of thing...

Well, I'm sure Cage had other important things on his mind during that decade besides 4'33" of silence.

I understand, of course, that we're not talking about actual silence here. We're talking about sounds, sounds that have not been composed by anyone. But wait a minute...There's something funny about that, isn't there? If Cage didn't compose the sounds, how can he be called the "composer"? Isn't that sort of, well, contradictory? Isn't that like someone who's called an artist inviting you to his gallery and showing you a blank wall? Or someone calling himself an author publishing a book with blank pages? (It didn't take _me_ ten years to come up with those examples - though I admit I had Cage to inspire me, while he was working from scratch.)

Now, you use the example of a framed photograph. But that is not a good example. A photograph may be an image of things in the environment - but those things are chosen by the photographer, and the image is made by him through a controlled process. A photograph really is a composition, and the photographer really is a composer. A better analogy would be a frame with no photograph in it. But a frame with nothing in it is - well, we're back to that blank wall. A frame containing nothing contains... Nothing.

If I may get down to brass tacks here: I do not think that saying that 4'33" is "only conceptual" is "special pleading." I think it is true. I do not think that a list of instructions for a "performer" to behave in a certain way, for a certain period of time divided into "movements," while playing nothing, constitutes a piece of music. I do not think, either, that instructing musicians to choose what it is that they're going to play, so that no one knows what sounds will occur, and giving it a pompous artsy name like "indeterminacy," constitutes musical composition. These things are certainly "conceptual" - and, yes, all music is "conceptual." But what does that mean? It certainly does not mean that a composition of sounds, composed by an actual composer, and played by musicians, is the same thing as a directive issued to someone in a tuxedo to sit at a piano with his hands folded in his lap while hundreds of people watch him and simultaneously listen to distant traffic and cockroaches scurrying beneath their seats. Whether these people find this an interesting or rewarding experience does not alter the fact that it is a distinctly different experience.

Admirers of Cage's experiment in awareness are certainly free, as we all are, to define music in any way they want. But those who decline to go along with them are not " kinda silly" to do so. What I find silly is the stern solemnity and condescension with which some of those admirers, who cannot find humor in Cage's subversion of ordinary meanings, react when confronted with the amusement of those of us who are not tempted to discard our concept of what music is just because a sweetly smiling fellow with a feather and a cactus and a book of Chinese hexagrams plays a little trick on us.

We fans of ponderous Wagnerian epics are a notoriously serious bunch, yet we laugh harder than anyone when Anna Russell points out that Gutrune, "Die Gotterdammerung Gibich," is the first woman Siegfried has ever seen who isn't his aunt. I can only wish an equal measure of self-deprecating humor on the fans of John Cage when they hear about people singing 4'33'' in the shower.

I can do it with variations.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

arcaneholocaust said:


> And here I thought you might be above this.
> 
> Try listening to music with your ears rather than with an old theory textbook and you might be able to broaden your horizons a bit.


Better still: he can listen to music with his mind and not a catechism lesson.


----------



## arpeggio

I think the entire discussion on whether or not 4'33" is music is bogus. It is what it is. I consider it theater. Some might considerate invisible architecture.

I still think it is a work of whatever you want to categorize it were the audience is a performer.


----------



## brotagonist

^ That's how I feel about it. I consider it to be a piece of performance art. It works as that.

I never even thought of it as a religious work, but I get it, now that you mention it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

StlukesguildOhio said:


> TresPicos- It always amazes me how people cannot see the conceptual importance of 4'33'', or Duchamp's Fountain, for that matter. You may ridicule them all you want, but you're only revealing your own ignorance.
> 
> That's rather presumptuous on your part... and typical of the assumptions repeatedly made by the self-appointed champions of Modern Art/Music. I certainly know far more about the history of Duchamp's _Fountain_ and the tradition in which it was conceived, the true author, the deception behind the work and its reputation... in America than I suspect you are even aware of. In other words, one can be fully knowledgeable of a work of art... have a great understanding of it... and still not like it... even despise it.


Precisely.

But then again, some art 'so-called' is scarcely worth derision.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

arcaneholocaust said:


> Apparently knowledge =/= understanding.


Your posts themselves are a Kantian synthetic a priori proof of that proposition.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> It only irritates when people insist on taking it seriously!


I have gales of laughter when people try to _defend_ it.

_;D_


----------



## pianolearnerstride

I really don't get it. So is the point to listen to what's going on around you for 4'33" ? Is it such a radical concept to get people to listen to their environment?


----------



## pianolearnerstride

Marschallin Blair said:


> I have gales of laughter when people try to _defend_ it.
> 
> _;D_


So are the people defending it just trolling or are they serious?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> One of the favorite "Modernist" shibboleths - and fallacies: You don't like it (or respect it, or think it's good, or whatever) because you don't "understand" it (or "see its conceptual importance").
> 
> *Horsepuckey.*
> 
> I am perfectly willing to concede that Cage's 4'33" has just as much "conceptual importance" as Duchamp's urinal "fountain." I get the point of both and find neither important. As for Cage as minister of the "sacred," just yesterday I was reading that audiences have "learned how to behave" at performances of 4'33," and that at a concert featuring the "orchestral version" of the work (I did not just make that up!) they sat in respectful silence, presumably attuned to the aural revelation of breathing, suppressed throat-clearing, fidgeting, planes going over, and whatever else the "orchestration" permitted them to hear. We may presume that they were grateful to whatever gods they fancied for the opportunity to buy expensive symphony tickets, drive through horrible traffic, pay an absurd parking fee, and sit in a crowded (?) concert hall in order to do something - listen to environmental noise - which they hadn't sufficient interest, imagination, or discipline to do without submerging their individuality in the ritual devised by the Reverend Cage.
> 
> Perhaps it's similar to the gratitude people feel to their church for giving them a refuge, once a week, where they are not at the mercy of the usual temptations to depravity - thinking evil thoughts, or the desire to listen to actual music - whose allurements they normally cannot resist.
> 
> As for that urinal, I've yet to hear contemplation of it described as an experience of the sacred, but why not? Anything is sacred - just as anything is music - if you only think it is.


"Horsepucky?"

You're an incurable optimist.

It's a 'thundering scalade' of horse pucky.

Something you'll never see in my stables, or on my cd shelves.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

arcaneholocaust said:


> You are absolutely right. In some cases, understanding does not equate to a liking and/or appreciation. However, given the nature of some of the responses in this thread, I think it is incredibly clear that this is not such a case for most, but rather, a simple and pervasive ignorance.


And I say that very mantra every time someone doesn't genuflect to the Altar of Maria Callas.

- Special pleading.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

dgee said:


> BOOM -yes!! There's a reason why these works of art are some of the most talked about


What does _*"BOOM!"*_ mean?- that you shot-gun blasted someone into the middle of next week with a feckless response?

I don't 'jump the gun.' I _am _the 'BOOM-BOOM' gun.

_;D_


----------



## samurai

pianolearnerstride said:


> So are the people defending it just trolling or are they serious?


I believe that they are quite serious about this!


----------



## KenOC

Bulldog said:


> I can't agree. It's certainly more than nothing.


I'd say it's less than nothing. Certainly if Cage was into Zen Buddhism, that was his intent.


----------



## arpeggio

Marschallin Blair said:


> I have gales of laughter when people try to _defend_ it.
> 
> _;D_


This exactly the type of posts that provokes hostile arguments. It is puzzling me that a person of your intelligence does not realize it.


----------



## arpeggio

(duplicate post)


----------



## Bulldog

Bulldog to Mission Control - this thread will self-destruct within 24 hours.


----------



## arpeggio

Bulldog said:


> Bulldog to Mission Control - this thread will self-destruct within 24 hours.


I have lost track on how many Cage threads have been closed down. A few have survived.


----------



## KenOC

Marschallin Blair said:


> I have gales of laughter when people try to _defend_ it.


How do you defend nothing? How do you attack it?


----------



## tortkis

Woodduck said:


> I understand, of course, that we're not talking about actual silence here. We're talking about sounds, sounds that have not been composed by anyone. But wait a minute...There's something funny about that, isn't there? If Cage didn't compose the sounds, how can he be called the "composer"? Isn't that sort of, well, contradictory? Isn't that like someone who's called an artist inviting you to his gallery and showing you a blank wall? Or someone calling himself an author publishing a book with blank pages? (It didn't take me ten years to come up with those examples - though I admit I had Cage to inspire me, while he was working from scratch.)
> 
> Now, you use the example of a framed photograph. But that is not a good example. A photograph may be an image of things in the environment - but those things are chosen by the photographer, and the image is made by him through a controlled process. A photograph really is a composition, and the photographer really is a composer. A better analogy would be a frame with no photograph in it. But a frame with nothing in it is - well, we're back to that blank wall. A frame containing nothing contains... Nothing.


But if you look carefully, you may find a stain, blot, colors of light, etc. on the wall, or you may see wrinkles, texture of paper, shadow, and your fingers on the page. As repeatedly pointed out, there is no such thing as "nothing." If you are determined to see/hear nothing, you will not see/hear anything, even if you are actually seeing/hearing something.


----------



## Woodduck

tortkis said:


> But if you look carefully, you may find a stain, blot, colors of light, etc. on the wall, or you may see wrinkles, texture of paper, shadow, and your fingers on the page. As repeatedly pointed out, there is no such thing as "nothing." If you are determined to see/hear nothing, you will not see/hear anything, even if you are actually seeing/hearing something.


Must I spell it out again? I do not need someone to put an empty frame on a wall in order to look at stains and blots on the wall if that is what I want to do, and those stains and blots do not become someone's "painting" when so framed. The word "nothing" here clearly means: nothing which constitutes a work of art created by an artist.


----------



## KenOC

tortkis said:


> As repeatedly pointed out, there is no such thing as "nothing."


Stated that way, it is surely true. How can some thing be no thing?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Must I spell it out again? I do not need someone to put an empty frame on a wall in order to look at stains and blots on the wall if that is what I want to do, and those stains and blots do not become someone's "painting" when so framed. The word "nothing" here clearly means: nothing which constitutes a work of art created by an artist.


Try again, Cordelia! Nothing will come from nothing.


----------



## Dim7

KenOC said:


> Stated that way, it is surely true. How can some thing be no thing?


If everything is a thing, isn't the word "thing" meaningless?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Dim7 said:


> If everything is a thing, isn't the word "thing" meaningless?


Only if you confuse 'existence' with 'identity.'


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> How do you defend nothing? How do you attack it?


By playing real music.


----------



## KenOC

Certainly all things belong to the set of "things." But where is no thing? Point it out to me, hand me one.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> Certainly all things belong to the set of "things." But where is no thing? Point it out to me, hand me one.


Hold on, Ken. I got John on the other line.


----------



## KenOC

Marschallin, John will just give you the run-around. He's always that way.


----------



## Cosmos

...i like 4'33"


----------



## tortkis

Woodduck said:


> Must I spell it out again? I do not need someone to put an empty frame on a wall in order to look at stains and blots on the wall if that is what I want to do, and those stains and blots do not become someone's "painting" when so framed. The word "nothing" here clearly means: nothing which constitutes a work of art created by an artist.


I think a frame that reveals something which was not recognized without it is, together with the found objects, a work of art. A photograph analogy is appropriate. The difference is that _4'33"_ allows more unexpected contents than an ordinary photograph.


----------



## KenOC

tortkis said:


> I think a frame that reveals something which was not recognized without it is, together with the found objects, a work of art. A photograph analogy is appropriate. The difference is that _4'33"_ allows more unexpected contents than an ordinary photograph.


No offense, but this reminds me of Karlheinz Kloppweiser.


----------



## DavidA

I am always amused when people try and defend 4'33" as a piece of music then say people who don't agree are ignorant. May I just point our this is not an argument at all.


----------



## Woodduck

tortkis said:


> I think a frame that reveals something which was not recognized without it is, together with the found objects, a work of art. A photograph analogy is appropriate. The difference is that _4'33"_ allows more unexpected contents than an ordinary photograph.


Fine. All I need do to is to point to something. You will then notice a "found object" you wouldn't have noticed otherwise, and that will make whatever you notice "art" and me an "artist."

Who knew it was so easy?


----------



## tortkis

Woodduck said:


> Fine. All I need do to is to point to something. You will then notice a "found object" you wouldn't have noticed otherwise, and that will make whatever you notice "art" and me an "artist."
> 
> Who knew it was so easy?


Depends on how you do it, without copying someone's idea.


----------



## DavidA

There are so called works of 'art' found in places like Tate Modern in London. I don't knowwhetherthey have an empty frame among all this junk but no doubt if they have someone has claimed it as a masterpiece!


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> Isn't that like someone who's called an artist inviting you to his gallery and showing you a blank wall? Or someone calling himself an author publishing a book with blank pages? (It didn't take _me_ ten years to come up with those examples - though I admit I had Cage to inspire me, while he was working from scratch.)
> 
> Now, you use the example of a framed photograph. But that is not a good example. A photograph may be an image of things in the environment - but those things are chosen by the photographer, and the image is made by him through a controlled process. A photograph really is a composition, and the photographer really is a composer. A better analogy would be a frame with no photograph in it. But a frame with nothing in it is - well, we're back to that blank wall. A frame containing nothing contains... Nothing.


I think the analogy of the photograph works. You seem to be concerned about the nature of the composer, and that if the final product is not created by the "composer" in a "controlled process" then the object ceases to have artistic value.

What if a photographer took a camera with him on a trip and set his camera to just take random pictures on a timer - what if some of those pictures turned out beautiful? Is the aesthetic value _less_ because the artist was no longer in complete control? Is your concern here primarily about the art? Or is it more about the artist?

I think Cage's piece 4'33" is the perfect keystone to the Western music tradition. It releases it from unnecessary concepts such as control, complexity and virtuosity - there is nothing wrong with those attributes but music and art are not limited only to things with those attributes.

Cage's work points to the infinite. It enriches the Western tradition and opens it up to broader possibilities. This is not to say that everything before him was invalid and everything after him must drastically change. As I said I think his work adds to the tradition, and offers valid new perspectives. It does not subtract from or limit.

Anyone can use these ideas and run with them (or other ideas) any which way. Pointing to a wall and calling yourself an artist? Sure! Why not? But that doesn't sound very inspired to me, all though it depends what was on the wall and the context.


----------



## Kivimees

Woodduck said:


> Fine. All I need do to is to point to something. You will then notice a "found object" you wouldn't have noticed otherwise, and that will make whatever you notice "art" and me an "artist."
> 
> Who knew it was so easy?


Mrs Kivimees often points to the mess in the garage, a "found object" that I wouldn't have noticed otherwise.
She certainly doesn't consider it "art".


----------



## arpeggio

*Smart People Love and Hate Cage*

I do not think people who hate 4'33" are ignorant. I know many intelligent people who hate Mozart. Most of the anti-Cage people are very intelligent. Most of the people I know who love Cage are very intelligent. The problem is really ego.

I am a very knowledgeable, smart person and I hate Cage so he must be bad.

I am a very knowledgeable, smart person and I love Cage so the people who hate him must be ignorant.

So we now have the absurd situation of two opposing groups of very intelligent people calling each other stupid :scold: and getting thread closed down because the other side was mean to me. 

The irony is that at one time I considered Cage a fraud. As a result of this debate the rhetoric of the anti-Cage faction has succeeded in convincing me that Cage is a great composer and discovering works of Cage that I enjoy.

The pro-Cage people are actually pretty harmless. Just leave them alone.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> I do not think people who hate 4'33" are ignorant. I know many intelligent people who hate Mozart. Most of the anti-Cage people are very intelligent. Most of the people I know who love Cage are very intelligent. The problem is really ego.
> 
> I am a very knowledgeable, smart person and I hate Cage so he must be bad.
> 
> I am a very knowledgeable, smart person and I love Cage so the people who hate him must be ignorant.
> 
> So we now have the absurd situation of two opposing groups of very intelligent people calling each other stupid :scold: and getting thread closed down because the other side was mean to me.
> 
> The irony is that at one time I considered Cage a fraud. As a result of this debate the rhetoric of the anti-Cage faction has succeeded in convincing me that Cage is a great composer and discovering works of Cage that I enjoy.
> 
> The pro-Cage people are actually pretty harmless. Just leave them alone.


Who are these "people" who "hate" Cage, who are calling each other "stupid" and "scolding" and "crying," and whose "egos" you have so handily diagnosed?

They really should be told who they are so that they can go and get help before they start hating Stockhausen too.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> I think the analogy of the photograph works. You seem to be concerned about the nature of the composer, and that if the final product is not created by the "composer" in a "controlled process" then the object ceases to have artistic value.
> 
> *What if a photographer took a camera with him on a trip and set his camera to just take random pictures on a timer - what if some of those pictures turned out beautiful? Is the aesthetic value less because the artist was no longer in complete control? Is your concern here primarily about the art? Or is it more about the artist?*
> 
> I think Cage's piece 4'33" is the perfect keystone to the Western music tradition. It releases it from unnecessary concepts such as control, complexity and virtuosity - there is nothing wrong with those attributes but music and art are not limited only to things with those attributes.
> 
> Cage's work points to the infinite. It enriches the Western tradition and opens it up to broader possibilities. This is not to say that everything before him was invalid and everything after him must drastically change. As I said I think his work adds to the tradition, and offers valid new perspectives. It does not subtract from or limit.
> 
> Anyone can use these ideas and run with them (or other ideas) any which way. Pointing to a wall and calling yourself an artist? Sure! Why not? But that doesn't sound very inspired to me, all though it depends what was on the wall and the context.


As Maria Callas pointed out, "Art is more than beauty." Nature has aesthetic value, but nature is not art. A photographer shooting at random may accidentally obtain an image with aesthetic value. But nature framed is still nature and not art. Purpose, and the selectivity of the artist in fulfillment of purpose, is what converts the elements of nature into art. A photograph may or may not be a work of art, and the presence and purpose of the artist is what makes the difference.

I'm afraid that statements such as "Cage's piece 4'33" is the perfect keystone to the Western music tradition," "it releases it from unnecessary concepts such as control, complexity and virtuosity" and "Cage's work points to the infinite" strike me as merely a lot of floating abstractions, unconnected to anything real. "Releasing music from control" denies the purposive nature of art, and "pointing to the infinite" really means nothing at all, since "the infinite" is a concept with no meaning except the negation of limits, which is is neither conceivable or meaningful. These phrases may have poetic resonance for you, but as aesthetic philosophy they lack substance.


----------



## DavidA

arpeggio said:


> I do not think people who hate 4'33" are ignorant. I know many intelligent people who hate Mozart. Most of the anti-Cage people are very intelligent. Most of the people I know who love Cage are very intelligent. The problem is really ego.
> 
> I am a very knowledgeable, smart person and I hate Cage so he must be bad.
> 
> I am a very knowledgeable, smart person and I love Cage so the people who hate him must be ignorant.
> 
> So we now have the absurd situation of two opposing groups of very intelligent people calling each other stupid :scold: and getting thread closed down because the other side was mean to me.
> 
> The irony is that at one time I considered Cage a fraud. As a result of this debate the rhetoric of the anti-Cage faction has succeeded in convincing me that Cage is a great composer and discovering works of Cage that I enjoy.
> 
> The pro-Cage people are actually pretty harmless. Just leave them alone.


Just to point out that I don't 'hate' John Cage. I do not know much about him. I do not like what he purports to be his music as it sounds to me like a tuneless racket. And I do not hate 4'33" by considering it a clever idea but not a musical masterpiece! The fact is it isn't. I also cannot but help be amused by those people who take it seriously!


----------



## dgee

Woodduck said:


> As Maria Callas pointed out, "Art is more than beauty." Nature has aesthetic value, but nature is not art. A photographer shooting at random may accidentally obtain an image with aesthetic value. But nature framed is still nature and not art. Purpose, and the selectivity of the artist in fulfillment of purpose, is what converts the elements of nature into art. A photograph may or may not be a work of art, and the presence and purpose of the artist is what makes the difference.
> 
> I'm afraid that statements such as "Cage's piece 4'33" is the perfect keystone to the Western music tradition," "it releases it from unnecessary concepts such as control, complexity and virtuosity" and "Cage's work points to the infinite" strike me as merely a lot of floating abstractions, unconnected to anything real. "Releasing music from control" denies the purposive nature of art, and "pointing to the infinite" really means nothing at all, since "the infinite" is a concept with no meaning except the negation of limits, which is is neither conceivable or meaningful. These phrases may have poetic resonance for you, but as aesthetic philosophy they lack substance.


Meh - show me an aesthetic philosophy as it relates to bel canto opera with some substance.


----------



## dgee

DavidA said:


> Just to point out that I don't 'hate' John Cage. I do not know much about him. I do not like what he purports to be his music as it sounds to me like a tuneless racket. And I do not hate 4'33" by considering it a clever idea but not a musical masterpiece! The fact is it isn't. I also cannot but help be amused by those people who take it seriously!


But the thing is, you know about it, have considered it, drawn conclusions (probably at odds with those Cage came to in creating it). So that's something. It's still one of the most referenced works on TC. Should count for something

Cage wrote a variety of works - In a Landscape is pleasant enough and even received an endorsement from esteemed member ArtMusic. Certainly not a racket:


----------



## DavidA

dgee said:


> But the thing is, you know about it, have considered it, drawn conclusions (probably at odds with those Cage came to in creating it). So that's something. It's still one of the most referenced works on TC. Should count for something


Can I just point out that 4'33" is not a 'work'. It does not require work to create nothing. Unless you count writing 4'33" of bar lines creative work. I don't!


----------



## Guest

Oh dear, here we are again. Anyway, I just have a couple of things I'd like to say. First off, I'm a big Cage fan, and I find 4'33" an interesting little piece, but I'm not going to get all steamed up about it (either in enthusiasm or disparagement).
About silence though, parts of Woodduck's post (see #58 above) did bring a smile to my lips. Here's the part:



Woodduck said:


> [...] If I may get down to brass tacks here: I do not think that saying that 4'33" is "only conceptual" is "special pleading." I think it is true. *I do not think that a list of instructions for a "performer" to behave in a certain way, for a certain period of time divided into "movements," while playing nothing, constitutes a piece of music*. [...


Well, you do realise Woodduck, that for many brass players (yes, those musicians again, they'll be the bane of your life!)) often have to *sit out entire movements* in many a symphony by Haydn (usually the minuet and trio). Can you imagine it, grown men and women just sitting there with their instruments in their laps, staring at their parts (I mean their written score part, natch!) covered in large chunks of empty bars, being instructed by Joe Haydn and coerced by some tyrannical conductor to sit there and play nothing! Anyways, silence is golden, so I'll say no more.

Do excuse me, I have to return now to lining my entire apartment in aluminium foil to stop the alien lizards from reading my thoughts...


----------



## Bulldog

Cosmos said:


> ...i like 4'33"


Now that's the kind of post I go for - short and to the point. No self-serving explanation and not one word that could be taken as offensive. Way to go!


----------



## Guest

Dear John,
Although you are dead, can I suggest a sequel to 4'33" ? 
Similar to the original, but with intentional sound in the first and third movements. That would stir the pot!


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> Nature has aesthetic value, but nature is not art.


This is where we disagree. I do consider nature art, I also consider life art. I think all "art" that is directly created by humans takes its inspiration from nature and from life itself. In a sense Cage's 4'33" points to this simple fact. Art mimics life, death and nature and I think the artist is virtuous in taking part in creating and finding new modes of expression. But personally I don't think any artist has yet surpassed the beauty found in nature.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Fine. All I need do to is to point to something. You will then notice a "found object" you wouldn't have noticed otherwise, and that will make whatever you notice "art" and me an "artist."
> 
> Who knew it was so easy?


Morton Feldman: "Now that everything is so easy, there is so much to do."


----------



## dgee

Look, if skimming this fills you with a harumphing, vinegary feeling - then John Cage is probably not for you:

http://www.overgrownpath.com/2008/02/john-cage-was-really-happening-in.html

That's OK, tho. It's really fine and there's no need to feel bad about it. Plenty of things (note - I didn't even say "music"!!!) for everyone


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Just to point out that I don't 'hate' John Cage. I *do not know much about* him. I do not like what he purports to be his music as it sounds to me like a tuneless racket. And I do not hate 4'33" by considering it a clever idea but not a musical masterpiece! The fact is it isn't. I also cannot but help be amused by those people who take it seriously!


Just a note about meaning. The word ignorant, in common with many other words, has many meanings. One of them is "stupid."

But an earlier meaning of the word, an entirely neutral meaning, is "lacking knowledge."

And that is a thing that some of us object to, people who self identify as lacking knowledge continuing to push their unsupported opinions.

DavidA may be amused by me. I'm embarrassed by him.

And if I get an infraction for saying that, then everyone who has said they're amused by people who take Cage's piece "seriously" should also get infractions. Fair's fair.

By the way, I consider Ravel's _Bolero_ to be a clever idea but not a musical masterpiece.

Ravel would agree.

And, furthermore, Bizet's _Carmen_ has also been described as tuneless racket. Well, is it?

It is possible, and possibly desirable, to be able to distinguish individual perceptions and actual characteristics.


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> Dear John,
> Although you are dead, can I suggest a sequel to 4'33" ?
> Similar to the original, but with intentional sound in the first and third movements. That would stir the pot!


Hey Dogen, Cage did do a sequel to _4'33",_ it's called _0'00",_ also referred to as _4'33" no. 2._ And it is extremely noisy.

So you got your wish!!


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Hey Dogen, Cage did do a sequel to _4'33",_ it's called _0'00",_ also referred to as _4'33" no. 2._ And it is extremely noisy.
> 
> So you got your wish!!


No sh1t!!!!

Tell ya, I'm wasted here.

Unless you're pulling my chain.

I'll check!


----------



## Guest

http://johncage.org/pp/John-Cage-Work-Detail.cfm?work_ID=18

Yo!


----------



## arpeggio

Woodduck said:


> Who are these "people" who "hate" Cage, who are calling each other "stupid" and "scolding" and "crying," and whose "egos" you have so handily diagnosed?
> 
> They really should be told who they are so that they can go and get help before they start hating Stockhausen too.





DavidA said:


> I am always amused when people try and defend 4'33" as a piece of music then say people who don't agree are ignorant. May I just point our this is not an argument at all.


Good grief. Maybe I should of used the words "disagree" and "ignorant"? I am not going to waste my time going through this forum in order to find other posts where members use "disparaging" remarks over this. Or get out my thesaurus in order to use just the right words.


----------



## Fagotterdammerung

It's been interesting reading the comments here.

I find myself not particularly invested in 4'33". Like much concept art I go "Oh. I see what you've done there. Neat." And then carry on with life. This type of art doesn't really have the power to hold me and keep me returning, though I appreciate what's it's trying to say and the discussions ( like this ) it leads to.

In essence, I'm glad it exists in an abstract sort of way, but I'd always rather be listening to his _Sonatas and Interludes_ or the like.


----------



## EdwardBast

arcaneholocaust said:


> It's almost like he didn't write a piece at all, but rather took a long-legendary piece called "Silence" and transcribed it for performers. And yes, your statement is completely correct (well, perhaps not inside a black hole): there is no "nothing" - which is a scientific point that supports the conclusion that the "THERE'S NOTHING THERE TO UNDERSTAND" crowd in previous pages are... lacking some crucial understanding. If they'd just use their ears...


I have always understood Cage's concept and the rationale for its execution, and I have also always found it puerile, lame, and insulting. I don't need to be told I should expand my definition of what counts as music. I don't need to have my consciousness raised by being made aware of ambient sound. What I always sing in my head when some poser with pretensions to a deep spiritual awareness tries to tell me what I need is:

Look here brother
Who you jivin' with that cosmic debris?
Look here brother
Don't you waste your time on me.
_Frank Zappa_


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> I have always understood Cage's concept and the rationale for its execution, and I have also always found it puerile, lame, and insulting. I don't need to be told I should expand my definition of what counts as music. I don't need to have my consciousness raised by being made aware of ambient sound. What I always sing in my head when some poser with pretensions to a deep spiritual awareness tries to tell me what I need is:
> 
> Look here brother
> Who you jivin' with that cosmic debris?
> Look here brother
> Don't you waste your time on me.


I don't do drugs either, for the record


----------



## Morimur

arcaneholocaust said:


> I don't do drugs either, for the record


I do-I take my caffeine every morning.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> I have always understood Cage's concept and the rationale for its execution, and I have also always found it puerile, lame, and insulting.


What this says to me is that you don't understand the concept or the rationale.

But maybe you do.

Tell us, now, your understanding of the concept and the rationale. And then explain how that is puerile, lame, and insulting.



EdwardBast said:


> I don't need to be told I should expand my definition of what counts as music. I don't need to have my consciousness raised by being made aware of ambient sound. What I always sing in my head when some poser with pretensions to a deep spiritual awareness tries to tell me what I need is:
> 
> Look here brother
> Who you jivin' with that cosmic debris?
> Look here brother
> Don't you waste your time on me.
> _Frank Zappa_


Nice anecdote, but what does it have to do with the preceding? (I'm really beginning to suspect that you do not indeed understand Cage's concept. You seem, at least, to be addressing only millionrainbow's interpretation. At most, to be addressing SimonNZ's experience. And, if the latter, I should probably remind you that Simon has never to my knowledge ever tried to tell anyone what they need. Come to think of it, I don't recall ever hearing Cage trying to tell anyone what they needed.)


----------



## EdwardBast

some guy said:


> What this says to me is that you don't understand the concept or the rationale.
> 
> But maybe you do.
> 
> Tell us, now, your understanding of the concept and the rationale. And then explain how that is puerile, lame, and insulting.
> 
> Nice anecdote, but what does it have to do with the preceding? (I'm really beginning to suspect that you do not indeed understand Cage's concept. You seem, at least, to be addressing only millionrainbow's interpretation. At most, to be addressing SimonNZ's experience. And, if the latter, I should probably remind you that Simon has never to my knowledge ever tried to tell anyone what they need. Come to think of it, I don't recall ever hearing Cage trying to tell anyone what they needed.)


Music comprises sounds that are notated and sounds that are not. The ones that are not exist in the score as rests or caesuras. These notated "silences" - well, he maintained actual musical silence was impossible, but … - open windows into the outside world making environmental sounds musical ones. 4'33'' is a big window. Not complicated. He stated the proper purpose of music is to "quiet the mind and thus make it open to divine influence," - thus, cosmic debris. That's not complicated either. The dadaist impulse is pretty obvious too.

Most of the above paraphrases ideas from _Silence_.


----------



## millionrainbows

SiegendesLicht said:


> How exactly is this music sacred...


I consider *4'33"* sacred because of what it is, and also I know about *John Cage* as a man. I read the biography, and I've heard a lot of his music. *Someguy* met him in person; perhaps you should ask him.



SiegendesLicht said:


> ...and why do you oppose it to "Western" music? Was John Cage not a Westerner?


*Cage *was a Buddhist, and I see his ideas about music as being more Eastern than Western, because I think I understand what he was doing.



SiegendesLicht said:


> ...Personally, I make fun of it because it is nothing but a musical joke. Or rather it is the musical equivalent of internet trolling, designed to stir up controversy and thus to make the composer famous.


No, I think John Cage was very serious about his music and art. Not the kind of "Squinch up your eybrows/John Houseman" serious, but not a jokester. He did have a sense of humor, though. Humor can be used in a serious way, I think. And no, I don't think I'm a troll, as you seem to be implying.










The ohh, so serious John Houseman, who likes his music "the old-fashioned way"


----------



## Dim7

tortkis said:


> As repeatedly pointed out, there is no such thing as "nothing."


If everything is a thing, the word "thing" is meaningless.
Therefore there's no such thing as a "thing."
Therefore no thing exists.
Therefore nothing exists.
Therefore there is such a thing as "nothing."


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> I consider 4'33" to be "nothing." I don't consider that disparaging, but think it's exactly what Cage had in mind. All this talk about "ambient sounds" and so forth is silly. It's nothing. No, not even nothing, because that would be something. And it's not even that.


Didn't you watch the video on the previous page? Tsk, tsk!


----------



## millionrainbows

pianolearnerstride said:


> So are the people defending it just trolling or are they serious?


The term "troll" is often used to disparage anyone who holds an opposing viewpoint, I've noticed.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Fine. All I need do to is to point to something. You will then notice a "found object" you wouldn't have noticed otherwise, and that will make whatever you notice "art" and me an "artist."
> 
> Who knew it was so easy?


Yeah, but you didn't devote your whole life to creating a credible, historically valid context for that, like John Cage did.

So what's next? A big coffee-table sized book called "The Art of Woodduck"? A 20-CD Boxed set?


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> There are so called works of 'art' found in places like Tate Modern in London. I don't knowwhetherthey have an empty frame among all this junk but no doubt if they have someone has claimed it as a masterpiece!


I do seem to recall that they have a pile of bricks there.


----------



## millionrainbows

Fagotterdammerung said:


> It's been interesting reading the comments here.
> 
> I find myself not particularly invested in 4'33". Like much concept art I go "Oh. I see what you've done there. Neat." And then carry on with life. This type of art doesn't really have the power to hold me and keep me returning, though I appreciate what's it's trying to say and the discussions ( like this ) it leads to.
> 
> In essence, I'm glad it exists in an abstract sort of way, but I'd always rather be listening to his _Sonatas and Interludes_ or the like.


Well, you're *here,* aren't you? :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> I have always understood Cage's concept and the rationale for its execution, and I have also always found it puerile, lame, and insulting. I don't need to be told I should expand my definition of what counts as music. I don't need to have my consciousness raised by being made aware of ambient sound. What I always sing in my head when some poser with pretensions to a deep spiritual awareness tries to tell me what I need is:
> 
> *Look here brother
> Who you jivin' with that cosmic debris?
> Look here brother
> Don't you waste your time on me.
> Frank Zappa*


Ironically, *Frank Zappa'*s version of *4'33"* is available on this CD:


----------



## millionrainbows

I'd just like to say (in case this thread gets shut down) that I am very proud of the way this discussion has gone. *Seriously,* it's one of the best, informative, and civil threads on 4'33" I have ever seen, far surpassing anything else I've seen elsewhere.

_*Nice going!*_


----------



## Cosmos

millionrainbows, without looking at most of this thread, I can see what you mean by calling 4'33" Eastern and sacred. But, I'm sure you've found this out, most people who shrug the work off don't do it because they think it Eastern or sacred, rather they think it's a dumb piece.

"It's troll music!"
"Anyone could have written that"
"It's not even music, it's a joke"

I like your perspective, and yes, I can understand 4'33" as a sacred work. If I "listen" to it again, I'll have to keep this in mind


----------



## Celloman

In my view, _4'33"_ isn't so much a piece of music as it is a state of mind or philosophical statement. John Cage was in earnest when he wrote it, but it isn't something that must needs be relegated exclusively to the concert hall. It's an idea that you can put into practice at home, work, or play. Cage was fascinated by the sounds happening around him and we can be, too. Paying close attention to these sounds can affect the way we perceive the world.

Is it sacred? That depends on your opinion, I suppose.


----------



## mmsbls

Celloman said:


> In my view, _4'33"_ isn't so much a piece of music as it is a state of mind or philosophical statement. John Cage was in earnest when he wrote it, but it isn't something that must needs be relegated exclusively to the concert hall. It's an idea that you can put into practice at home, work, or play. Cage was fascinated by the sounds happening around him and we can be, too. Paying close attention to these sounds can affect the way we perceive the world.
> 
> Is it sacred? That depends on your opinion, I suppose.


I once made the same statement about 4'33" being a philosophical statement. I was reminded that the work is actually performed, and philosophical statements are not performed. So I agree that it's a work of art (maybe performance art). I think the importance of the work lies in the philosophical statement it makes.

What is music?
What is the relationship between sounds and listeners?
How might (not ought) one listen to sounds?

I don't think it's absurd, worthless, or trolling, but neither do I believe it is a work of music (my personal view). It was very courageous and certainly made many people think about issues they never had before.


----------



## tortkis

Dim7 said:


> If everything is a thing, the word "thing" is meaningless.
> Therefore there's no such thing as a "thing."
> Therefore no thing exists.
> Therefore nothing exists.
> Therefore there is such a thing as "nothing."


Everything is a thing, and it does not make the word "thing" meaningless. And, even if a word is meaningless, it does not mean that something, which the meaningless word is not indicating, does not exist.
Regarding _4'33"_, there is something in the literal sense, and the question is whether it "constitutes a work of art" or is musically meaningful.


----------



## rivulet

You may call _4'33"_ performance art, a gimmick, a con job, a trivial statement of some sort, whatever, but it is _not_ music, no more than the pandemonium of a pair of street cats having a go at each other in the back alley is music. Quite astonished to learn so many actually subscribe to the idea of it being music and actually seem offended by those questioning its "sanctity"!


----------



## Bulldog

rivulet said:


> You may call _4'33"_ performance art, a gimmick, a con job, a trivial statement of some sort, whatever, but it is _not_ music, no more than the pandemonium of a pair of street cats having a go at each other in the back alley is music. Quite astonished to learn so many actually subscribe to the idea of it being music and actually seem offended by those questioning its "sanctity"!


I respect your opinion, but it is just an opinion. As for being offended, I understand the feeling. When you really like a piece of music and someone states that it isn't even music, well, that's enough to get the blood agitated.


----------



## pianolearnerstride

So is any sound art? Is there anything that is not art?


----------



## Bulldog

pianolearnerstride said:


> So is any sound art? Is there anything that is not art?


That's for you to decide. It isn't like God is on high giving us the answer.


----------



## Celloman

That all depends on your definition. Maybe we should go back and ask, what is art? It means different things for different people.


----------



## pianolearnerstride

Ok. Going back to the original post... is there anything that is worthy of disparagement? If I recorded the sound of a fart... would it be valid for me to defend this "work of art" against disparagement? Should I be taken seriously at that point...


----------



## Mahlerian

pianolearnerstride said:


> Ok. Going back to the original post... is there anything that is worthy of disparagement? If I recorded the sound of a fart... would it be valid for me to defend this "work of art" against disparagement? Should I be taken seriously at that point...


Isn't there such a thing as "bad art"?

Of course you can make art out of any sound, including farts. No, that doesn't mean that any sound automatically makes great or worthwhile art.


----------



## dgee

pianolearnerstride said:


> Ok. Going back to the original post... is there anything that is worthy of disparagement? If I recorded the sound of a fart... would it be valid for me to defend this "work of art" against disparagement? Should I be taken seriously at that point...


Do it and post it in "Today's composers".


----------



## ahammel

Dim7 said:


> If everything is a thing, the word "thing" is meaningless.


I'm not sure that's logic.


----------



## Bulldog

pianolearnerstride said:


> Ok. Going back to the original post... is there anything that is worthy of disparagement? If I recorded the sound of a fart... would it be valid for me to defend this "work of art" against disparagement? Should I be taken seriously at that point...


Crude sounds can be art. Just keep in mind that the farts of today might sound different than the farts of tomorrow. So you could collect these various sounds and mix and match them to come up with something you appreciate and consider art.


----------



## Dim7

ahammel said:


> I'm not sure that's logic.


It is logic. Insane troll logic, that is.


----------



## ahammel

pianolearnerstride said:


> So is any sound art?


Well, that's the question, isn't it? Or rather, the question is "is there such a thing as sound that isn't music?" Are composers "forbidden" to use certain sounds in their compositions?

If there are sounds during the performance of music that the composer doesn't intend, are those part of the music? How about if the composer _intends_ for there to be sounds that she didn't intend, as in indeterminate music?

For me, if you can get a group of people to listen to some sounds in an "art appreciation" frame of mind, sure, I'm willing to call that music no matter what the sounds are. (I won't necessarily call it_ good_ music, naturally.)

I consider _4'33"_ a successful piece of music because I would never have thought about those issues if he hadn't written it. Sure, I don't enjoy listening to it in the same way as I enjoy, say, a Mozart piano concerto, but no Mozart piano concerto has ever made me think about issues of what music even_ is_. Fair play to Cage.


----------



## rivulet

Bulldog said:


> I respect your opinion, but it is just an opinion. As for being offended, I understand the feeling. When you really like a piece of music and someone states that it isn't even music, well, that's enough to get the blood agitated.


Clearly you enjoy Cage's production and the concept behind it. That is fine. But whatever merit it may hold as a performance, there is nothing in it that constitutes music.


----------



## Guest

I am on the side of arguing that, when we redefine music and art in too broad of a way, we completely destroy their meanings. 4'33" is a statement. I don't think it is music or art. Does anybody care about my opinion? Nope. And conversely, I care little about those opinions of me. Why do I disparage 4'33"? It is more poking fun at those who seem to take it so seriously, and affect a level of superior intellect because they supposedly "get it" and I don't. What they fail to comprehend is not that the rest of us don't "get it," so much as we don't particularly think there is anything there to "get." It is always fun to poke a stick in the eye of preeners. Their righteous indignation is always good for a laugh.


----------



## Guest

Stating the obvious: music, as as a subset of art: there is no consensus on their (music, art) definition, limits, or parameters.


----------



## ahammel

DrMike said:


> I am on the side of arguing that, when we redefine music and art in too broad of a way, we completely destroy their meanings. 4'33" is a statement. I don't think it is music or art. Does anybody care about my opinion? Nope. And conversely, I care little about those opinions of me. Why do I disparage 4'33"? It is more poking fun at those who seem to take it so seriously, and affect a level of superior intellect because they supposedly "get it" and I don't. What they fail to comprehend is not that the rest of us don't "get it," so much as we don't particularly think there is anything there to "get." It is always fun to poke a stick in the eye of preeners. Their righteous indignation is always good for a laugh.


Of course, if those people don't feel particularly superior and are, in fact, perfectly sincere in finding it an interesting piece, then you're just poking them in the eye for no reason.


----------



## Guest

Have we established why this is in the religious forum?


----------



## ahammel

dogen said:


> Have we established why this is in the religious forum?


Because millions considers 433 sacred music.


----------



## Guest

ahammel said:


> Of course, if those people don't feel particularly superior and are, in fact, perfectly sincere in finding it an interesting piece, then you're just poking them in the eye for no reason.


If you can't laugh at other people, who can you laugh at?


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> Have we established why this is in the religious forum?


In the OP, the question was whether there was any connection between 4'33" and religious music.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> In the OP, the question was whether there was any connection between 4'33" and religious music.


Oh OK, didn't realise it was considered sacred.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> Marschallin, John will just give you the run-around. He's always that way.


He never told _me_ he was mute.


----------



## Guest

rivulet said:


> You may call _4'33"_ performance art, a gimmick, a con job, a trivial statement of some sort, whatever, but it is _not_ music, no more than the pandemonium of a pair of street cats having a go at each other in the back alley is music. Quite astonished to learn so many actually subscribe to the idea of it being music and actually seem offended by those questioning its "sanctity"!


Edition Peters, one of the biggest, oldest, most prestigious music publishing firms in the world, has published 4'33" as a piece of music.

If you want astonishment, there ya go.

Edition Peters. One hundred and 15 years old. Publishers of Carl Friedrich Abel, Anton Arensky, more Bachs than you knew existed, Mily Balakirev, Arnold Bax, Hector Berlioz, and John Cage, among others. Not to mention 23 other letters of the alphabet.

I wonder if any of them know?

I wonder if they know that this piece of music that they published over sixty years ago is not a piece of music? How embarrassing! Why, they're a big company with a long history and a long list of distinguished composers. Whew!! Egg on their face fo sho!!

Seriously guys.

It's a piece of music. Get over it.


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> Oh OK, didn't realise it was considered sacred.


It isn't. I didn't quite get the tortured comparison made in the OP.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> If you can't laugh at other people, who can you laugh at?


Um, yourself? Hey. We do it all the time.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Edition Peters, one of the biggest, oldest, most prestigious music publishing firms in the world, has published 4'33" as a piece of music.
> 
> If you want astonishment, there ya go.
> 
> Edition Peters. One hundred and 15 years old. Publishers of Carl Friedrich Abel, Anton Arensky, more Bachs than you knew existed, Mily Balakirev, Arnold Bax, Hector Berlioz, and John Cage, among others. Not to mention 23 other letters of the alphabet.
> 
> I wonder if any of them know?
> 
> I wonder if they know that this piece of music that they published over sixty years ago is not a piece of music? How embarrassing! Why, they're a big company with a long history and a long list of distinguished composers. Whew!! Egg on their face fo sho!!
> 
> Seriously guys.
> 
> It's a piece of music. Get over it.


That's rather circular logic, isn't it? Oh, well since Edition Peters publishes it, then it must be music.

Incidentally, why do we make such a big deal about audience noise in performances? Why must people insist on as little noise from the audience as possible, when that is just as much a part of the music as what is being performed by the musicians? Is it not equally valid?


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Um, yourself? Hey. We do it all the time.


Not nearly as satisfying as laughing at others.


----------



## arpeggio

Even if it isn't, it still is.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Depends on how you do it, without copying someone's idea.

Ah...! The old Duchampian argument that "context is everything." Arthur C. Danto took it to the point of suggesting that a collection of the worst art imaginable... perhaps a slew of paintings by Thomas Kinkade... could be seen as great art if placed in the right context: a high-end art gallery or a museum. Both Danto and Donald Kuspit referred to such as "Post-Aesthetic Art."

It seems that some still place value upon the aesthetic experience and have no use for Post-Aesthetic Art.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

This is where we disagree. I do consider nature art, I also consider life art.

Everything is art, eh? Rape is art? Murder is art? The Holocaust was simple a large work of performance art?


----------



## arpeggio

Art is my cousin in New Mexico. :devil:


----------



## Bulldog

rivulet said:


> Clearly you enjoy Cage's production and the concept behind it. That is fine. But whatever merit it may hold as a performance, there is nothing in it that constitutes music.


Actually, I do not enjoy the production or the concept behind it; I do respect it and the folks here who do enjoy it. Fact is that you don't have to enjoy something to consider it valid.


----------



## Woodduck

DrMike said:


> *I am on the side of arguing that, when we redefine music and art in too broad of a way, we **completely destroy their meanings. 4'33" is a statement. I don't think it is music or art.*


This is the nub. There is no real debate over whether 4'33" is "good" or "worthwhile." Those for whom it's good and worthwhile are welcome to it. The real debate is whether the definition of "music" ought to include the sort of thing 4'33" is. That singular production is in a very noticeable way not the sort of thing mankind has traditionally defined as "music." The question is whether any purpose is served by changing that definition to accommodate it.

Definitions are provisional and debatable, but they are not, and should not be, arrived at arbitrarily. Neither should they be changed arbitrarily. They are tools of thought, and tools should be chosen according to the requirements of the task. The major task, always, is to make clear what it is we are talking about. With regard to 4'33," the question to ask is: does 4'33" fit the criteria generally regarded as decisive in designating a thing as a piece of music? What does it have in common with other things so designated? How does it resemble those things - and how does it differ from them? Are its resemblances sufficiently fundamental, and its differences sufficiently incidental, to make "music" a useful designation? Or are its differences sufficiently fundamental, and its resemblances sufficiently incidental, to make a different designation more useful?

This is the way definitions are created, and the way intellectual chaos and the reign of nonsense is avoided.

Traditionally, music has been defined, minimally, as sound organized by human beings to be performed by human beings and listened to by human beings. Some definitions of music have sought to include various purposes for which music is made, whether anthropological, psychological, or aesthetic; but nearly all definitions, and the common sense of what music is, have assumed its basic physical existence as organized sound created by human beings for human perception. These are properly regarded as fundamental attributes of music, and in combination they distinguish music from other things, including sounds produced for other purposes, sounds produced accidentally, sounds which are not organized, and sounds produced by non-human entities. Sounds of these kinds are properly called "noise" (attaching no value judgment to the word).

4'33" does not exhibit the fundamental attributes of music. In 4'33," sounds which occur during its "performance" are not organized by the nominal "creator" of the "work" and are not performed by the nominal "performer." They are accidental sounds of the sort which would be occurring even if no "creator" or "performer" existed, and even if no one were listening to them. They are, simply, noise. There may be any number of reasons for listening to noise. Doing so may serve practical or aesthetic purposes. It may give us information, and it may give us pleasure. But no purpose served by listening to noise obliterates the useful distinction between noise and music - the fact that music employs sound in a manner, and for purposes, which makes it something distinct from noise.

It's possible to quibble around the edges of this matter. Quibbling, by definition, does not address fundamentals. The fundamentals of what makes music music are not to be obscured or dismissed by quibbling. No one enjoys the "music" of nature - birdcalls, waterfalls, the wind in the pines - more than I do. But a birdcall produced by a nightingale is something fundamentally different from one imitated in a musical work by Beethoven or Messiaen. Noise is only the raw material of music.
4'33" merely directs us to listen to noise: it produces, and consists of, no music at all.

Nothing - not knowledge, not discernment, not clarity, not enlightenment - is gained by calling 4'33" a piece of "music." What should it be called? Anything we wish - provided our choice of designation serves the needs and purposes of human understanding. My choice would be "guided meditation." The category "meditation" - in the sense of a disciplined exercise in awareness - already existed before Cage conceived the work, and seems to cover very nicely the kind of attention Cage wants his audience to practice. I have to say that such awareness would seem to me easier to practice in the absence of the trappings of a concert, but if this is the device by which Cage wants to suggest we practice it, he's perfectly entitled to it, and we are perfectly entitled to participate in the exercise.


----------



## Guest

rivulet said:


> Clearly you enjoy Cage's production and the concept behind it. That is fine. But whatever merit it may hold as a performance, there is nothing in it that constitutes music.


Explain your argument in full, please.


----------



## tdc

StlukesguildOhio said:


> This is where we disagree. I do consider nature art, I also consider life art.
> 
> Everything is art, eh? Rape is art? Murder is art? The Holocaust was simple a large work of performance art?


I don't consider those things _simply_ performance art, no. Life in its totality is a creative form of expression though, yes, and I consider that art. That doesn't mean I encourage anarchy or any act of evil as being simply performance art and nothing more. I do think there are moral and ethical implications in our actions. I think we all are in a state of co-creating our reality and would encourage each individual to help create the kind of reality they would like to live in - just as an artist makes creative choices in their work.

An individual has the free-will to participate in harmful acts on other beings, but I believe we are all connected and I believe in karma - therefore I believe individuals responsible for those types of deeds will also experience the other side of the coin at some point in their evolution. In the process they will gain wisdom.


----------



## Woodduck

StlukesguildOhio said:


> This is where we disagree. I do consider nature art, I also consider life art.
> 
> Everything is art, eh? Rape is art? Murder is art? The Holocaust was simple a large work of performance art?


Stlukes, you are without mercy.

:kiss:


----------



## ArtMusic

It's a piece of music because the composer said so. That's all there is to it. But so what? If Cage was here next to me, then that's exactly what I would say to him: "You made silence music, but so what"?


----------



## ahammel

ArtMusic said:


> It's a piece of music because the composer said so. That's all there is to it. But so what? If Cage was here next to me, then that's exactly what I would say to him: "You made silence music, but so what"?


Were he not dead, (why are you sitting next to a dead guy?) he would say, " No! I didn't make silence music! _There is no such thing as silence!_ There is no such thing as the absence of music! Isn't that kind of neat?"


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> Stlukes, you are without mercy.
> 
> :kiss:


Mercy? Well I think it was a fair question and I think I gave a good answer.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

pianolearnerstride said:


> is there anything that is worthy of disparagement? If I recorded the sound of a fart... would it be valid for me to defend this "work of art" against disparagement?





Mahlerian said:


> Of course you can make art out of any sound, including farts.


Behold the magisterial counterpoint, Bach would be jealous. Of course you can make music from farts. To be fair, I think the 2nd repeat is unnecessary.


----------



## Blake

StlukesguildOhio said:


> This is where we disagree. I do consider nature art, I also consider life art.
> 
> Everything is art, eh? Rape is art? Murder is art? The Holocaust was simple a large work of performance art?


All of these revolve around the stupidity of man. Reproduction and death are a natural process, and the rest of life is getting on with it quite beautifully.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> That's rather circular logic, isn't it? Oh, well since Edition Peters publishes it, then it must be music.
> 
> Incidentally, why do we make such a big deal about audience noise in performances? Why must people insist on as little noise from the audience as possible, when that is just as much a part of the music as what is being performed by the musicians? Is it not equally valid?


How so? Edition Peters is a music publisher. That's what they do. And they've been doing it since 1800. Odds are, they know what they're doing. They don't publish recipes; they don't publish biology textbooks; they don't publish children's books; they don't publish sci-fi. They don't publish philosophy. They publish music.

It's not that 4'33" is music because they published it.

They published it because it is music.

Incidentally, audience noise in a performance of a Chopin nocturne is an interruption. Audience noise in 4'33" is not.

But you knew that already, didn't you? If the piece is set up to include audience noise, then audience noise is not going to be deprecated. Most concert music is not set up that way, however.

Time was, and not too long ago, that audience noise was not a big deal. It was a thing that happened all the time. So it hasn't always been "a big deal." Somewhere, that's all been gone over quite thoroughly. Recently. I don't remember the thread. Maybe someone else will, and then you can read all about that.


----------



## Bulldog

tdc said:


> An individual has the free-will to participate in harmful acts on other beings, but I believe we are all connected and I believe in karma - therefore I believe individuals responsible for those types of deeds will also experience the other side of the coin at some point in their evolution. In the process they will gain wisdom.


The other side of the coin could well be prison or execution. If someone participates in harming my family, I'm not going to give a damn about him/her gaining wisdom or evolving. In most cases, that's not even possible - evil people tend to remain evil until they're dead.


----------



## echo

doing nothing is a political action


----------



## arpeggio

*Us It Music or Is It Memorex*



ArtMusic said:


> It's a piece of music because the composer said so. That's all there is to it. But so what? If Cage was here next to me, then that's exactly what I would say to him: "You made silence music, but so what"?


I would like to reinforce what "ArtMusic" stated.

The debate on whether of not _4'33'_ is music is bogus. Many of us do not consider it music. That is just our opinion. In spite of this there is a significant body of the musical community that does consider it music. Arguing with them about it is an exercise in futility.

And if we win the argument, what does that mean? Since it is not music no one can discuss it in this forum? If a person is discussing the other works of Cage they can not mention _4'33"_ in the post since it is not music? Do some have an innate urge to prove to the world it is not music? I do not understand what we would accomplish by winning the argument. I don't care what other people think what _4'33"_ is. I have no problem if others think it is music. It is just their opinion and I can live with it. :cheers:


----------



## echo

bottom line is -- if someone else tried it -- no would notice -- when Cage did it -- we can't stop talking about it


----------



## KenOC

echo said:


> bottom line is -- if someone else tried it -- no would notice -- when Cage did it -- we can't stop talking about it


Why do you think that is? After all there's a tradition of "silent music" that goes back to the late 19th century. It all sounds identical to Cage (meaning, no sound at all). Why do we pick Cage out for these discussions?

"Allais wrote the earliest known example of a completely silent musical composition. His Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man of 1897 consists of twenty-four blank measures. It predates similarly silent but intellectually serious works by John Cage and Erwin Schulhoff by many years."

Oh, "intellectually serious"??? Reminds me of Karlheinz Kloppweiser: "German silence is of course organic, while French silence is ornamental."


----------



## echo

cos in this culture - it ain't art unless it sells


----------



## Ludric

_4'33"_ is to music as what atheism is to religion.


----------



## echo

^ not if God has no definition


----------



## KenOC

echo said:


> cos in this culture - it ain't art unless it sells


Is it only art if it doesn't sell?


----------



## tdc

Bulldog said:


> The other side of the coin could well be prison or execution. If someone participates in harming my family, I'm not going to give a damn about him/her gaining wisdom or evolving. In most cases, that's not even possible - evil people tend to remain evil until they're dead.


I agree that the other side of the coin could involve prison or execution - I'm not suggesting our society should take no action against these types of crimes.


----------



## echo

KenOC said:


> Is it only art if it doesn't sell?


- you could define science as an art if you want to be ****

but i'm speaking in terms of this culture we are living in --- iow the consumer is the emperor with no clothes


----------



## ArtMusic

arpeggio said:


> .....
> And if we win the argument, what does that mean? ...


Exactly, so what? So what if it is music? So what if it is conceptual XYZ? So what if it is _________ ?

It adds nothing of significance.


----------



## mmsbls

arpeggio said:


> The debate on whether of not _4'33'_ is music is bogus. Many of us do not consider it music. That is just our opinion. In spite of this there is a significant body of the musical community that does consider it music. Arguing with them about it is an exercise in futility.


I agree with this sentiment. I have said I don't believe 4'33" is music, and elsewhere I gave very specific reasons. I fully understand that many who have thought about and practiced music far longer than I have do consider the work music. I don't think it matters much. The work does not change and the effect of the work does not change. One can believe the work is interesting, insightful, and even entertaining without believing it's music. Further one can believe it's music, and think it's pretty worthless. In Cage's words, it's sound acting. Maybe it's also music.



ArtMusic said:


> Exactly, so what? So what if it is music? So what if it is conceptual XYZ? So what if it is _________ ?
> 
> It adds nothing of significance.


I agree with the first part but not the second. The work never strongly affected me in any way, but it certainly affected others and continues to do so. I did add something of significance to the music community (at least to part of the community).


----------



## rivulet

nathanb said:


> Explain your argument in full, please.


^See? The above, so-called, emptiness is my argument. You can't say it doesn't exist or that it doesn't meet the criteria for an argument. In fact, it is not merely an argument, but a masterpiece in argumentation and should be read and studied in all auditoriums around the world! Oh, did I also mention it has religious overtones? That makes it even more totes legit and worthy of admiration and high-flown pontification! Millions of us will be hurt (right down to our very egos) if someone dare refute our sacred conception of reality! Besides how could you even attack it when it is yet to be established what an argument even is (though close-minded reactionists try their best to tether it to fixed and inflexible definitions, ptui)? Personally, I think anything can be an argument. One of the best arguments I ever witnessed was that of a fish flopping around breathlessly on dry land.

:tiphat:


----------



## Celloman

This seems to be a visual rendition of _4'33"_, am I right?


----------



## SixFootScowl

DavidA said:


> Can I just point out that 4'33" is not a 'work'. It does not require work to create nothing. Unless you count writing 4'33" of bar lines creative work. I don't!


Yeah. Hey, I wonder how my boss would respond if I just sat at my desk doing nothing all day and called it work?:lol:

I am not familiar with Cage's other attempts at music and so can only make judgement on 4'33". I find it an interesting concept, a fun thing and all that, but not a work of music. In fact, watching the orchestral version makes me think that it could have been straight out of a Monty Python skit.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Why do members here frequently disparage and invalidate *John Cage's 4'33",* _which is essentially a sacred statement,_ while Western/Christian forms of sacred music seem to get much more respect, and have their own forum?
> 
> Surely this implies that these *Western* forms of sacred music deserve a special degree of respect, while *4'33"* seems to be "open game" for disparaging posts, threads, and comments.


No music, sacred or otherwise, deserves 'special respect'. Other people's opinions about music deserve a degree of respect - you are entitled to tell us what you think about 4'33", and we should respectfully listen without sneering, guffawing, disparaging you - but not protection: if we think differently from you, we deserve the same degree of respect while we say so and explain so.

The fact that _some _fail to show respect in an exchange of opinions does not mean that we must all shy away from controversial exchanges of views, or infer things about the music itself.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> This is the nub. There is no real debate over whether 4'33" is "good" or "worthwhile." Those for whom it's good and worthwhile are welcome to it. The real debate is whether the definition of "music" ought to include the sort of thing 4'33" is. That singular production is in a very noticeable way not the sort of thing mankind has traditionally defined as "music." The question is whether any purpose is served by changing that definition to accommodate it.


Wittgenstein argued that no viable definitions exist for words used to cover many complex concepts and constructs, the word game being one of his prime examples. There is no single feature uniting the many human activities grouped under this term. Same deal with music. What you will find in these cases is a cluster of related phenomena unified by family resemblances. Each game or instance of music has something in common with some of the others but nothing unites the group as a whole.

For works like 4'3'', the only practical and relevant definition, I suggest, is the so-called institutional definition. 4'33'' is performed at concerts, a score, as some guy points out, has been published by a music publisher. Audiences go to concerts to experience it. All comprehensive music histories mention it. Therefore, it is music.

This statement, in case you didn't notice my earlier posts, has nothing to do with my opinion of its aesthetic value, if that notion is even relevant in this case.


----------



## Ingélou

This is certainly a very entertaining thread. It has parallels in art, where some think Tracey Emin's Unmade Bed, or list of everyone she ever slept with, or the Installation that won the Turner Prize (a light bulb going on and off) are not art; and others think they are.

I have never heard a performance of 4'33" - or seen the Tracey Emin works either; there are some interesting arguments on both sides. I think in the end I would hedge my bets, and adapt the Star Trek saying by substituting 'music' or 'art' at the strategic point - 'It's *life*, Jim - but not as we know it.'

The sacred nature of the Cage work passes me by, I admit - though sitting in silence & meditating, as at a Quaker meeting, could certainly be a religious act.


----------



## Giordano

Ingélou said:


> It has parallels in art, where some think Tracey Emin's Unmade Bed, or *list of everyone she ever slept with*, or the Installation that won the Turner Prize (a light bulb going on and off) are not art; and others think they are.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't keep up with this kind of stuff. Did she at least obtain consent from the "sleepees" for public humiliation (for having been associated with her)?


----------



## Guest

Ludric said:


> _4'33"_ is to music as what atheism is to religion.


Many people consider atheism to be a religion, so that would make a tiny bit of sense, I suppose.


----------



## Guest

Celloman said:


> This seems to be a visual rendition of _4'33"_, am I right?


I've certainly become more aware of the specks and streaks on my screen, I suppose.


----------



## millionrainbows

arpeggio said:


> I have lost track on how many Cage threads have been closed down. A few have survived.


It's not whether the Cage threads were shut down or not; it's how they valiantly fought when they lived!


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> How do you defend nothing? How do you attack it?


...but 4'33" *is* something; otherwise, we'd be talking about nothing.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Must I spell it out again? I do not need someone to put an empty frame on a wall in order to look at stains and blots on the wall if that is what I want to do, and those stains and blots do not become someone's "painting" when so framed. The word "nothing" here clearly means: nothing which constitutes a work of art created by an artist.


You mean, if I hang a frame around my neck, I won't be art?


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Stated that way, it is surely true. How can some thing be no thing?


According to the Augustinian doctrine of Privatio Boni, nothingness does not exist. Because God created everything, "nothingness" is not even a consideration. At any rate, "nothingness" was once a taboo concept (might still be), and even the number "zero" was banned from use. Those danged Arabs...


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> By playing real music.


Any music? Even Katy Perry?


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Certainly all things belong to the set of "things." But where is no thing? Point it out to me, hand me one.


It's true, my sheep-herding friend, there is no such thing as "zero sheep." Otherwise, no lamb chops for supper.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

millionrainbows said:


> ...but 4'33" *is* something; otherwise, we'd be talking about nothing.


So are imaginary things like unicorns and anything else that doesn't exist.

Does talking about them instantiate them and make them real?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> This is the nub. There is no real debate over whether 4'33" is "good" or "worthwhile." Those for whom it's good and worthwhile are welcome to it. The real debate is whether the definition of "music" ought to include the sort of thing 4'33" is. That singular production is in a very noticeable way not the sort of thing mankind has traditionally defined as "music." The question is whether any purpose is served by changing that definition to accommodate it.
> 
> Definitions are provisional and debatable, but they are not, and should not be, arrived at arbitrarily. Neither should they be changed arbitrarily. They are tools of thought, and tools should be chosen according to the requirements of the task. The major task, always, is to make clear what it is we are talking about. With regard to 4'33," the question to ask is: does 4'33" fit the criteria generally regarded as decisive in designating a thing as a piece of music? What does it have in common with other things so designated? How does it resemble those things - and how does it differ from them? Are its resemblances sufficiently fundamental, and its differences sufficiently incidental, to make "music" a useful designation? Or are its differences sufficiently fundamental, and its resemblances sufficiently incidental, to make a different designation more useful?
> 
> This is the way definitions are created, and the way intellectual chaos and the reign of nonsense is avoided.
> 
> Traditionally, music has been defined, minimally, as sound organized by human beings to be performed by human beings and listened to by human beings. Some definitions of music have sought to include various purposes for which music is made, whether anthropological, psychological, or aesthetic; but nearly all definitions, and the common sense of what music is, have assumed its basic physical existence as organized sound created by human beings for human perception. These are properly regarded as fundamental attributes of music, and in combination they distinguish music from other things, including sounds produced for other purposes, sounds produced accidentally, sounds which are not organized, and sounds produced by non-human entities. Sounds of these kinds are properly called "noise" (attaching no value judgment to the word).
> 
> 4'33" does not exhibit the fundamental attributes of music. In 4'33," sounds which occur during its "performance" are not organized by the nominal "creator" of the "work" and are not performed by the nominal "performer." They are accidental sounds of the sort which would be occurring even if no "creator" or "performer" existed, and even if no one were listening to them. They are, simply, noise. There may be any number of reasons for listening to noise. Doing so may serve practical or aesthetic purposes. It may give us information, and it may give us pleasure. But no purpose served by listening to noise obliterates the useful distinction between noise and music - the fact that music employs sound in a manner, and for purposes, which makes it something distinct from noise.
> 
> It's possible to quibble around the edges of this matter. Quibbling, by definition, does not address fundamentals. The fundamentals of what makes music music are not to be obscured or dismissed by quibbling. No one enjoys the "music" of nature - birdcalls, waterfalls, the wind in the pines - more than I do. But a birdcall produced by a nightingale is something fundamentally different from one imitated in a musical work by Beethoven or Messiaen. Noise is only the raw material of music.
> 4'33" merely directs us to listen to noise: it produces, and consists of, no music at all.
> 
> Nothing - not knowledge, not discernment, not clarity, not enlightenment - is gained by calling 4'33" a piece of "music." What should it be called? Anything we wish - provided our choice of designation serves the needs and purposes of human understanding. My choice would be "guided meditation." The category "meditation" - in the sense of a disciplined exercise in awareness - already existed before Cage conceived the work, and seems to cover very nicely the kind of attention Cage wants his audience to practice. I have to say that such awareness would seem to me easier to practice in the absence of the trappings of a concert, but if this is the device by which Cage wants to suggest we practice it, he's perfectly entitled to it, and we are perfectly entitled to participate in the exercise.


Explain your argument in full, please. :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> So are imaginary things like unicorns and anything else that doesn't exist.
> 
> Does talking about them instantiate them and make them real?


4'33" does exist. The debate is not over whether or not it exists, but what it consists of.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> So are imaginary things like unicorns and anything else that doesn't exist.
> 
> Does talking about them instantiate them and make them real?




You mean... Teddy bears don't exist? Snuggle Bear? Yogi Bear? Casper? Ren and Stimpy?

It depends on what you mean. A unicorn is a mythological figure...

But really, in the end, 4'33" is not "nothing," and never was. 4'33" is a _potentiality._ Its performance always consists of whatever sounds are present or will be present during its four minutes and thirty-three seconds of performance.

It is, conceptually, in score form, suggesting an "empty space" waiting to be filled with sounds.

_True, as is, in score form, it can not "exist" on paper as real sound until we experience it as such, in a performance.

_For that matter, *does Beethoven's Fifth "exist" in score form?* You could argue "no," that the score is not music, it is nothing. Nothing but a set of instructions.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> 4'33" does exist. The debate is not over whether or not it exists, but what it consists of.


"4'33" the _word_ exists.

The _referent _does not.

To have 'identity' presupposes that something have 'existence' first.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

millionrainbows said:


> You mean... Teddy bears don't exist? Snuggle Bear? Yogi Bear? Casper? Ren and Stimpy?
> 
> It depends on what you mean. A unicorn is a mythological figure...
> 
> But really, in the end, 4'33" is not "nothing," and never was. 4'33" is a _potentiality._ Its performance always consists of whatever sounds are present or will be present during its four minutes and thirty-three seconds of performance.
> 
> It is, conceptually, in score form, suggesting an "empty space" waiting to be filled with sounds.
> 
> _True, as is, in score form, it can not "exist" on paper as real sound until we experience it as such, in a performance.
> _


I love you millionrainbows, and I love Build-a-Bears too- but I find all of this terribly trivial.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> "4'33" the _word_ exists.
> 
> The _referent _does not.
> 
> To have 'identity' presupposes that something have 'existence' first.


No, 4'33" definitely exists, whether it is called an idea, a stunt, a piece of music, or simply a set of directions. It is the thing that was created by John Cage and is published by Edition Peters as a piece of music, no matter how you define the artifact itself.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> No music, sacred or otherwise, deserves 'special respect'. Other people's opinions about music deserve a degree of respect - you are entitled to tell us what you think about 4'33", and we should respectfully listen without sneering, guffawing, disparaging you - but not protection: if we think differently from you, we deserve the same degree of respect while we say so and explain so.
> 
> The fact that _some _fail to show respect in an exchange of opinions does not mean that we must all shy away from controversial exchanges of views, or infer things about the music itself.


I didn't say that 4'33" got no respect, or that it should. I only said that a special forum on Western religious music* implies* that it is deserving of special consideration.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> No, 4'33" definitely exists, whether it is called an idea, a stunt, a piece of music, or simply a set of directions. It is the thing that was created by John Cage and is published by Edition Peters as a piece of music, no matter how you define the artifact itself.


But from nothing comes nothing: There's no instruments, melody, harmony, or performed tones of any kind.

_Call it_ what you will.

I won't even call it 'imaginary.'


----------



## EdwardBast

Marschallin Blair said:


> So are imaginary things like unicorns and anything else that doesn't exist.
> 
> Does talking about them instantiate them and make them real?




It does exist. The music is the ambient sound. It's pretty much like the empty frame, only more interestingly indeterminate than its visual counterpart. In any case, it's a one time thing, a stupid, not terribly original idea someone was eventually going to come up with. Now it's out of our collective system. Or it would be if you folks would just acknowledge it for what it is and get over it. Why do you all care so much? Listen to other works by Cage. He has some interesting and lovely ones.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> "4'33" the _word_ exists.
> 
> The _referent _does not.
> 
> To have 'identity' presupposes that something have 'existence' first.


Read this carefully, and remember that Cage is coming from an Eastern standpoint, not an *object*-ive Western standpoint.

4'33" and "its" sounds, which will only exist *in your experience* during a performance, demands that _"your identity_" be present to *listen* to the sounds. The "content" of 4'33" is *your listening experience* of it. That's "identity."

It's not an "object."

That's also a good reason to consider it to be a sacred work: it brings us back to ourselves and our experience. What could be more sacred than our experience?

_-love, millions, and here's a teddy bear._


----------



## EdwardBast

Marschallin Blair said:


> I love you millionrainbows, and I love Build-a-Bears too- but I find all of this terribly trivial.


Yes, it is trivial. So why get worked up about it? Is the world going to fall into decay and corruption if you don't express moral outrage about it?


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> ...but 4'33" *is* something; otherwise, we'd be talking about nothing.


Uh...hate to to tell you this...


----------



## Marschallin Blair

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, it is trivial. So why get worked up about it? Is the world going to fall into decay and corruption if you don't express moral outrage about it?


What's there to be outraged _about_?

Are you outraged that I'm _not _outraged?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

millionrainbows said:


> Read this carefully, and remember that Cage is coming from an Eastern standpoint, not an *object*-ive Western standpoint.
> 
> 4'33" and "its" sounds, which will only exist *in your experience* during a performance, demands that _"your identity_" be present to *listen* to the sounds. The "content" of 4'33" is *your listening experience* of it. That's "identity."
> 
> It's not an "object."
> 
> That's also a good reason to consider it to be a sacred work: it brings us back to ourselves and our experience. What could be more sacred than our experience?
> 
> _-love, millions, and here's a teddy bear._


Well, I love your answer- and I love the teddy bear. <Kiss.> Thanks.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

EdwardBast said:


> It does exist. The music is the ambient sound. It's pretty much like the empty frame, only more interestingly indeterminate than its visual counterpart. In any case, it's a one time thing, a stupid, not terribly original idea someone was eventually going to come up with. Now it's out of our collective system. Or it would be if you folks would just acknowledge it for what it is and get over it. Why do you all care so much? Listen to other works by Cage. He has some interesting and lovely ones.


You're killing a fly with a shotgun.

Cage's actual music isn't the issue- so why red-herring it?

"4'33" isn't even the issue- at least not with myself.

Its just some people wanting 'buy-in' from others for the charlatanry of "4'33"- and how ruddy and apoplectic they get over people pointing out that the Clothes don't even have an Emperor- that's fascinating to me.

Cage can have his imaginary 'creation' and I can call him an imaginary composer- at least in this instance.


----------



## DeepR

And I thought there was always some sort of craft to music, not just an idea. Or are there other pieces of music that apply the compositional "craft" of 4'33"? Ok, maybe this piece had to happen, once. Just once. But now it's time to get over it and see it for what it is: not much.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> But from nothing comes nothing: There's no instruments, melody, harmony, or performed tones of any kind.


Interesting that you should say "performed tones". At least you acknowledge the indeterminate tones that arise. Must not be nothing.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> [
> B]Wittgenstein argued that no viable definitions exist for words used to cover many complex concepts[/B] and constructs, the word game being one of his prime examples. *There is no single feature uniting the many human activities grouped under this term. Same deal with music. *What you will find in these cases is a cluster of related phenomena unified by family resemblances. Each game or instance of music has something in common with some of the others but nothing unites the group as a whole.
> 
> For works like 4'3'', the only practical and relevant definition, I suggest, is *the so-called institutional definition.* 4'33'' is performed at concerts, a score, as some guy points out, has been published by a music publisher. Audiences go to concerts to experience it. All comprehensive music histories mention it. Therefore, it is music.
> 
> This statement, in case you didn't notice my earlier posts, has nothing to do with my opinion of its aesthetic value, if that notion is even relevant in this case.


It's certainly possible to use a word so loosely that no definition will cover every instance of its use. I would call that sloppy thinking and sloppy speaking. Anyone can call anything anything they like, but that doesn't mean that any use of a term is as good as any other. The criteria of a good definition are two: epistemically, does it best identify the general category of things to which a particular thing belongs, and does it most distinctly differentiate that particular thing within that category; and, practically, does it enable us to think and talk with the greatest precision and clarity?

If we encounter the same term being used for a variety of things which have no common feature, what we're looking at is sloppy terminology. There's no law against sloppiness and nothing anyone can do to prevent it; in fact, it's everywhere! We don't have to condone it, however. In this case, I'm not convinced that music is a thing so indefinitely spoken about as to constitute an instance of this. As I pointed out, music has traditionally been assumed in all cultures and all times (so far as I know) to consist of sounds, organized in some manner by human beings, and produced by human beings to be heard by human beings. Concerts, scores, and publishing houses are specific cultural manifestations of the activity of making music, but they are not essential features of it. If we're looking for a "viable" definition of music, it's those essential features of it that matter.

4'33" eliminates those essential features, retaining only some of the cultural forms of music-making as an empty vessel to be filled by non-musical sounds in place of the expected musical ones. We could reasonably call this an exercise in mindfulness meditation structured as a concert. That tells us much more precisely what it is than does the sloppy use of the term "music."

Cage's use of the appurtenences of traditional music-making is a clever way to try to redefine music. I'm unimpressed by the number of people - or music histories - impressed by his sleight of mind.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

nathanb said:


> Interesting that you should say "performed tones". At least you acknowledge the indeterminate tones that arise. Must not be nothing.


Does music write itself?


----------



## nightscape

I'll tell you the problem with the musical power that he's using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. He read what others had done and took the next step. He didn't earn the knowledge for himself and no longer takes any responsibility for it. Cage stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as he could, and before he even knew what he had, Cage patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox...


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Does music write itself?


Indeterminate music _partially_ writes itself, in a sense, yes. Some manuscript is required, of course.

Sounds like you don't take issue with 4'33" as much as you take issue with indeterminacy. Considering that that entire genre is so widely accepted as music, you'll have to make a fine argument here, sis.


----------



## Guest

nightscape said:


> I'll tell you the problem with the musical power that you're he's using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. He read what others had done and took the next step. He didn't earn the knowledge for himself and no longer takes any responsibility for it. Cage stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as he could, and before he even knew what he had, Cage patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox...


Good thing he's got that whole John Cage oeuvre under his belt, lest someone accuse him of lacking discipline!


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Read this carefully, and remember that Cage is coming from an Eastern standpoint, not an *object*-ive Western standpoint.
> 
> 4'33" and "its" sounds, which will only exist *in your experience* during a performance, demands that _"your identity_" be present to *listen* to the sounds. The "content" of 4'33" is *your listening experience* of it. That's "identity."
> 
> It's not an "object."
> 
> That's also a good reason to consider it to be a sacred work: it brings us back to ourselves and our experience. What could be more sacred than our experience?
> 
> _-love, millions, and here's a teddy bear._


Sacred or not (we have different senses of that), 4'33" is indeed not a thing, but a gesture. It's an invitation to awareness. Why pretend that it's anything else (a "piece of music," e.g. )?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Sacred or not (we have different senses of that), 4'33" is indeed not a thing, but a gesture. It's an invitation to awareness. Why pretend that it's anything else (a "piece of music," e.g. )?


Because it is a piece of music and petty arguments ridden with fallacious reasoning do not change that.

/ENDTHREAD.


----------



## Woodduck

nathanb said:


> Because it is a piece of music and petty arguments ridden with fallacious reasoning do not change that.
> 
> /ENDTHREAD.


Nice try. :tiphat:


----------



## mmsbls

echo posted a video of Cage discussing sounds (post #45). I was slightly struck by his exact words.

"When I hear what we call music, it seems to me that someone is talking…But when I hear traffic…I don't have the feeling that anyone is talking. I have the feeling that sound is acting."

This observation seems as though he is distinguishing between music and ambient sounds. Of course he could mean various things by this statement, and the words were spoken in an interview so I would never hold him to the exact ideas here. But there seems to be a crucial difference between the conscious intent of the composer/performer to "talk" and sound to "merely" act.


----------



## nightscape

nathanb said:


> nightscape said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you the problem with the musical power that he's using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. He read what others had done and took the next step. He didn't earn the knowledge for himself and no longer takes any responsibility for it. Cage stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as he could, and before he even knew what he had, Cage patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox...
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing he's got that whole John Cage oeuvre under his belt, lest someone accuse him of lacking discipline!
Click to expand...

But he was so preoccupied with whether he could that he didn't stop to think if he _*should*_.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

nathanb said:


> Indeterminate music _partially_ writes itself, in a sense, yes. Some manuscript is required, of course.
> 
> Sounds like you don't take issue with 4'33" as much as you take issue with indeterminacy. Considering that that entire genre is so widely accepted as music, you'll have to make a fine argument here, sis.


Not really.

I just don't _buy_ it- financially _or_ conceptually._ ;D_


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> echo posted a video of Cage discussing sounds (post #45). I was slightly struck by his exact words.
> 
> "When I hear what we call music, it seems to me that someone is talking…But when I hear traffic…I don't have the feeling that anyone is talking. I have the feeling that sound is acting."
> 
> This observation seems as though he is distinguishing between music and ambient sounds. Of course he could mean various things by this statement, and the words were spoken in an interview so I would never hold him to the exact ideas here. But there seems to be a crucial difference between the conscious intent of the composer/performer to "talk" and sound to "merely" act.


Cage may have been cagey, but he wasn't stupid. He knew that "what we call music" and ambient noise were two different things. I believe he said he preferred the latter, and tried to make music into its equivalent by replacing choice in composing by chance. Of course "composing" by chance is not composing at all, just as "music" that makes no sound is not music.

Did he ever "compose" a piece purely by chance?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

mmsbls said:


> echo posted a video of Cage discussing sounds (post #45). I was slightly struck by his exact words.
> 
> "When I hear what we call music, it seems to me that someone is talking…But when I hear traffic…I don't have the feeling that anyone is talking. I have the feeling that sound is acting."
> 
> This observation seems as though he is distinguishing between music and ambient sounds. Of course he could mean various things by this statement, and the words were spoken in an interview so I would never hold him to the exact ideas here. But there seems to be a crucial difference between the conscious intent of the composer/performer to "talk" and sound to "merely" act.


Exactly! Cage's music is about sounds acting. It's a natural instance of musique concrete, defined as (through google):

"Musique Concrete is the experimental technique of musical composition using recorded sounds as raw material. The principle uses the assemblage of various natural sounds to produce an aural montage."

This is why listening to Imaginary Landscapes and Roaratorio is essential in understanding 4'33". 4'33" is not some random idea that came out of nowhere: as I've said before, it's basically a pithier and more intense version of his electronic music, which is often assembled from everyday sounds. If 4'33" isn't music, then neither is Imaginary Landscapes or Roaratorio.


----------



## Mahlerian

SeptimalTritone said:


> This is why listening to Imaginary Landscapes and Roaratorio is essential in understanding 4'33". 4'33" is not some random idea that came out of nowhere: as I've said before, it's basically a pithier and more intense version of his electronic music, which is often assembled from everyday sounds. If 4'33" isn't music, then neither is Imaginary Landscapes or Roaratorio.


I don't know. Isn't it possible that it is not the sounds that are the issue, but rather the composer's structuring of them (or lack thereof)?


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> But from nothing comes nothing: There's *no instruments, melody, harmony, or performed tones of any kind*.
> 
> _Call it_ what you will.
> 
> I won't even call it 'imaginary.'


These things are not necessary for a thing to exist. Perhaps to you they are necessary for it to exist as a piece of music, but certainly not for existence in general.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Mahlerian said:


> I don't know. Isn't it possible that it is not the sounds that are the issue, but rather the composer's structuring of them (or lack thereof)?


I think they are structured, and structured in a unique and powerful way. There are performer instructions and timings... a first movement, second movement, and third movement. The timings give a rhythmic contour for the piece, which adds to its energy. It's a minimal structuring, but sometimes a minimal structuring is what the doctor ordered.

When I go to the Los Angeles Zen Center to meditate in a group, even that doesn't compare to 4'33". For in group meditation, the primary focus is on your internal breathing and body, and the atmosphere of the crowd is a second order effect. And the coughing and shuffling is a distraction, something we prefer to keep a minimum of. (I was once scolded in front of the entire zendo by some old dude for scratching and shuffling too much myself!)

On the other hand, when the scratching and shuffling is listened to and respected... something different happens. A compassionate communication occurs, where humans respect and feel the nervous energy on top of the intimate presence. Zen masters often say that because we are not used to intimate presence, there is a nervous energy and tension when one first tries to settle into it. Why not have humans go for the intimate presence of God together... by structured auditory communication? With this structured auditory communication, we can share our nervous energy, and say "it's okay to be nervous and tense, for we are all human".

And the structuring of the piece helps achieve this. The first movement is of mid length to get the crowd started, then there is a page turn and coughing break, then there is the second movement of longest length that comprises the "meat" of the piece with the deepest focus, then another break, and finally a short third movement that passes by in what feels like an instant. All of this helps us ride the waves of intimate presence, through an introductory segment of time, a long segment of time, and a short segment of time: all of which have a unique personality and a different crowd energy. Just like Roaratorio has its auditory structure of different recorded sounds played on top of each other at different times, so does 4'33".

In fact: you know how the Chorus Mysticus of Mahler's 8th feels like all of humanity on earth is holding their hands together in unity and compassion? Well... 4'33" achieves something similar, by allowing a crowd to collectively settle down to a state of intimate presence. And it can only do so through being structured in its unique way.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Not really.
> 
> I just don't _buy_ it- financially _or_ conceptually._ ;D_




Well, opinions are always good fun.


----------



## Bulldog

Florestan said:


> Yeah. Hey, I wonder how my boss would respond if I just sat at my desk doing nothing all day and called it work?:lol:


Give it a try and see what happens. I've known a few folks who did just that and received promotions.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> You mean, if I hang a frame around my neck, I won't be art?


No, but you would be a pain in the neck.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> These things are not necessary for a thing to exist. Perhaps to you they are necessary for it to exist as a piece of music, but certainly not for existence in general.


Absolutely.

But then 'existence' isn't 'identity,' either.

A cement mixer can be going on in the backround while someone is sitting at a piano keyboard, but it still wouldn't be music.

The sound metaphysically 'exists' but its 'identity' is 'the plangent and grinding mechanical sound of a cement mixer' and not 'music'- even if someone arbitrarily calls it such.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

nathanb said:


> Well, opinions are always good fun.


The more colorful the better, certainly.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
> You mean, if I hang a frame around my neck, I won't be art?





Bulldog said:


> No, but you would be a pain in the neck.


. . . and not a modern art masterpiece?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Cage may have been cagey, but he wasn't stupid. He knew that "what we call music" and ambient noise were two different things. I believe he said he preferred the latter, and tried to make music into its equivalent by replacing choice in composing by chance. Of course "composing" by chance is not composing at all, just as "music" that makes no sound is not music.
> 
> Did he ever "compose" a piece purely by chance?


Hold on. I'm consulting my _I Ching. _


----------



## Marschallin Blair

EdwardBast said:


> Wittgenstein argued that no viable definitions exist for words used to cover many complex concepts and constructs, the word game being one of his prime examples. There is no single feature uniting the many human activities grouped under this term. Same deal with music. What you will find in these cases is a cluster of related phenomena unified by family resemblances. Each game or instance of music has something in common with some of the others but nothing unites the group as a whole.
> 
> For works like 4'3'', the only practical and relevant definition, I suggest, is the so-called institutional definition. 4'33'' is performed at concerts, a score, as some guy points out, has been published by a music publisher. Audiences go to concerts to experience it. All comprehensive music histories mention it. Therefore, it is music.
> 
> This statement, in case you didn't notice my earlier posts, has nothing to do with my opinion of its aesthetic value, if that notion is even relevant in this case.


Wittgenstinian 'language games' and 'speech communities' may have held their sway in Oxbridgean ambits in the fifties and sixties, but certainly not in the uncloistered real world of science.

Karl Popper's hypothetico-deductivism completely eclipses Wittgenstein and his later post-modernist and post-structuralist ilk in terms of what knowledge is and how it is arrived at.

As Woodduck hinted at in an earlier post, a definition is merely a shorthand tag for a concept and _all of its attributes_. The fact that one concept may be related to another concept does not change the fact that two 'related things' are still separate 'identities.'

Similarity by definition implies difference.


----------



## Guest

nightscape said:


> But he was so preoccupied with whether he could that he didn't stop to think if he _*should*_.


And we all know how that ended up...!

View attachment 63242


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I didn't say that 4'33" got no respect


You asked why it was disparaged and invalidated while other music gets much more respect...


----------



## EdwardBast

Marschallin Blair said:


> What's there to be outraged _about_?
> 
> Are you outraged that I'm _not _outraged?




No, I guess not. But I _am_ outraged to find out, after months of free-market capitalist persiflage, that you are in fact a socialist. I should have known!


----------



## EdwardBast

Marschallin Blair said:


> Wittgenstinian 'language games' and 'speech communities' may have held their sway in Oxbridgean ambits in the fifties and sixties, but certainly not in the uncloistered real world of science.
> 
> Karl Popper's hypothetico-deductivism completely eclipses Wittgenstein and his later post-modernist and post-structuralist ilk in terms of what knowledge is and how it is arrived at.
> 
> As Woodduck hinted at in an earlier post, a definition is merely a shorthand tag for a concept and _all of its attributes_. The fact that one concept may be related to another concept does not change the fact that two 'related things' are still separate 'identities.'
> 
> Similarity by definition implies difference.


My statement had nothing to do with what knowledge is or how it is arrived at, nor does it have anything to do with language games and speech communities. Where and why did you come up with that? The rest of your commentary is in no way relevant to the issue I raised. My point was that since there is no viable definition of "music" that is going to encompass all instances of what we all, including you and Woodduck, acknowledge to be music except the institutional definition, it is going to be impossible to exclude 4'33'' by playing the definition game.


----------



## Albert7

pianolearnerstride said:


> So is any sound art? Is there anything that is not art?


Every man is an artist.
Joseph Beuys

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joseph_beuys.html#3hBz4J3IpehKJ6SQ.99


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Like Joseph Beuys' opinion carries any weight at all.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> My statement had nothing to do with what knowledge is or how it is arrived at, nor does it have anything to do with language games and speech communities. Where and why did you come up with that? The rest of your commentary is in no way relevant to the issue I raised. My point was that since there is no viable definition of "music" that is going to encompass all instances of what we all, including you and Woodduck, acknowledge to be music except the institutional definition, it is going to be impossible to exclude 4'33'' by playing the definition game.


Oh it's not necessarily impossible. There seem to be people that would pay large sums of money (or discharge large numbers of bullets) to see 4'33" excluded from the "official" music list. Logically, it's impossible, yes. But culture's an oddball...


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Since there is no viable definition of "music" that is going to encompass all instances of what we all acknowledge to be music except the institutional definition, it is going to be impossible to exclude 4'33'' by playing the definition game.


"Institutional definition" is epistemological tyranny.

The "definition game" is the mind's declaration of independence.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> "Institutional definition" is epistemological tyranny.
> 
> The "definition game" is the mind's declaration of independence.


Yes, very dramatic. I'm all for writing the declaration, just unimpressed with the results.

What I'm missing here is why anyone cares enough to get upset about this trivial case. The stakes are tiny. Cage's 4'33'' is simply claiming that vanishing verge of real estate at the bottom of the slippery slopes from indeterminacy and musique concrête. We all accept the validity of various levels of indeterminacy. If I compose the head of a jazz tune and let my pals improvise on it, I am practicing indeterminacy. If I include sections in a composition during which instrumentalists are told to play certain kinds of figures using a collection of notes I have specified, this too is indeterminacy. And the composer can cede control of more and more parameters while still actively fulfilling some significant aesthetic goal. Is there some point where one can draw the line and say that the resulting sounds are no longer a composition?; some level of control that is too slight? Slippery slope. And one can go through a similar exercise with the use of environmental, industrial, animal - whatever kind of sounds. There are some compositions using the techniques of musique conrête that all of us will accept as music, and the point where the materials no longer meet the criteria of musical sounds is going to be subjective, arbitrary and, well, indeterminate. Slippery slope. If you don't want to slide to the bottom, stay off the slopes. But you can't.

Some joker was going to claim this bit of real estate that our inability to draw non-arbitrary borders inevitably creates. Roll your eyes, walk away, and remember, $Hi† rolls downhill.

Edit: It doesn't really have anything to do with epistemology. The institutional definition is just a practical, stop-gap measure until someone comes up with something better. No one is saying it is a good idea in principle-only that it is often the only viable option in practice.


----------



## Skilmarilion

EdwardBast said:


> What I'm missing here is why anyone cares enough to get upset about this trivial case.


I guess it just irks certain people that 4'33" may be classified as "music".

There is no definition of music that I can find that does not include (or allude to) "sound", which is key to any such definition. Silence is the complete absence of sound. Cage, in this piece, "composed" silence, and so he cannot have composed music.

Just because it is written down as a score does not make it music either, because a score on its own is not music. Only when a score is performed, which in most cases involves performers making sounds, is music created. But in 4'33", the performers do not make sounds, and when there are no sounds, there is no music.

Just because there are rests written in, also doesn't make it music, because rests on their own do not mean anything. Rests indicate when not to play, as opposed to playing, in a piece of music. Since nobody plays in 4'33", rests are rendered meaningless.

Anyway, that's just a hunch. 

Otherwise, the concept of 4'33" is pretty clear to all, and for a take on the concept I wouldn't look any further than some guy's eloquent post early on in this thread.


----------



## manyene

It could simply be John Cage's send-up of the tendency to over-intellectualise music and turn it into something that it isn't.


----------



## ahammel

Skilmarilion said:


> Just because it is written down as a score does not make it music either, because a score on its own is not music. Only when a score is performed, which in most cases involves performers making sounds, is music created. But in 4'33", the performers do not make sounds, and when there are no sounds, there is no music.


But the performers do make sounds (they can hardly avoid it), and even if they don't there are still sounds to be heard.


----------



## Skilmarilion

ahammel said:


> But the performers do make sounds (they can hardly avoid it), and even if they don't there are still sounds to be heard.


Making sounds with their instrument(s) by playing them.

These "other" sounds are not music. Someone in the audience can cough either during Mahler's 9th or during 4'33". In both cases, there is no music created.

Of course, during a performance of the latter it is likely to be far more audible, and oddly enough, "of interest".


----------



## EdwardBast

Skilmarilion said:


> I guess it just irks certain people that 4'33" may be classified as "music".
> 
> There is no definition of music that I can find that does not include (or allude to) "sound", which is key to any such definition. Silence is the complete absence of sound. Cage, in this piece, "composed" silence, and so he cannot have composed music.


But there _is_ sound, indeterminate ambient sound and that produced by members of the audience. Cage, through the performer, exerts some control or influence on the sound sources, if only by making them squirm in painful self-consciousness  I imagine a performance by Lang Lang would produce very different sounds than one by Yefim Bronfman.

Is it good music? I don't think so. Is there any value in performing it beyond pissing-off the first audience? Not that I can see.


----------



## ahammel

Skilmarilion said:


> Making sounds with their instrument(s) by playing them.


I've seen pieces of music where the performers are instructed to shout or whisper or stamp their feet or throw rocks or kick the trombone mute across the stage*. Also not music?



Skilmarilion said:


> These "other" sounds are not music. Someone in the audience can cough either during Mahler's 9th or during 4'33". In both cases, there is no music created.
> 
> Of course, during a performance of the latter it is likely to be far more audible, and oddly enough, "of interest".


Yes, it's of interest by because in the latter case those are the sounds that the audience has gathered to hear. I say that music is the thing where people listen to sounds with the hope of experiencing artistic appreciation. _Usually_ the sounds are produced by musicians playing instruments, and _usually_ the composer picks the sounds in advance, but I don't consider either of those essential.

*Actually, that might have been an accident.


----------



## spokanedaniel

In my rather conventional view of things, a painting is what happens when someone applies paint or other coloring to a canvas, paper, board, wall, or what have you. When someone calling him- or herself a painter offers me a blank canvas, I say it's not a painting until they put some paint on it, and if they offer to sell me the canvas for more than an art supplies store would charge for the same size and quality of canvas, I will laugh at them. I acknowledge that not everyone agrees with my opinion on this, but I regard those who view the blank canvas as having more value than any other piece of blank canvas as silly.

Likewise, in my conventional view of music, I regard music as a collection of intentionally-produced sounds that are pleasing to the ear, usually, but not always, made with recognizable instruments or things that can in some way mimic instruments. The latter category sometimes includes glass jugs, hand saws, or washboards. When someone offers to sell me a ticket to watch musicians do nothing, and tells me that this is "music" I reply that I can get the same for free anywhere I go out in public. (For me, if it's not pleasing to the ear it is not music, which means that music, like beauty, is very much in the perception of the beholder.)

Western forms of so-called "sacred" music (meaning religious music) get their own forum because, frankly, some of the most breathtaking, gorgeous, spectacular music ever to be composed by humans throughout our history come from western church traditions. (There is plenty of breathtaking, gorgeous, spectacular western music that is not religious, but the question was asked specifically about "sacred" music, and indeed, "sacred" music is a category wide enough and deep enough and well-recognized enough to warrant a forum, just as opera and instrumental music are categories for which it makes sense to have dedicated forums.)

Thus, in my admittedly conventional view, 4'33" is not music. It is a public demonstration of the well-known aphorism that there's a sucker born every minute, since paying concert-ticket prices to listen to the noises an audience makes is just plain silly. As silly as paying more for a blank canvas than an art-supplies store would charge for the same canvas.

It it worth considering this: I cannot play the violin. If you need to hire a violinist, I cannot apply for the job. If you were to hire me for the job, you'd be fired from yours. I cannot paint. If I were to paint a tree and offer it to our local art museum, they would refuse to accept it and would probably regard me as a nut job. But if you are putting on a performance of 4'33" you could hire me as one of your "musicians" with no fear whatsoever. I could take the first violin seat and acquit myself in that seat as well as Itzhak Perlman. I submit that when a musical zero such as myself could hold the first violin seat in an orchestral performance without so much as raising the eyebrow of a single music critic, the performance in question cannot be regarded as music.

Clearly, not everyone shares my opinion. But the above at least explains why I, for one, disparage 4'33".


----------



## ahammel

spokanedaniel said:


> Thus, in my admittedly conventional view, 4'33" is not music. It is a public demonstration of the well-known aphorism that there's a sucker born every minute, since paying concert-ticket prices to listen to the noises an audience makes is just plain silly.


You are aware that it usually shares the bill with other pieces, yes?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> 4'33" is indeed not a thing, but a gesture. It's an invitation to awareness. Why pretend that it's anything else (a "piece of music," e.g. )?


Um, _we're_ not pretending anything. 4'33" was published by a large and prestigious music publisher. You can find the score in music stores. Musicians perform it in concerts of other music.

If anyone's pretending, it's these people. Professionals. Professional musicians. Of course, y'all are free to disagree with Edition Peters and with dozens of professional musicians about this, but why? These aren't pranksters. These aren't naive kids. These aren't besmitten fans. These are professionals, business men and women and musicians. They're not having you on, truly.

It's out there. It's a thing. It exists in the same way as any other piece of music. The multiplicity of long-faced posts solemnly intoning the same mantra over and over again (including, oddly enough, bewilderment that anyone should feel it important enough to defend this piece) is starting to creep me out, it really is.

You really think it's important to assert over and over again in the face of all the evidence that this piece of music is not a piece of music because you feel like it's not? Really? What do you think you're accomplishing, really? It's not gonna change any of the solid realities: the score is still a published item. The publisher is still an old, large, and respected music publisher. The musicians who perform it are still musicians. You can still go into a music store--not a haberdashery or a bakery--and buy it. Odd that. This bit of nothing that Ken is so distressed about can be purchased, with real, solid money from a real, solid store in a real, solid city.

It's also not going to change anyone's mind who already accepts it as being what it is, a piece of music. Why would it?


----------



## Ingélou

The link to the sheet music is here; I have looked inside.
http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/4-33-sheet-music/1008430
I did not find the experience particularly convincing.
I imagine that if you are going to perform 4'33", you would need to be on stage with this publication, however.


----------



## Skilmarilion

EdwardBast said:


> But there _is_ sound, indeterminate ambient sound and that produced by members of the audience. Cage, through the performer, exerts some control or influence on the sound sources...


Yes, but these sounds are always there. These sounds have nothing to do with Cage, or his score, they are "indeterminate ambient sounds". Why does he get to "own" these sounds? What difference is there between getting some people to sit "in silence" in a hall or wherever for x period of time vs. an actual performance of 4'33"?

Cage hasn't composed any sounds here, and so no music. Not for me. Ambient sound is there, with or without Cage.



ahammel said:


> I've seen pieces of music where the performers are instructed to shout or whisper or stamp their feet or throw rocks or kick the trombone mute across the stage*. Also not music?


Okay, and all those things (and any other such things) are all intended to create sounds that *are not ambient *(this might help).

Cage instructs the performers not to play, and to not play sounds, and instead shifts the focus to the ambient sounds around. Those sounds are not in any way controlled or shaped or composed by Cage, and they are ambient sounds anyway. So it isn't music, and I don't see why it is 'a work of music by John Cage.'

It is a an idea, a concept -- and that concept is by John Cage.


----------



## ahammel

Skilmarilion said:


> Okay, and all those things (and any other such things) are all intended to create sounds that *are not ambient *(this might help).


So the concept of 'ambient music' is an incoherent one for you?


----------



## Skilmarilion

ahammel said:


> So the concept of 'ambient music' is an incoherent one for you?


If I'm not mistaken, there's a notable distinction to be made between ambient music and ambient sounds.


----------



## spokanedaniel

ahammel said:


> You are aware that it usually shares the bill with other pieces, yes?


Okay. I will give it this: I would rather attend a concert consisting of a Bach cantata and 4'33" than one consisting of the same Bach cantata and anything else by John Cage.

But how about putting 4'33" at the end of the concert, so that I can leave when the music ends and get home four and a half minutes earlier. For me, and this obviously is just my opinion, 4'33" is a waste of four and a half minutes of my time. Unless you're into transcendental meditation, four and a half minutes is a long time to sit quietly when there is no sensory input other than the ambient sounds of the audience. Music I like is stimulating. The ambient sound of an audience is boring.

Here's an idea: How about a bit of guerilla theater, take Mr. Cage at face value, and make lots of noise during the piece. Perhaps play a kazoo. I can actually play a kazoo (very badly, of course).

Here's a question for folks:

For those of you who regard 4'33" as music, would you be annoyed if the person in front of you talked in a normal tone of voice to his seat neighbor? How about if he played a kazoo? How about if he played a kazoo badly? It's all about ambient sounds, after all, so would it be rude of audience members to make more sounds than they would while the musicians are actually playing their instruments? Is there any real difference between 4'33" and the intermission of a concert?


----------



## ahammel

Skilmarilion said:


> If I'm not mistaken, there's a notable distinction to be made between ambient music and ambient sounds.


Well? What is it?


----------



## Skilmarilion

lol, okay. Google says:

*Ambient sound* (AKA ambient audio, ambience, atmosphere, atmos or background noise) -- the background sounds which are present in a scene or location. Common ambient sounds include wind, water, birds, crowds, office noises, traffic, etc.

*Ambient music* -- a style of gentle, largely electronic instrumental music with no persistent beat, used to create or enhance a mood or atmosphere.


----------



## ahammel

So music intended to function at ambient noise isn't a thing or isn't music, then?

How about music constructed from recordings of ambient noise (such as Francisco Lopez's _La Selva_ or _Wind: Patagonia_)?


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> Um, _we're_ not pretending anything. 4'33" was published by a large and prestigious music publisher. You can find the score in music stores. Musicians perform it in concerts of other music.
> 
> If anyone's pretending, it's these people. Professionals. Professional musicians. Of course, y'all are free to disagree with Edition Peters and with dozens of professional musicians about this, but why? These aren't pranksters. These aren't naive kids. These aren't besmitten fans. These are professionals, business men and women and musicians. They're not having you on, truly.
> 
> It's out there. It's a thing. *It exists in the same way as any other piece of music.* The multiplicity of long-faced posts solemnly intoning the same mantra over and over again (including, oddly enough, bewilderment that anyone should feel it important enough to defend this piece) is starting to creep me out, it really is.
> 
> *You really think it's important to assert over and over again in the face of all the evidence that this piece of music is not a piece of music because you feel like it's not? *Really? *What do you think you're accomplishing, really?* It's not gonna change any of the solid realities: the score is still a published item. The publisher is still an old, large, and respected music publisher. The musicians who perform it are still musicians. You can still go into a music store--not a haberdashery or a bakery--and buy it. Odd that. This bit of nothing that Ken is so distressed about can be purchased, with real, solid money from a real, solid store in a real, solid city.
> 
> It's also not going to change anyone's mind who already accepts it as being what it is, a piece of music. Why would it?


In the peculiar culture of our time, environmental noise has been considered by some people to be music, blank canvases have been considered by some people to be paintings, and objects salvaged from dumps have been considered by some people to be sculpture.

But not by all people.

In this peculiar culture, your answer to the question "What determines whether something should be considered music?" is: whatever some people have managed to get performed by musicians and printed and sold by a music publisher.

Some people consider that answer spurious.

I have looked at the "score" of 4'33." It consists of two pages. There's a little message on page 1 telling us when the work was performed and that the "movements may last any length of time" (really?...) The actual "work," on page 2, consists of "I Tacet, II Tacet, III Tacet."

There is nothing else. That's it. That's all she wrote. Play it, Sam.

Brahms used to say that his favorite performances of music were those he heard in his head while sitting at home reading the score. This score would certainly have afforded him a relaxing evening, especially since he could've ignored the title and made the movements last as long as he wanted.

No, 4'33" does not exist "in the same way as any other music." It does not exist as music at all. I assert that, not "in the face of all the evidence," but in the _absence_ of anything I acknowledge to be evidence.

What do I think I'm accomplishing? Well, what do you think _you're_ accomplishing? What is _anyone_ around here accomplishing? What did Cage think _he_ was accomplishing? What is Peters Publishing House accomplishing besides cashing in on the name of john Cage (although one has to wonder why anyone would need to buy a score which they already had memorized).

But, if you really want to know, what I'm accomplishing is articulating an intellectual position which some people, in the peculiar culture of our time, may not have articulated. Some people may find that useful or interesting. Those who don't - well, they know what they can do.


----------



## DeepR

Scored, published, performed... music or not, I don't care: it's still an idea that doesn't require any kind of craft or skill to compose or perform. It could've been created by anyone. Maybe something similar had already been done before by some anonymous person, by means of a joke, or not... but I guess when a composer gets it published and performed because he already has a name, then it's suddenly something of worth, sacred even!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> In the peculiar culture of our time, environmental noise has been considered by some people to be music, blank canvases have been considered by some people to be paintings, and objects salvaged from dumps have been considered by some people to be sculpture.
> 
> But not by all people.
> 
> In this peculiar culture, your answer to the question "What determines whether something should be considered music?" is: whatever some people have managed to get performed by musicians and printed and sold by a music publisher.
> 
> Some people consider that answer spurious.
> 
> I have looked at the "score" of 4'33." It consists of two pages. There's a little message on page 1 telling us when the work was performed and that the "movements may last any length of time" (really?...) The actual "work," on page 2, consists of "I Tacet, II Tacet, III Tacet."
> 
> There is nothing else. That's it. That's all she wrote. Play it, Sam.
> 
> Brahms used to say that his favorite performances of music were those he heard in his head while sitting at home reading the score. This score would certainly have afforded him a relaxing evening, especially since he could've ignored the title and made the movements last as long as he wanted.
> 
> No, 4'33" does not exist "in the same way as any other music." It does not exist as music at all. I assert that, not "in the face of all the evidence," but in the _absence_ of anything I acknowledge to be evidence.
> 
> What do I think I'm accomplishing? Well, what do you think _you're_ accomplishing? What is _anyone_ around here accomplishing? What did Cage think _he_ was accomplishing? What is Peters Publishing House accomplishing besides cashing in on the name of john Cage (although one has to wonder why anyone would need to buy a score which they already had memorized).
> 
> But, if you really want to know, what I'm accomplishing is articulating an intellectual position which some people, in the peculiar culture of our time, may not have articulated. Some people may find that useful or interesting. Those who don't - well, they know what they can do.


'. . . _but not by all people_.'

Absolutely and without cavil or qualification, 'not by all people.'

Some people may call insolent noise 'ambient sound,' or pretend that a null set of 'non-existence' is really 'something' rather than 'nothing,'- and that is their right. Even Wall Street calls imaginary values like toxic asset derivative currency default swaps "assets."

However, it doesn't mean that other people have to recognize it as such; or even to recognize it at _all_- especially when they're playing the EMI Karajan Verdi _Otello_ full force in the backround, as I am in fact doing right now._ ;D_


----------



## ahammel

DeepR said:


> Scored, published, performed... music or not, I don't care: it's still an idea that doesn't require any kind of craft or skill to compose or perform. It could've been created by anyone.


Music is unlike gymnastics in that you do not get extra points from the Russian judge for degree of difficulty.


----------



## arpeggio

*It is What It Is*

'some guy' and I have submitted the following observations concerning this issue in just this one thread:



some guy said:


> It's also not going to change anyone's mind who already accepts it as being what it is, a piece of music. Why would it?





arpeggio said:


> I think the entire discussion on whether or not 4'33" is music is bogus. It is what it is. I consider it theater. Some might considerate invisible architecture.
> 
> I still think it is a work of whatever you want to categorize it were the audience is a performer.





arpeggio said:


> I do not think people who hate 4'33" are ignorant. I know many intelligent people who hate Mozart. Most of the anti-Cage people are very intelligent. Most of the people I know who love Cage are very intelligent. The problem is really ego.
> 
> I am a very knowledgeable, smart person and I hate Cage so he must be bad.
> 
> I am a very knowledgeable, smart person and I love Cage so the people who hate him must be ignorant.
> 
> So we now have the absurd situation of two opposing groups of very intelligent people calling each other stupid :scold: and getting thread closed down because the other side was mean to me.
> 
> The irony is that at one time I considered Cage a fraud. As a result of this debate the rhetoric of the anti-Cage faction has succeeded in convincing me that Cage is a great composer and discovering works of Cage that I enjoy.
> 
> The pro-Cage people are actually pretty harmless. Just leave them alone.





arpeggio said:


> I would like to reinforce what "ArtMusic" stated.
> 
> The debate on whether of not _4'33'_ is music is bogus. Many of us do not consider it music. That is just our opinion. In spite of this there is a significant body of the musical community that does consider it music. Arguing with them about it is an exercise in futility.
> 
> And if we win the argument, what does that mean? Since it is not music no one can discuss it in this forum? If a person is discussing the other works of Cage they can not mention _4'33"_ in the post since it is not music? Do some have an innate urge to prove to the world it is not music? I do not understand what we would accomplish by winning the argument. I don't care what other people think what _4'33"_ is. I have no problem if others think it is music. It is just their opinion and I can live with it. :cheers:


Others have submitted similar observations. (Note: In a rare moment Art and I agree on something.)

There is one group of members who consider it "music".

There is another group of members who think it is not "music".

Then there are members who do not care.

I have reviewed the activity and it appears that no one in any of the above camps has succeeded in changing anyone's mind.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Bill Watterson, in his comic strip Calvin & Hobbes, observed:

_"People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world."_

It would seem that there are two opposing camps vying for the title of "sophisticates". Is it possible that one camp is sadly deluded?


----------



## ahammel

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Bill Watterson, in his comic strip Calvin & Hobbes, observed:
> 
> _"People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world."_
> 
> It would seem that there are two opposing camps vying for the title of "sophisticates". Is it possible that one camp is sadly deluded?


Or maybe people are sincerely interested in the piece.


----------



## Woodduck

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Bill Watterson, in his comic strip Calvin & Hobbes, observed:
> 
> _"People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world."_
> 
> It would seem that there are two opposing camps vying for the title of "sophisticates". Is it possible that one camp is sadly deluded?


It is not _im_possible.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> There is one group of members who consider it "music".
> 
> There is another group of members who think it is not "music".
> 
> Then there are members who do not care.
> 
> I have reviewed the activity and it appears that no one in any of the above camps has succeeded in changing anyone's mind.


Two questions:

Do you think those three groups include everyone?

Is the primary purpose of expressing ideas to win agreement?


----------



## Ludric

DeepR said:


> Scored, published, performed... music or not, I don't care: it's still an idea that doesn't require any kind of craft or skill to compose or perform. It could've been created by anyone. Maybe something similar had already been done before by some anonymous person, by means of a joke, or not... but I guess when a composer gets it published and performed because he already has a name, then it's suddenly something of worth, sacred even!


The idea to compose a piece of "music" with no performed sounds has been done by others before Cage, on several occasions, in fact:

-Alphonse Allais's _Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man_ (1897)
-Erwin Schulhoff's _Fünf Pittoresken_ (1919) contains a movement that consists of rests.
-Yves Klein's _Monotone-Silence Symphony_ (1949) contains two movements consisting of silence.

In other words, John Cage could be considered a plagiarist. However, if you attempt to have your own composition consisting of silence published, you will promptly be contacted by Peters Edition for a lawsuit over copyright infringement.


----------



## Celloman

If you think it's music, then it is.

If someone else thinks it isn't, then it's not.

Case closed!


----------



## arpeggio

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Bill Watterson, in his comic strip Calvin & Hobbes, observed:
> 
> _"People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world."_
> 
> It would seem that there are two opposing camps vying for the title of "sophisticates". Is it possible that one camp is sadly deluded?


.........................Why not both?


----------



## arpeggio

Woodduck said:


> Two questions:
> 
> Do you think those three groups include everyone?
> 
> Is the primary purpose of expressing ideas to win agreement?


"Do you think those three groups include everyone?"

I do not know. There may be fourteen groups. I am sorry that I am not the smartest bulb here. It just seems to some of us that in spite of all of the activity no one has succeeded in changing anyone's mind. Has anyone out their changed their minds concerning the work as a result of all of these discussions?

Well in a sense I have. I have mentioned in other posts that one time I considered Cage a fraud, now as a result of the anti-Cage rhetoric I am not sure. As far as _4'33"_ at one time I considered it music, then I went through a phase where I thought it was nothing, I am now in a it is theater phase. I went into the theater phase long before I became a Talk Classical Member.

As a result of all of this activity I am with Celloman:



Celloman said:


> If you think it's music, then it is.
> 
> If someone else thinks it isn't, then it's not.
> 
> Case closed!


"Is the primary purpose of expressing ideas to win agreement?"

Again, I do not know. This is a SWAG on my part. I have listened to this exact same rhetoric for fifty years. It seems as if some people are awfully obsessed with trying to make a point.

As I have expressed in other threads I have had experiences with orchestra boards whose objective was to ban the performance of new fangled atonal or whatever you want to call it non-music, including Cage.

Just a few months ago I had an exchange with a person who felt that a group I played with should only play music real people want to hear. He objected to the Hindemith _Symphony in Bb_. One guess what he thinks of Cage.

If there is another explanation, I am all ears.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Woodduck said:


> In the peculiar culture of our time, environmental noise has been considered by some people to be music, blank canvases have been considered by some people to be paintings, and objects salvaged from dumps have been considered by some people to be sculpture.
> 
> But not by all people.
> 
> In this peculiar culture, your answer to the question "What determines whether something should be considered music?" is: whatever some people have managed to get performed by musicians and printed and sold by a music publisher.
> 
> Some people consider that answer spurious.
> 
> I have looked at the "score" of 4'33." It consists of two pages. There's a little message on page 1 telling us when the work was performed and that the "movements may last any length of time" (really?...) The actual "work," on page 2, consists of "I Tacet, II Tacet, III Tacet."
> 
> There is nothing else. That's it. That's all she wrote. Play it, Sam.


Woodduck, the more you listen to electronic music, the more you realize that environmental, everyday, ambient, aleatoric sounds are essential building blocks of something deeply expressive. I agree that 4'33" isn't an experience like a Haydn or a Stravinsky: it's different. But it still is a beautiful, artistic, and visceral auditory experience, and therefore it is music.

I don't think I can convince you of its musicality, and that's fine. But I still highly encourage you (and everyone else who might not think of 4'33" as music) to explore the classic works of electronic music. ahammel has mentioned Francisco Lopez. He's a great contemporary worker in the genre. For the classics, there's Varese, Stockhausen, Berio, Nono, and Xenakis. Listen to Berio's Visage, or Xenakis's Bohor, or Cage's Cartridge Music, or Parmegiani's Espèces d'espaces, or Schumacher's El Espejo de Alicia.

Electronic classical music explores the sonic viscerality of the everyday. And this everyday-ness makes it _more_ musical and _more_ beautiful, not less.

4'33" is a totally natural extension of this sound world. It's not this freaky philosophical stunt that some believe it to be.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

spokanedaniel said:


> Here's a question for folks:
> 
> For those of you who regard 4'33" as music, would you be annoyed if the person in front of you talked in a normal tone of voice to his seat neighbor? How about if he played a kazoo? How about if he played a kazoo badly? It's all about ambient sounds, after all, so would it be rude of audience members to make more sounds than they would while the musicians are actually playing their instruments? Is there any real difference between 4'33" and the intermission of a concert?


That would diminish the experience. 4'33" is meant to be quiet and constructed to be quiet (not silent because that's impossible, but at least quiet). The quietness and open listening opens up a wonderful interaction between the crowd members. And even if you're listening to it at home through a recording, the experience is still enjoyable, even though you can only enjoy that crowd interaction as a one-way thing.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> It would seem that there are two opposing camps vying for the title of "sophisticates". Is it possible that one camp is sadly deluded?


When making such statements, myself, I always try to consider the possibility of my own delusion. _Pure_ arrogance is rarely a quality seen in the highest echelon of IQ-holders in our little world. I suggest you give such considerations a try.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Is the primary purpose of expressing ideas to win agreement?


No, but looking at the unrelenting nature of certain posters, I daresay there are some who are fooled.


----------



## Guest

SeptimalTritone said:


> But it still is a beautiful, artistic, and visceral auditory experience, and therefore it is music.


And 'music' that is not "beautiful, artistic, and visceral [etc]" isn't music? That definition may suit an individual in his relationship to a particular piece, but if another individual doesn't find it so, it fails.



some guy said:


> If anyone's pretending, it's these people. Professionals. Professional musicians. Of course, y'all are free to disagree with Edition Peters and with dozens of professional musicians about this, but why? These aren't pranksters. These aren't naive kids. These aren't besmitten fans. These are professionals, business men and women and musicians. They're not having you on, truly.


One of the points of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes was that it was the Naive Kid who told the truth, while the Professionals failed.

Whatever argument might be advanced to convince the doubters, that ain't one of them.



some guy said:


> You really think it's important to assert over and over again in the face of all the evidence that this piece of music is not a piece of music because you feel like it's not?


Well, it's obviously important to some people to assert in every thread about this that it _*is *_music...


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> In this peculiar culture, your answer to the question "What determines whether something should be considered music?" is: whatever some people *have managed to get* performed by musicians and printed and sold by a music publisher.


Nice poisoning of the well. "Have managed to get" indeed. Edition Peters were tricked into printing that! Those stupid, naive musicians thought they were playing a real piece. What chumps!

Nope. I ain't buyin' it, Woodduck. Besides, as I have already said before, it is not so much that being published by Peter that proves 4'33" is a piece of music; it's that Peters published 4'33" because it's a piece of music. Piece of music is what they started with before going into it.

I ain't buyin' the "peculiar culture" thing, either. Peculiar implies a norm. And it looks to me from where I'm sitting that you think you've got a lock on "normal. You and "some people." Well, you don't.



Woodduck said:


> Some people consider that answer spurious.


OK. But why? Why do these anonymous people brought into the discussion to validate an unsupported assertion think that that answer is spurious? Explain. (You know, there are also some people who think that unexplained assertions are spurious.)



Woodduck said:


> I have looked at the "score" of 4'33." It consists of two pages. There's a little message on page 1 telling us when the work was performed and that the "movements may last any length of time" (really?...) The actual "work," on page 2, consists of "I Tacet, II Tacet, III Tacet."
> 
> There is nothing else.


What else does there need to be?

Also, scare quotes around "score" and "work" are pretty spurious, wouldn't you agree? Substituting punctuation for rational discourse. Sounds fishy to me. Nope, I ain't buyin' it.



Woodduck said:


> What do I think I'm accomplishing? Well, what do you think _you're_ accomplishing?


Really? People still think they can dodge questions by simply asking the same question back at the person asking?

But that still leaves the original question unanswered. No one's supposed to notice that? We're all supposed to get all caught up in the string of further questions and just forget the orginal question lying there unanswered?

I dunno. That seems to assume a pretty simple-minded group to be so easily distracted.

But soft. Here comes an answer. Sweet!!



Woodduck said:


> But, if you really want to know, what I'm accomplishing is articulating an intellectual position which some people, in the peculiar culture of our time, may not have articulated. Some people may find that useful or interesting. Those who don't - well, they know what they can do.


Oh. I see. One of three or four canards that have been repeated ad infinitum for over sixty years is an intellectual position that may not have been articulated.

Nothing about whether it was worth articulating, either, just that maybe some people hadn't articulated. I'm not surprised. A position not worth articulating probably shouldn't be articulated. OK. I guess it had to be articulated so we could see its worth. I would have rejected it _before_ I articulated it. Me and a bunch of peculiar people. David Tudor. Larry Solomon. Madeleine Shapiro. Ricardo Mandolini.


----------



## Ingélou

arpeggio said:


> There is one group of members who consider it "music".
> 
> There is another group of members who think it is not "music".
> 
> Then there are members who do not care.


Quite a few other groups are possible.

One group, to which I belong, thinks that it is 'music' in the sense that it can be performed in a concert and published as sheet music but 'not music' in that it is not a crafted organisation of sounds.

Another group, to which I also belong, does not specially care whether 4'33" is acclaimed as music or not, but feels 'quite amused and entertained' by the debate.

Then there is the group that never heard of 4'33" - I used to belong to this group till I joined TC.

Also the group that admires John Cage for his daring concept - I don't belong to this group.

The group that thinks John Cage has not so much composed a piece of music but a 'meta-piece' that invites us to ponder the nature of music - I'm thinking of sending in my subscription money.

The group that admires John Cage for copyrighting an idea that gets him noticed and earns him money without doing much work for it - I don't say that I do belong to this group, but I am tempted...


----------



## Skilmarilion

ahammel said:


> So music intended to function at ambient noise isn't a thing or isn't music, then?
> 
> How about music constructed from recordings of ambient noise (such as Francisco Lopez's _La Selva_ or _Wind: Patagonia_)?


Well any point at which ambient sounds become ambient music can get blurry. Your example (not that I know it) seems to be one where ambient sounds are used to create ambient music.

That's different to 4'33", where the ambient sounds are supposed *to be* the music.

Anyway, this semantics game isn't particularly interesting and doesn't seem to be going anywhere.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Ingélou said:


> Quite a few other groups are possible.
> 
> One group, to which I belong, thinks that it is 'music' in the sense that it can be performed in a concert and published as sheet music but 'not music' in that it is not a crafted organisation of sounds.
> 
> Another group, to which I also belong, does not specially care whether 4'33" is acclaimed as music or not, but feels 'quite amused and entertained' by the debate.
> 
> Then there is the group that never heard of 4'33" - I used to belong to this group till I joined TC.
> 
> *Also the group that admires John Cage for his daring concept *- I don't belong to this group.
> 
> The group that thinks John Cage has not so much composed a piece of music but a 'meta-piece' that invites us to ponder the nature of music - I'm thinking of sending in my subscription money.
> 
> The group that admires John Cage for copyrighting an idea that gets him noticed and earns him money without doing much work for it - I don't say that I do belong to this group, but I am tempted...


Well said!

Re: the bolded line, Ludric's very interesting post (#280) may suggest that even the concept wasn't so daring in the first place.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

I find it remarkable that 4'33 of silence has generated more pages of comments than many a piece of similar length that requires actual notes to be played.

This is in no way meant as a criticism of the thread or any of the posts. More as an observation of a phenomenon I don't really understand.


----------



## Haydn man

If I went to the Tate Gallery and knocked a hole in the wall, put a picture frame around it and invited people to look at my 'picture' of the world outside, do you think I could start the same argument in the art community?


----------



## Ingélou

Haydn man said:


> If I went to the Tate Gallery and knocked a hole in the wall, put a picture frame around it and invited people to look at my 'picture' of the world outside, do you think I could start the same argument in the art community?


Probably not, as the 'installation' is in vogue in the Art World.






You might provoke a few world-weary sighs, though - or win the next Turner Prize.


----------



## Guest

GregMitchell said:


> I find it remarkable that 4'33 of silence has generated more pages of comments than many a piece of similar length that requires actual notes to be played.
> 
> This is in no way meant as a criticism of the thread or any of the posts. More as an observation of a phenomenon I don't really understand.


That possibly starts with the "understanding" of it being 4'33" of silence.


----------



## Guest

arpeggio,

It just now occurred to me that one of the groups has been mischaracterized.

The group that comes down on the side of 4'33" as a piece of music is not asserting that it is in the same way that the group that says it's not. The group that says it is has been saying that more as a counter to the assertion that it's not.

I don't recall anyone coming on any thread just to say that it is a piece of music. That's just been a given. The assertion and accompanying arguments come as counters to the assertion that it's not.

So it's "attack/defense."

For the rationale behind coming onto threads about Cage to assert that it's not really a piece of music, we are still waiting. For the fervor with which this conclusion is asserted, there is also no equivalent. The fervor of those who think the piece is a piece of music comes--at least in my case--from wanting the record to be straight. I don't suppose it really matters if someone argues that the earth is not round, either, but I'll bet that most of us (all of us) would want to counter that assertion.

The real point of all of this, of course, and what accounts for what some people are reacting to with bewilderment (or with expressions of bewilderment, anyway) is "What is music?" and "Who gets to decide?" Obviously, there's more to it than that. There's the clear sense of affront that comes across in most of the posts that claim it's not a piece of music. How dare that charlatan Cage come and redefine music like that! It's been brought up before, but it gets lost in the shuffle: 4'33" is not the first piece of indeterminate music that Cage wrote. Neither was it the last. 

Maybe we should all leave this thread and go make another one: what is indeterminacy and is it a valid way to compose? There would still be the same handicaps as we're suffering with here, but that would be true regardless of the topic. I don't think much of Wagner, but I'm just as put-out by people who hardly ever listen to his music and who don't really understand its philosophical underpinnings who nonetheless go onto Wagner threads in order to bash his music. Yeah, you heard right. Its philosophical underpinnings. All music by anyone has ideas behind it. Wagner spent years formulating and even giving lectures about the "new" music that he was working on before anyone had a chance to hear even one note of it.

Cage was perhaps too confident that people would not need all the preparation? (Hmmm. Nasty little pun lurking in that comment, isn't there?)

Well, it's not going to do any good to say it, but Cage did have very logical and well-thought out reasons for everything he did as well. You may reject his conclusions, but to dismiss the intelligence and even the inevitability of his choices is to substitute personal whimsy for genuine thought. At best. (At worst, the conclusions come prior to even knowing what Cage thought or what he has said about how he made his decisions. Conclusions are things that are really much much better when they come after knowledge.)


----------



## Ingélou

some guy said:


> ...
> I don't recall anyone coming on any thread just to say that it is a piece of music. That's just been a given. The assertion and accompanying arguments come as counters to the assertion that it's not.
> 
> So it's "attack/defense."


Not as simple as that, in my view.

The *thread title* - *Why is 4'33" disparaged, while Western forms of sacred music get their own forum? *- implies that 4'33" is sacred music.

Even some of those who think that 4'33" is music don't think it's sacred.

Possibly you can argue that the OP is not saying that 4'33" is 'sacred', but that it is music that is quite as valid as the Western sacred music that has its own forum. - Though if the OP *isn't* arguing that Cage's piece is sacred, why post on the 'Religious Music' forum, which in any case *doesn't specify* 'Western' and could just as easily feature Hindu classical music.

Now, I don't like seeing things in adversarial terms but you *could *say that the OP is an 'attack' because it is making a controversial statement about the relative worth of five minutes of silence-with-ambient-sound and the abundant and glorious (imo) Church Music tradition. So those who demur at classifying 4'33" as music would be the ones who are 'defending'.

What are they defending? Music, but also language & philosophy. This is a linguistic question as much as anything, so anyone who speaks or writes has a view, and the right to a view. One needs no special musical skill to join the debate.

Is 4'33" 'music' - are you *for*, or *against*, or like me, *lolling on the fence*?


----------



## Skilmarilion

Ingélou said:


> Probably not, as the 'installation' is in vogue in the Art World.
> 
> ...
> 
> You might provoke a few world-weary sighs, though - or win the next Turner Prize.


Not only is that surely a supreme masterwork and undoubtedly sacred, but it makes Caravaggio's _The Calling of St Matthew_ seem like amateur hackwork!


----------



## Guest

I think it's a dubious business, attributing motives to composers. I reject the idea that Cage _must_ have written the piece for cynical reasons, for example. It's possible that he did, but I'd be reluctant to reject the work on the grounds that his motives were somehow...improper.

That also applies to attributing motives to posters choosing to contribute to the discussion.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Ingélou said:


> You might provoke a few world-weary sighs, though - or win the next Turner Prize.


Also, what a disgrace that that prize is named after Turner, and then awarded to a "work of art" that may as well be credited to anyone who has ever turned a light switch on and off.


----------



## spokanedaniel

ahammel said:


> Music is unlike gymnastics in that you do not get extra points from the Russian judge for degree of difficulty.


I definitely give added points to the performer for degree of difficulty. Hilary Hahn, for example, plays pieces that are FAR more difficult than those I attempted (very badly) to play during the brief time in my childhood when I attempted to study the violin. As a general thing, the music I like best is far more difficult to perform than the more popular music I hear about me when out in public or turning on the radio to a random station.



arpeggio said:


> ... I have reviewed the activity and it appears that no one in any of the above camps has succeeded in changing anyone's mind.


Changing minds is not necessarily the purpose of conversation. Exchanging ideas more often is, as well as learning to understand others and be understood by them.



Haydn man said:


> If I went to the Tate Gallery and knocked a hole in the wall, put a picture frame around it and invited people to look at my 'picture' of the world outside, do you think I could start the same argument in the art community?


It is a great sadness to me that in the art community, such things as that, and worse, are generally accepted as art. A few like me would argue, but your work would fetch a high price if you managed to become sufficiently well-known.

I do not like the creations of John Cage. For me, personally, none of it is music. Thus, 4'33" is in my opinion the best thing he's done. However, and I wish to stress this: I most definitely do not regard those who disagree with me as being either stupid or ignorant. They merely have different likes or dislikes than mine, and different opinions about what constitutes music. And my purpose in participating in this thread is to learn why they feel the way they do and express why I feel the way I do. I derive some comfort in knowing that I am not alone in my opinions, and even some enjoyment in seeing that there is a diversity of opinions. I assert that 4'33" is not music by any rational definition. I can respect, and even be friends with, people who disagree with me. In fact, I don't believe that a single one of my friends agrees with me on all the matters on which I have strong opinions.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> No, 4'33" does not exist "in the same way as any other music." It does not exist as music at all. I assert that, not "in the face of all the evidence," but in the _absence_ of anything I acknowledge to be evidence.


It might be fun to infiltrate a performance of 4'33'' with a couple of pals and sing a rondeau by Dufay, just to make the ambient noise more interesting. That, I think, would immeasurably improve Cage's work. I wonder if that would be considered disruptive? Or is whatever ambient noise happens to occur acceptable?


----------



## Skilmarilion

EdwardBast said:


> It might be fun to infiltrate a performance of 4'33'' with a couple of pals and sing a rondeau by Dufay, just to make the ambient noise more interesting. That, I think, would immeasurably improve Cage's work. I wonder if that would be considered disruptive? Or is whatever ambient noise happens to occur acceptable?


Well it would certainly improve the paying audience's value for money.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

I'll be honest and say I don't like what I've heard of John Cage. I'm assuming people are allowed to like or dislike whatever they choose. There are people on this forum who don't like Verdi. I find that difficult to fathom, but it's their prerogative. 

On the other hand, I could say the only piece of Cage's that I do like is 4'33". This is not me being facetious. This is a serious point. Given that the score apparently stipulates that the piece does not have to be 4'33" in length, one might even say that it's the only piece I listen to every day at some point. Or do I have to sit down and make a conscious decision that I am going to listen to 4'33". Does 4'33 only happen if I take the trouble to sit down and listen to it properly, or is it happening at some point all around us all the time? 

I am not listening to or playing any music whilst I type this. Could I be listening to 4'33" now?


----------



## Ingélou

EdwardBast said:


> It might be fun to infiltrate a performance of 4'33'' with a couple of pals and sing a rondeau by Dufay, just to make the ambient noise more interesting. That, I think, would immeasurably improve Cage's work. I wonder if that would be considered disruptive? Or is whatever ambient noise happens to occur acceptable?


I'd love your Dufay, but I think some of the audience would be upset if you sang a rondeau, as they'd be expecting *yer-normal-ambient-noise*, and you'd be outraging conventions. What if they demanded their money back?

Anyway, I'm sure I could use the four minutes plus to contemplate the state of my soul or my wardrobe; and if really desperate, I could always take a peek at the crossword that Taggart & I take to concerts to while away the forty minutes before it starts - you have to get there absurdly early if you want a reasonably-good seat at a Norwich Baroque concert.


----------



## arpeggio

OK. I goofed again and violated Murphy's Law Number 248:

"There are two types of people in the world. Those who divide people into two groups and those who do not."

I am still curious if there are any others like me who have changed their minds as a consequence of this debate. For example, a person who used to think it was not a piece of music but now believes it is. Like a non-Talk Classical, pro-Cage friend who convinced me that it may be theater.


----------



## arpeggio

EdwardBast said:


> It might be fun to infiltrate a performance of 4'33'' with a couple of pals and sing a rondeau by Dufay, just to make the ambient noise more interesting. That, I think, would immeasurably improve Cage's work. I wonder if that would be considered disruptive? Or is whatever ambient noise happens to occur acceptable?


Actually I think Cage would love the idea. It would be comparable to that Radio Piece. In this case the perpetrators of the whatever would be the audience.


----------



## ahammel

Skilmarilion said:


> Well any point at which ambient sounds become ambient music can get blurry. Your example (not that I know it) seems to be one where ambient sounds are used to create ambient music.
> 
> That's different to 4'33", where the ambient sounds are supposed *to be* the music.
> 
> Anyway, this semantics game isn't particularly interesting and doesn't seem to be going anywhere.


I think you are making a highly artificial distinction, but I agree that we may as well leave it at that.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

nathanb said:


> When making such statements, myself, I always try to consider the possibility of my own delusion. _Pure_ arrogance is rarely a quality seen in the highest echelon of IQ-holders in our little world. I suggest you give such considerations a try.


Why _should _StlukesguildOhio be humble?- he's a _real _artist.

When one can back up that Runway 'strut' its not 'arrogance' but rather 'pride.'

You know: positive self-esteem.

The stuff Aristotle teaches us about.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

GregMitchell said:


> I'll be honest and say I don't like what I've heard of John Cage. I'm assuming people are allowed to like or dislike whatever they choose. There are people on this forum who don't like Verdi. I find that difficult to fathom, but it's their prerogative.
> 
> On the other hand, I could say the only piece of Cage's that I do like is 4'33". This is not me being facetious. This is a serious point. Given that the score apparently stipulates that the piece does not have to be 4'33" in length, one might even say that it's the only piece I listen to every day at some point. Or do I have to sit down and make a conscious decision that I am going to listen to 4'33". Does 4'33 only happen if I take the trouble to sit down and listen to it properly, or is it happening at some point all around us all the time?
> 
> I am not listening to or playing any music whilst I type this. Could I be listening to 4'33" now?


There was a probling, analytical, and unusually intellectually precocious and searching child who would always ask his fifth grade teacher questions about things 'others' considered to be self-evident and settled.

The 'teacher' thought that the child was retarded and seriously considered expulsing him from class.

That 'kid' was Thomas Edison.


----------



## DeepR

A recording of 4'33" would not be ambient music, but more like a "field recording" inside a concert hall. Except if the listener knows it's 4'33". Then it's a profound thing.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Why _should _StlukesguildOhio be humble?- he's a _real _artist.


And we're to just take your word for it? Any proof?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

_SLG (quote)- It would seem that there are two opposing camps vying for the title of "sophisticates". Is it possible that one camp is sadly deluded?_

nathanb- When making such statements, myself, I always try to consider the possibility of my own delusion. Pure arrogance is rarely a quality seen in the highest echelon of IQ-holders in our little world. I suggest you give such considerations a try.

Statement? I put forth a question. It would seem you have made an assumption as to who is or is not "deluded" and added to this something that might be considered a personal insult. By the way... a good many of those of the highest level of intelligence... or highest level of achievement... have been known to have been less than humble at times. Two words: Richard Wagner. :tiphat:


----------



## Marschallin Blair

some guy said:


> And we're to just take your word for it? Any proof?


Ab-so-_LUUUUUUUUUUUTE_-leeeeeeeee <handing you a Bordeaux claret>.

Witness 'Exhibit A' over here on the wall of the naked women plashing in the Amazon.

_Gorgeous. . . _

Okay, your turn.

Prove 4'33" is art.


----------



## Woodduck

Some guy writes:

For the rationale behind coming onto threads about Cage to assert that it's not really a piece of music, we are still waiting. For the fervor with which this conclusion is asserted, there is also no equivalent. The fervor of those who think the piece is a piece of music comes--at least in my case--from wanting the record to be straight. I don't suppose it really matters if someone argues that the earth is not round, either, but I'll bet that most of us (all of us) would want to counter that assertion.

Wait no longer! The rationale for coming onto this thread is that the thread asks "Why is 4'33" disparaged?" That sounds to me like an invitation to say why 4'33" is disparaged (or disliked, or criticized, or questioned in some way). I'm not sure how much "fervor" any of us are experiencing, but your comparison of those you oppose to flat-earthers certainly has "no equivalent."

The real point of all of this, of course, and what accounts for what some people are reacting to with bewilderment (or with expressions of bewilderment, anyway) is "What is music?" and "Who gets to decide?" Obviously, there's more to it than that. There's the clear sense of affront that comes across in most of the posts that claim it's not a piece of music.

Yes, the underlying question is "What is music?" It is not "_Who_ gets to decide?", but rather "_What are the reasons_ for one's definition of music?" We _all_ get to "decide," and we won't all agree, but some of us find the question interesting. The "clear sense of affront" may seem clear to you, but don't be too clear about how affronted anyone besides you may be feeling. Speaking for myself, I feel no personal affront (or bewilderment, by the way) - but I do perceive an affront to reason and common sense.

Cage did have very logical and well-thought out reasons for everything he did as well. You may reject his conclusions, but to dismiss the intelligence and even the inevitability of his choices is to substitute personal whimsy for genuine thought. At best. (At worst, the conclusions come prior to even knowing what Cage thought or what he has said about how he made his decisions. Conclusions are things that are really much much better when they come after knowledge.)

The short form of this is the old and tired "You don't like it (or accept it, or see its validity or value) because you don't _understand_ it." On the contrary, I (and plenty of others by this point in history) understand quite well what Cage was up to in 4'33." We don't find it necessary to question his intelligence or his intentions.

When you asked me what I thought I was accomplishing in arguing that 4'33" should not properly be called music, I answered: "What I'm accomplishing is articulating an intellectual position which some people, in the peculiar culture of our time, may not have articulated. Some people may find that useful or interesting." If you look back over my earlier posts on the subject, you will find that I have given reasons for my position. But rather than address those, you say:

Oh. I see. One of three or four canards that have been repeated ad infinitum for over sixty years is an intellectual position that may not have been articulated. Nothing about whether it was worth articulating, either, just that maybe some people hadn't articulated. I'm not surprised. A position not worth articulating probably shouldn't be articulated. OK. I guess it had to be articulated so we could see its worth. I would have rejected it before I articulated it. Me and a bunch of peculiar people. David Tudor. Larry Solomon. Madeleine Shapiro. Ricardo Mandolini. 

Passing over the insulting nature of this, I will - begging the indulgence of anyone reading this - repeat the post in which I've most thoroughly stated the position you disparage. (It isn't all I've said or could say, but it will do for now.) Here is Post #165 from 2/4/15:

The real debate is whether the definition of "music" ought to include the sort of thing 4'33" is. That singular production is in a very noticeable way not the sort of thing mankind has traditionally defined as "music." The question is whether any purpose is served by changing that definition to accommodate it.

Definitions are provisional and debatable, but they are not, and should not be, arrived at arbitrarily. Neither should they be changed arbitrarily. They are tools of thought, and tools should be chosen according to the requirements of the task. The major task, always, is to make clear what it is we are talking about. With regard to 4'33," the question to ask is: does 4'33" fit the criteria generally regarded as decisive in designating a thing as a piece of music? What does it have in common with other things so designated? How does it resemble those things - and how does it differ from them? Are its resemblances sufficiently fundamental, and its differences sufficiently incidental, to make "music" a useful designation? Or are its differences sufficiently fundamental, and its resemblances sufficiently incidental, to make a different designation more useful?

This is the way definitions are created, and the way intellectual chaos and the reign of nonsense is avoided.

Traditionally, music has been defined, minimally, as sound organized by human beings to be performed by human beings and listened to by human beings. Some definitions of music have sought to include various purposes for which music is made, whether anthropological, psychological, or aesthetic; but nearly all definitions, and the common sense of what music is, have assumed its basic physical existence as organized sound created by human beings for human perception. These are properly regarded as fundamental attributes of music, and in combination they distinguish music from other things, including sounds produced for other purposes, sounds produced accidentally, sounds which are not organized, and sounds produced by non-human entities. Sounds of these kinds are properly called "noise" (attaching no value judgment to the word).

4'33" does not exhibit the fundamental attributes of music. In 4'33," sounds which occur during its "performance" are not organized by the nominal "creator" of the "work" and are not performed by the nominal "performer." They are accidental sounds of the sort which would be occurring even if no "creator" or "performer" existed, and even if no one were listening to them. They are, simply, noise. There may be any number of reasons for listening to noise. Doing so may serve practical or aesthetic purposes. It may give us information, and it may give us pleasure. But no purpose served by listening to noise obliterates the useful distinction between noise and music - the fact that music employs sound in a manner, and for purposes, which makes it something distinct from noise.

It's possible to quibble around the edges of this matter. Quibbling, by definition, does not address fundamentals. The fundamentals of what makes music music are not to be obscured or dismissed by quibbling. No one enjoys the "music" of nature - birdcalls, waterfalls, the wind in the pines - more than I do. But a birdcall produced by a nightingale is something fundamentally different from one imitated in a musical work by Beethoven or Messiaen. Noise is only the raw material of music.
4'33" merely directs us to listen to noise: it produces, and consists of, no music at all.

Nothing - not knowledge, not discernment, not clarity, not enlightenment - is gained by calling 4'33" a piece of "music." What should it be called? Anything we wish - provided our choice of designation serves the needs and purposes of human understanding. My choice would be "guided meditation." The category "meditation" - in the sense of a disciplined exercise in awareness - already existed before Cage conceived the work, and seems to cover very nicely the kind of attention Cage wants his audience to practice. I have to say that such awareness would seem to me easier to practice in the absence of the trappings of a concert, but if this is the device by which Cage wants to suggest we practice it, he's perfectly entitled to it, and we are perfectly entitled to participate in the exercise.

Now you are at liberty to characterize my argument as "one of three or four canards" ("canard" being a favorite word of yours for opinions you disagree with - and what are the other two or three, by the way?), and at liberty to announce that you don't find it "worth articulating." But my argument, whether or not it is a canard, is very definitely an argument, and I've advanced it because it is my response to the question posed by the thread, and because some people here - people who are _not_ you - may indeed find it "worth articulating." I would like to add to it here only the summary philosophical point that when someone uses a word - such as "music" - to designate a thing that has never before been designated by that word, and when that thing conspicuously lacks the basic characteristics which have traditionally been assumed to belong to things designated by that word, there is good reason for others not to accept on some presumed "authority" that that word should be redefined to include such a previously excluded thing, and good reason to expect whoever is proposing such a redefinition to justify the overturning of precedent they are proposing.

In your contributions to this thread, the only justification I see you offering for calling 4'33" "music" is based on that very presumption of "authority," the authority of a set of people who agree with you: those "professionals" whose position you think entitles them to a cultural hegemony that we "non-professionals" have not the sophistication or status to challenge, and who expect us to accept whatever version of reality they've concocted in their ivory towers. I'm not acquainted with David Tudor, Larry Solomon, Madeleine Shapiro, and Ricardo Mandolini; nor do I need to be acquainted with them, though if any of them have views on the subject at hand, perhaps you might share those views with us. But I'm unimpressed by name-dropping. As far as I'm concerned, the argument from authority drops like the proverbial lead balloon.


----------



## DavidA

I saw a 'performance' of this piece. Really laughable the players sitting there all serious like and turning the music and not playing. Come on, it's laughable. Like Eric Morecambe saying to Andre Previn, "I'm playing the right notes but not necessarily in the right order!"


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> I saw a 'performance' of this piece. Really laughable the players sitting there all serious like and turning the music and not playing. Come on, it's laughable. Like Eric Morecambe saying to Andre Previn, "I'm playing the right notes but not necessarily in the right order!"


I am absolutely _DY-ING!_

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

The stuff of Python skits all the way.


----------



## Skilmarilion

GregMitchell said:


> I am not listening to or playing any music whilst I type this. Could I be listening to 4'33" now?


Well sure. And I'm sure you wouldn't consider the sound of you typing away on your laptop keyboard to be music.

But if you were to attend a performance of 4'33", took out a laptop during it and started typing away, then the sounds made by you pushing down the keys seemingly will become music. What's more, it becomes _*music composed by John Cage*_.

I just that find that really, really bizarre.


----------



## millionrainbows

The thing that is disheartening in such 4'33" pile-ons, is the lack of understanding of the piece itself.

I'm all for informed opinions, and everyone is entitled to like or dislike something; but for it to be credible, it must be informed. Almost all of the criticisms I've seen here are based on incorrect assumptions, so they come across as more revealing of the posters than of the work being discussed. I think people should take more responsibility for their opinions.

This reminds me of a John Cage saying, in reference to some of the musicians he worked with: "I give people the opportunity of freedom, and they end up making fools of themselves." 

Kinda like those Spring Break beach parties.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Skilmarilion said:


> Well sure. And I'm sure you wouldn't consider the sound of you typing away on your laptop keyboard to be music.
> 
> But if you were to attend a performance of 4'33", took out a laptop during it and started typing away, then the sounds made by you pushing down the keys seemingly will become music. What's more, it becomes _*music composed by John Cage*_.
> 
> I just that find that really, really bizarre.


I find it 'pathological' myself, clinically speaking.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> The thing that is disheartening in such 4'33" pile-ons, is the lack of understanding of the piece itself.
> 
> I'm all for informed opinions, and everyone is entitled to like or dislike something; but for it to be credible, it must be informed. *Almost all of the criticisms I've seen here are based on incorrect assumptions*, so they come across as more revealing of the posters than of the work being discussed. *I think people should take more responsibility for their opinions.*
> 
> This reminds me of a John Cage saying, in reference to some of the musicians he worked with: "I give people the opportunity of freedom, and they end up making fools of themselves."
> 
> Kinda like those Spring Break beach parties.


This is a generalization about "people," their presumed "assumptions," and an "irresponsibility" you impute to them. But you address neither people nor their assumptions. How "responsible" is that?

Specifics, man, specifics! 

Of course I realize you aren't talking about me.


----------



## Johannes V

TresPicos said:


> It always amazes me how people cannot see the conceptual importance of 4'33'', or Duchamp's Fountain, for that matter. You may ridicule them all you want, but you're only revealing your own ignorance.


That those are considered of conceptual importance is not a sign of anything more than cultural decline.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Skilmarilion- ...what a disgrace that that prize is named after Turner...

I've always envisioned Turner, who was known to be short of temper and more apt to spend his free time drinking and engaged in other activities in the lower quarters... the bars and brothels... coming upon the latest Turner Awards Exhibition. I imagine him rushing back to his favorite alcohol drenched haunt red in face and jumping up on the nearest table (he was quite short) to make an announcement: "C'mon boys! It's off to the Tate Modern to tar and feather Nicolas Serota, Charles Saatchi and all their minions... and once the deed is done the drinks are on me!!!" :lol::devil:


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> _SLG (quote)- It would seem that there are two opposing camps vying for the title of "sophisticates". Is it possible that one camp is sadly deluded?_
> 
> nathanb- When making such statements, myself, I always try to consider the possibility of my own delusion. Pure arrogance is rarely a quality seen in the highest echelon of IQ-holders in our little world. I suggest you give such considerations a try.
> 
> Statement? I put forth a question. It would seem you have made an assumption as to who is or is not "deluded" and added to this something that might be considered a personal insult. By the way... a good many of those of the highest level of intelligence... or highest level of achievement... have been known to have been less than humble at times. Two words: Richard Wagner. :tiphat:


I'm glad you consider yourself to be on par with Richard Wagner. You must be a really cool person.

Achievement =/= Intelligence. Intelligence is looking at the universe and realizing (and admitting) that you know nothing, on the grand scale of things. Stupidity is to claim otherwise.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It always amazes me how people cannot see the conceptual importance of 4'33'', or Duchamp's Fountain, for that matter. You may ridicule them all you want, but you're only revealing your own ignorance.

Hmm... "Ignorance, eh?" Anyone who fails to appreciate the "importance" of 4:33 or Duchamp's _Fountain_... in other words anyone who fails to appreciate what you find to be "important" is simply "ignorant".

I wonder, off hand, just how much you actually know about Duchamp's _Fountain_... starting with the fact that it wasn't even "made" or conceived by Duchamp. But then I suppose that wouldn't matter any more than the fact that the random noises at any performance of 4:33 were not composed by Cage.

I also wonder... how does one discern a great vs a poor performance of 4:33?


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But then I suppose that wouldn't matter any more than the fact that the random noises at any performance of 4:33 were not composed by Cage.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(music)

Of the two crucial elements of music - sound and time - Cage designates the "sound" portion of the piece as indeterminate, while giving various instructions for time schedules. I'm glad you're starting to understand.


----------



## Ludric

Personally, I prefer Alphonse Allais's _Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man_ (1897) to John Cage's _4'33"_:


----------



## dgee

Ludric said:


> Personally, I prefer Alphonse Allais's _Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man_ (1897) to John Cage's _4'33"_:


Why specifically? Is it because it is explicitly a "joke" and no more?


----------



## spokanedaniel

millionrainbows said:


> The thing that is disheartening in such 4'33" pile-ons, is the lack of understanding of the piece itself....


What's there to understand? The audience is supposed to listen to the sounds it makes itself. Essentially, Cage is saying that everything is music, just as some modernists have said that everything is art.

But if everything is art, then the word has no meaning. And if all sound, and even absence of sound, is music, then the word has no meaning. Sometimes we want to distinguish a chair from everything that is not a chair. So we have the word "chair." Sometimes we want to distinguish a tree from everything that is not a tree, so we have the word "tree." The definitions may be fuzzy around the edges and we may not always agree on whether a thing is or is not a chair or a tree. But if everything is a chair because anything can be sat upon, or everything is a tree because some modernist has decided to designate it as such, then the words become meaningless and useless.

Once you decide to designate 4'33" as "music," you've rendered the word useless because every sound and every silence is music and the word no longer serves to distinguish one thing from another.

Who gets to decide what is and what is not music? We all do! And our lines of demarcation will be many and varied. But if you choose to say that everything is music, then you might as well cast the word "music" out of the vocabulary. I think a real purpose is served by distinguishing the Bach B-Minor Mass from the random noise of a room full of people. So I persist in drawing the line between music and not-music somewhere between the B-Minor Mass and 4'33".

Personally, I think Cage was rolling on the floor laughing his *** off at all the people who took 4'33" seriously.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

nathanb said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(music)
> 
> Of the two crucial elements of music - sound and time - Cage designates the "sound" portion of the piece as indeterminate, while giving various instructions for time schedules. I'm glad you're starting to understand.
> 
> View attachment 63456


----------



## Ludric

dgee said:


> Why specifically? Is it because it is explicitly a "joke" and no more?


When listened to side by side, both works sound identical, with the only real difference being the length. Are we to value John Cage's work more so because of the _idea_ behind it? That is, are we suppose to judge it differently based on external factors rather than the work itself? If so (and if we are to consider _4'33"_ a piece of music), then are we to value other pieces of music the same way? Are we to value Beethoven's third symphony based on the ideas behind it, rather than the music itself? Are we to value J.S. Bach's_ Mass in B minor_ based on the ideas behind it as well, or let the music speak for itself?


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

By the way, I've just had an idea regarding why 4'33" is such a rough spot for some people. The thing is: 4'33" is an attack from two fronts for those not well-versed in modern techniques. It is a sort of fusion of some pretty radical indeterminacy and some pretty raw musique concrete. People often have trouble accepting one or both of these genres as music, but a more efficient way to reason might be to first diagnose where the disconnect lies.

Idea: Give 4'33" denouncers two links: one to a fairly standard piece of musique concrete and one to a fairly standard piece of indeterminacy. If both pieces can be accepted as music, then logically, 4'33" is a next step. Is it the non-melodious sounds that trouble you or the fact that Cage didn't give standard and explicit direction? Perhaps it easier to address one question at a time.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> spokanedaniel: Essentially, Cage is saying that everything is music, just as some modernists have said that everything is art.
> 
> But if everything is art, then the word has no meaning. And if all sound, and even absence of sound, is music, then the word has no meaning.


Existence exists- tautological enough.

But existence is also 'identity'- where something is what it is as opposed to being something else.

Its an elementary rule of logic extrapolated from the universe around you.

Aristotle expressly identified it in his _Posterior Analytics_ twenty-five centuries ago, and despite the wave/particle 'dualities' of Schrodinger and the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg- the principle is as true now as it ever was.

If quantum mechanics isn't going to get a free ride, I don't see why a charlatan (or 'joker,' depending on your view) like John Cage should.


----------



## dgee

Ludric said:


> When listened to side by side, both works sound identical, with the only real difference being the length. Are we to value John Cage's work more so because of the _idea_ behind it? That is, are we suppose to judge it differently based on external factors rather than the work itself? If so (and if we are to consider _4'33"_ a piece of music), then are we to value other pieces of music the same way? Are we to value Beethoven's third symphony based on the ideas behind it, rather than the music itself? Are we to value J.S. Bach's_ Mass in B minor_ based on the ideas behind it as well, or let the music speak for itself?


In terms of a work that I consider is primarily conceptual, the idea behind it is the work. But then I'm not very smart or motivated to get into this whole phenomenological business


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

By the way, I've just had an idea regarding why 4'33" is such a rough spot for some people. The thing is: 4'33" is an attack from two fronts for those not well-versed in modern techniques.

How many times do we need to hear the same argument? Those who dislike X just don't "get it."

It is rather astounding just how many times this argument is raised... as if it were impossible for an individual to be well-versed in a work of art and the tradition in which it exits... to "get it"... and at the same time have no interest in, or even actively dislike the work in question.

Perhaps as opposed to making repeated assumptions as to the knowledge or intelligence of others, you might just try to entertain the possibility that one may fully understand something and still dislike it. Indeed... the more you understand some things, the more you might find yourself disliking them.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> By the way, I've just had an idea regarding why 4'33" is such a rough spot for some people. The thing is: 4'33" is an attack from two fronts for those not well-versed in modern techniques.
> 
> How many times do we need to hear the same argument? Those who dislike X just don't "get it."
> 
> It is rather astounding just how many times this argument is raised... as if it were impossible for an individual to be well-versed in a work of art and the tradition in which it exits... to "get it"... and at the same time have no interest in, or even actively dislike the work in question.
> 
> Perhaps as opposed to making repeated assumptions as to the knowledge or intelligence of others, you might just try to entertain the possibility that one may fully understand something and still dislike it. Indeed... the more you understand some things, the more you might find yourself disliking them.


No one is telling you that your reasoning must be faulty for you to dislike a work. We are telling you that your reasoning might be faulty to consider a piece of music to be "not music".

I really appreciate your continuation of the ad hominem though. I've never seen that meme before. I don't do drugs.

You have every right to dislike 4'33". But the notion that your dislike negates its status as a piece of music is only furthering a very palpable sense of narcissism. Now, please stay on topic. We are not discussing your likes and dislikes here.


----------



## Ludric

dgee said:


> In terms of a work that I consider is primarily conceptual, the idea behind it is the work. But then I'm not very smart or motivated to get into this whole phenomenological business


Then we are in agreement. I too feel that _4'33"_ is primarily a conceptual work, quite different from the traditional idea of a piece of music which is primarily a crafted work.


----------



## tortkis

spokanedaniel said:


> Personally, I think Cage was rolling on the floor laughing his *** off at all the people who took 4'33" seriously.


No, he told that it was the most important piece that he liked the most, and it became the basis of many of his later works. He took it very seriously and was afraid it would be taken as a joke. There is no evidence supporting what you thought, while there are many records of his own words telling the opposite.


----------



## arpeggio

tortkis said:


> No, he told that it was the most important piece that he liked the most, and it became the basis of many of his later works. He took it very seriously and was afraid it would be taken as a joke. There is no evidence supporting what you thought, while there are many records of his own words telling the opposite.


I do recall that Cage did have a sense of humor.


----------



## Guest

nathanb said:


> pretty radical indeterminacy and some pretty raw musique concrete. People often have trouble accepting one or both of these genres as music,


Perhaps because it isn't?


----------



## KenOC

These infinitely recurring disputes would be more interesting if people would try to come to a definition of "music". Here's a starting point, but probably not an ending point.

Oxford Universal: "That one of the fine arts which is concerned with the combination of sounds with a view to beauty of form and the expression of thought or feeling."

Mirriam-Webster Collegiate: "The science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity."


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> These infinitely recurring disputes would be more interesting if people would try to come to a definition of "music". Here's a starting point, but probably not an ending point.
> 
> Oxford Universal: "That one of the fine arts which is concerned with the combination of sounds with a view to beauty of form and the expression of thought or feeling."
> 
> Mirriam-Webster Collegiate: "The science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity."


Just to be clear. In my last post I was posing the possibility, not asserting the certainty. For me, what is in dispute is not whether 'x' is music, but who has the right to call 'x' music, and whether an individual has the right to reject someone else's assertion. Is it the framing of sound that makes any sound music, or is it the declaration by the 'artist' that it is so? Do old-fashioned notions of music no longer have currency because they are old-fashioned, or because they are 'wrong'? Must I accept the tyranny of the orthodox, or the unorthodox...or treat both imposters just the same?


----------



## Woodduck

nathanb said:


> By the way, I've just had an idea regarding why 4'33" is such a rough spot for some people. The thing is: 4'33" is an attack from two fronts for those not well-versed in modern techniques. It is a sort of fusion of some pretty radical indeterminacy and some pretty raw musique concrete. People often have trouble accepting one or both of these genres as music, but a more efficient way to reason might be to first diagnose where the disconnect lies.
> 
> Idea: Give 4'33" denouncers two links: one to a fairly standard piece of musique concrete and one to a fairly standard piece of indeterminacy. If both pieces can be accepted as music, then logically, 4'33" is a next step. Is it the non-melodious sounds that trouble you or the fact that Cage didn't give standard and explicit direction? Perhaps it easier to address one question at a time.


This might be plausible if 4'33" can be shown to be an example of, or a "next step from," indeterminacy or musique concrete. But is it either of those?

Both indeterminate music and musique concrete consist of sounds produced purposefully by human beings. Someone is selecting sounds and putting them in some kind of order. _Musique concrete_ is music in which the electronically produced or recorded sounds may be of any sort, natural or mechanical. Whatever their origin, they are chosen and arranged by someone into a composition. _Indeterminacy_ has two meanings: either the primary composer leaves some or all of the decisions as to what sounds are produced to the performers, who then become the co-composers or de facto composers of the music; or, the composer structures the process of composition so that his selection of sounds includes an element of chance, and the performers play the result as written.

You are correct in saying that some people would not accept music of the above kinds as music. Those two kinds are not the same, though, and I would point to the element of "indeterminacy" or "chance" as the critical one in drawing a connection to 4'33." The question I see being raised is "What place does chance occupy in the creation of music, and how large a place can it occupy before we no longer have something recognizable as music?"

Obviously, for those who think that any sound, no matter what its source, is music - and I think some people do hold this view - the whole discussion is meaningless. But traditional definitions of music assume a composer, a human being either making sounds or choosing sounds to be made by others. I suppose some people would dislike 4'33", or object to considering it as music, because the sounds heard during its performance are not of a "musical" quality in some limited sense. But my take on most of the objections I see is that people do not accept as music sounds, whatever their qualities, that have no _intention_ behind them - sounds not chosen and arranged by any human being. This might be described as _total indeterminacy_, if we want to assign it a name drawn from the vocabulary of music.

I think that most people simply do not accept the validity, _as music_, of "total indeterminacy." They do not believe that completely accidental, unchosen sounds, for which no one is responsible as composer or performer, are music. And in the case of 4'33," they don't consider the role of John Cage to be that of "composer," for the simple reason that he has not composed anything. He has merely instructed people to assume certain physical positions, positions normally associated with producing and listening to music, and forbidden them to actually produce music, with the expectation that everyone present will instead listen to sounds neither he nor anyone has composed or been consciously responsible for in any way.

The basic objection to considering 4'33" as music is thus not dependent on whether anyone thinks that Cage's "concept" is interesting or worthwhile, or whether they enjoy the experience of participating in its execution, or whether they like the noises they hear while doing so, or whether they think John Cage is just having them on. The questions "Do you think 4'33" is music?","Do you enjoy 4'33"?", and "Do you like John Cage's music or agree with his philosophy of music?" are all different questions. Some of us merely expect that if something is to be called "music" it needs to have been composed, and someone needs to have composed it. That others persist in not understanding this, or in not respecting it as an informed point of view but rather regarding it as a prejudice that needs to be explained as cultural ignorance or some other intellectual or psychological deficiency, is itself something that needs explaining.


----------



## Guest

It's been interesting to see that the same people who argue for strict definitions of music, so as to be able to distinguish it from chairs and trees, have also asserted that everyone gets to decide what music is. Relativity in spades, by determinedly non-relativists. Now there's comedy.

And before you leap to the conclusion that that's some sort of irrelevant diss, I assure you it is not. Comedy is a situation that elicits laughter, regardless of whether a comdian has created that situation or not.

You see? That definition of comedian-less comedy is not equivalent to saying that all situations are comedic, thus rendering the term meaningless. Comedy still means something whether or not you include the activities of comedians.

Now, for me, it is sometimes enjoyable to follow the tortuous paths of arguments that are poorly constructed and pick them apart. It's entertainment value is quite limited, however. But before I decide to stop reading the same canards over and over again ("canard" being my favorite word for referring to canards), here, ONE MORE TIME, some corrections.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> By the way, I've just had an idea regarding why 4'33" is such a rough spot for some people. The thing is: 4'33" is an attack from two fronts for those not well-versed in modern techniques.
> 
> How many times do we need to hear the same argument? Those who dislike X just don't "get it."


And how many times do we have to watch a point being made into a strawman? Destroying a strawman leaves the original point untouched, you know? It's still sitting there, quietly, waiting to be responded to. No wonder it won't go away. It hasn't been addressed! (Before anyone jumps in to make a parallel between that and the canards that just won't go away, let me point out the obvious, which is that there may be any number of reasons why a thing will not go away.)

First the "like/dislike" thing is not a part of the point. The point is about the arguments that people come up with to justify their dislikes, to validate them.

Second, the point itself, which is that some conclusion are in fact simply not well-informed. Some people say that they know what Cage was all about in making 4'33", but then they go on to say things that reveal that indeed they do not. One real obvious one is the completely made-up scenario of Cage laughing his *** off at all the rubes he's fooled. Seriously? This does not illustrate any knowledge of Cage or how he thought (or at least how he said he thought).

The thing that St is calling an argument, in short, is not really an argument. It is an observation. Person A claims to understand 4'33" and then says something that clearly indicates a lack of knowledge. Person B observes that and questions the claim. Person A claims to understand 4'33" but never ever mentions any of the rationale Cage has clearly put forth, or anything about the whole process that led up to that particular piece, even when that would seem to be pertinent. A apparently simply does not know. Person B observes that.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> one may fully understand something and still dislike it.


No one contests this.

On to the comedy needs a comedian theory of music



Woodduck said:


> Some of us merely expect that if something is to be called "music" it needs to have been composed, and someone needs to have composed it. That others persist in not understanding this, or in not respecting it as an informed point of view but rather regarding it as a prejudice that needs to be explained as cultural ignorance or some other intellectual or psychological deficiency, is itself something that needs explaining.


Well, I guess the first bit has already been taken care of. The definition of music that many people have advanced leave out the listeners entirely. Indeed, I have seen it asserted many times in other threads that the great masterpieces would still be great even if nobody listened to them. Well, I find it very peculiar to define music, the whole purpose of which is for listening, without including the listeners.

As for the next bit, we "others" persist in no such thing. We do understand the whole argument about composing. But we think that there is something about the whole "music" situation that is left out by this insistence on a composer--the listener. (I also wonder if the "to be... 'music' it needs to have been composed" also think that improvisation and traditional (uncomposed) music are also not music.)


----------



## ArtMusic

4'33" is really nothing more than contrived perception. Cage comes along and "explained" it, so you sit in a concert hall or wherever and have musician(s) "perform" it. In reality if 4'33" was implicitly performed *without* telling an audience before hand, so that the audience was made to "wait" for four minutes thirty-three seconds, should the experience be any different? Does it suddenly become more (or less) "musical" because we have been made aware that there is silence and forced to listen to apparent silence? So it's all pretentiousness of the highest order.


----------



## dgee

I think someguy is precise in pointing out some of the issues with arguments to date.

In reference to woodduck's above post:



> Both indeterminate music and musique concrete consist of sounds produced purposefully by human beings.


One could argue that Cage has quite purposefully established a duration for which an audience are purposefully led to listen to sounds that may be interminatedly produced. I think this only slightly stretches the above quote and therefore I thoroughly agree with what nathanb had to say. Initially the details of it escaped my rather slow mind but Monsuier Canard's argumentation has drawn the threads together nicely


----------



## dgee

ArtMusic said:


> 4'33" is really nothing more than contrived perception. Cage comes along and "explained" it, so you sit in a concert hall or wherever and have musician(s) "perform" it. In reality if 4'33" was implicitly performed *without* telling an audience before hand, so that the audience was made to "wait" for four minutes thirty-three seconds, should the experience be any different? Does it suddenly become more (or less) "musical" because we have been made aware that there is silence and forced to listen to apparent silence? So it's all pretentiousness of the highest order.


But think of the riches of contrived perception! And think of the difference between attentive listening and inattentive listening. Maybe you're really getting to the bottom of 4'33" - an awakening!

Industry (in this case devotion to thinking about 4'33") is supplying your deficiency!


----------



## Nereffid

When I first heard of 4'33" I thought it was a great idea. I subsequently got a recording of the 1st movement, on a sampler CD, and when I listened to it, I enjoyed it. Still haven't heard the rest of it though.
... But just writing "I listened to it", and even just using the word "it", seems rather daft to me.

I'm happy to have that recording in my music collection - and it's tagged as _classical music_, too - and when we get round to the list of post-1950 works, I'll happily vote for it.
... But still I wonder, is it music? It says something important and entertaining about music, sure. I'm inclined to regard 4'33" as a sort of "exception that proves the rule". It's not music itself, but _the way in which it isn't music_ is so unique and significant that it gets to be included with everything that _is_ music. (Well, as we've seen, it's not unique, and actually I find the context of Schulhoff's silent piece makes it more entertaining than 4'33", but there's no doubt that historically Cage's piece has been much more significant). So really I'm trying to have my Cage and eat it.


----------



## Nereffid

ArtMusic said:


> In reality if 4'33" was implicitly performed *without* telling an audience before hand, so that the audience was made to "wait" for four minutes thirty-three seconds, should the experience be any different? Does it suddenly become more (or less) "musical" because we have been made aware that there is silence and forced to listen to apparent silence? So it's all pretentiousness of the highest order.


I'd imagine the two experiences would be drastically different. In one case you're waiting for something to happen, while in the other you're aware that it's happening. That in of itself is enough to alter the experience.

Not really any different to: on the one hand asking a crowd to observe a minute's silence, and on the other hand holding a minute's silence without telling anyone. Which I trust you'll agree are two different experiences.


----------



## Ingélou

ArtMusic said:


> 4'33" is really nothing more than contrived perception. Cage comes along and "explained" it, so you sit in a concert hall or wherever and have musician(s) "perform" it. In reality if 4'33" was implicitly performed *without* telling an audience before hand, so that the audience was made to "wait" for four minutes thirty-three seconds, should the experience be any different? Does it suddenly become more (or less) "musical" because we have been made aware that there is silence and forced to listen to apparent silence? So it's all pretentiousness of the highest order.


This does make me think.

We are often advised to 'let the music speak for itself' and not to look at sources, explanatory titles, historical background etc if we are to have a pure piece of musical appreciation, unsullied by extraneous emotions.

Here we *have to* have extra-musical prompts before we can appreciate 4'33" at all; it is *impossible* for this piece to speak for itself.

Some of the people who advise against extra-musical knowledge are the same people who admire 4'33" and insist that it is music; which is odd, and a little discombobulating...


----------



## spokanedaniel

nathanb said:


> ... I've just had an idea regarding why 4'33" is such a rough spot for some people. ...


It's not a rough spot for me at all. As I've said, I think it's the best thing Cage ever did. It's just not music.



Ludric said:


> When listened to side by side, both works sound identical, with the only real difference being the length. Are we to value John Cage's work more so because of the _idea_ behind it? That is, are we suppose to judge it differently based on external factors rather than the work itself? If so (and if we are to consider _4'33"_ a piece of music), then are we to value other pieces of music the same way? Are we to value Beethoven's third symphony based on the ideas behind it, rather than the music itself? Are we to value J.S. Bach's_ Mass in B minor_ based on the ideas behind it as well, or let the music speak for itself?


This is an excellent point! I happen to dislike religion. The idea behind Bach's B-Minor Mass was to extoll religion. Thus if I based my judgement of the work on the idea behind it, I would hate it. But I don't do that. I let the music speak for itself, and I love it. It's one of my favorites. Fortunately for me in this instance, I do not know Latin, so it's easier for me to ignore the meaning of the words. (In other contexts, I wish I knew latin, but when listening to the great sacred music of the Baroque I'm glad I don't.) It's harder for me to ignore the words in English-language old-time Gospel music, but there, too, I love the music even though I dislike the idea behind its composition.

Another example: When I was a kid, someone gave me a recorder (the instrument, not the machine). I made sounds with it, and imagined I was composing music. If you judged my "music" solely on the idea, it would stand alongside the repertoire of Mozart. I assure you that had you heard the sounds I was making, you would not feel that the idea was the relevant point. You would judge it by the sounds and would consign them firmly to the category of not-music.


----------



## Skilmarilion

millionrainbows said:


> The thing that is disheartening in such 4'33" pile-ons, is the lack of understanding of the piece itself.
> 
> I'm all for informed opinions, and everyone is entitled to like or dislike something; but for it to be credible, it must be informed. *Almost all of the criticisms I've seen here are based on incorrect assumptions...*


Such as … ? 

That would probably require a lot of elaboration, otherwise it comes across yet again as an accusation that those who don't like 4'33" or don't think it's music, simply *don't understand*.


----------



## DavidA

spokanedaniel said:


> It's not a rough spot for me at all. As I've said, I think it's the best thing Cage ever did. .


Having heard some other of Cage's stuff I would agree!


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> This might be plausible if 4'33" can be shown to be an example of, or a "next step from," indeterminacy or musique concrete. But is it either of those?
> 
> Both indeterminate music and musique concrete consist of sounds produced purposefully by human beings. Someone is selecting sounds and putting them in some kind of order. _Musique concrete_ is music in which the electronically produced or recorded sounds may be of any sort, natural or mechanical. Whatever their origin, they are chosen and arranged by someone into a composition. _Indeterminacy_ has two meanings: either the primary composer leaves some or all of the decisions as to what sounds are produced to the performers, who then become the co-composers or de facto composers of the music; or, the composer structures the process of composition so that his selection of sounds includes an element of chance, and the performers play the result as written.
> 
> You are correct in saying that some people would not accept music of the above kinds as music. Those two kinds are not the same, though, and I would point to the element of "indeterminacy" or "chance" as the critical one in drawing a connection to 4'33." The question I see being raised is "What place does chance occupy in the creation of music, and how large a place can it occupy before we no longer have something recognizable as music?"
> 
> Obviously, for those who think that any sound, no matter what its source, is music - and I think some people do hold this view - the whole discussion is meaningless. But traditional definitions of music assume a composer, a human being either making sounds or choosing sounds to be made by others. I suppose some people would dislike 4'33", or object to considering it as music, because the sounds heard during its performance are not of a "musical" quality in some limited sense. But my take on most of the objections I see is that people do not accept as music sounds, whatever their qualities, that have no _intention_ behind them - sounds not chosen and arranged by any human being. This might be described as _total indeterminacy_, if we want to assign it a name drawn from the vocabulary of music.
> 
> I think that most people simply do not accept the validity, _as music_, of "total indeterminacy." They do not believe that completely accidental, unchosen sounds, for which no one is responsible as composer or performer, are music. And in the case of 4'33," they don't consider the role of John Cage to be that of "composer," for the simple reason that he has not composed anything. He has merely instructed people to assume certain physical positions, positions normally associated with producing and listening to music, and forbidden them to actually produce music, with the expectation that everyone present will instead listen to sounds neither he nor anyone has composed or been consciously responsible for in any way.
> 
> The basic objection to considering 4'33" as music is thus not dependent on whether anyone thinks that Cage's "concept" is interesting or worthwhile, or whether they enjoy the experience of participating in its execution, or whether they like the noises they hear while doing so, or whether they think John Cage is just having them on. The questions "Do you think 4'33" is music?","Do you enjoy 4'33"?", and "Do you like John Cage's music or agree with his philosophy of music?" are all different questions. Some of us merely expect that if something is to be called "music" it needs to have been composed, and someone needs to have composed it. That others persist in not understanding this, or in not respecting it as an informed point of view but rather regarding it as a prejudice that needs to be explained as cultural ignorance or some other intellectual or psychological deficiency, is itself something that needs explaining.


Except for the last paragraph where you argue that 4'33" was not "composed", I feel very content with this post. It is generally a sort of sound argument that brings us to the point where we can more peacefully say "agree to disagree". Much better than an ad-hom fest, don't you think?

Now, I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I *would* like to leave you with a couple things:

Stockhausen, Brown, Cardew (I think), etc... all have composed at least one piece of music in which not a single note was chosen for the performers. Totally indeterminate sound. The only thing that sets this apart from 4'33", of course, is the fact that, while both 4'33" and the rest call for an instrumental force, only 4'33" implies an inclusion of these other "concrete" sounds.

Now, about those concrete sounds. Look to Luc Ferrari, Francisco Lopez, etc. Not an instrumental sound in all the land. Now, these tapes have been arranged for compositional purposes, but what IF they were indeterminate compositions? Indeterminacy didn't stop those other compositions from being music, so why now? Especially when the time schedules and such have been so kindly laid out for us.

I like your idea of "total indeterminacy" - I thought of something like that when forming my own argument. I think it is valid - to an extent. Of course it's going to be harder than ever to accept as music. However, I shall close by saying that such difficulty does not make the music not so.


----------



## millionrainbows

> Originally Posted by *millionrainbows*: The thing that is disheartening in such 4'33" pile-ons, is the lack of understanding of the piece itself.
> 
> I'm all for informed opinions, and everyone is entitled to like or dislike something; but for it to be credible, it must be informed. *Almost all of the criticisms I've seen here are based on incorrect assumptions...*





Skilmarilion said:


> Such as … ?


Actually, I'm sick of having to elaborate about this, but here it is again, for the millionth time.

My opening post premise is not 100% correct; 4'33" is not really a "silent" piece.

The reason I called it a "sacred silence" was to equate it with sacred music, and then see how this might mitigate the responses and create a more tolerant and courteous atmosphere; and also to see if any one would "catch" this mistake. I consider this strategy to be a success overall, since this is the most civilized discussion I've seen yet, with the usual exceptions, of course.

Seeing as Cage was Buddhist, however, lends this "sacred silence" notion some credibility. Remember also, as Cage himself would point out, there is really no such thing as "silence." *That's number one.*

*Number two:* the piece is a space, an interval of time, in which sounds occur. It is not silence _per se;_ it is a framework of time which is a potentiality for _sounds_ to occur and be listened to.

*Number three:* Cage was serious; he did not create this conceptual work as a joke.

*Number four:* All of the complaints of the piece being "nothing" or "silence" are invalidated on two points.

Firstly, it is not a silent piece, since true silence does not exist, and there are always sounds occurrng;

...and secondly, seeing the piece as a_ framework_ or as an _empty space_ provided for sounds to occur within is an Eastern notion of reversing the roles of subjective and objective. The viewer's subjective experience is now the "content" of the work.

*True, 4'33" does not "exist" objectively as an art work in the normal Western sense;* it can only "exist" as the subjective experience of listening to the sounds which occur within that time frame.



> That would probably require a lot of elaboration, otherwise it comes across yet again as an accusation that those who don't like 4'33" or don't think it's music, simply *don't understand*.


This ain't rocket science, so don't tell me I am underestimating the intelligence of those who do not want to accept this as a bonafide work from a bonafide composer. They are simply criticizing the work on incorrect assumptions and misunderstandings. The critics have every right to dismiss the work, but for that criticism to be credible and valid, it must be informed.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> My opening post premise is not 100% correct; 4'33" is not really a "silent" piece.
> 
> The critics have every right to dismiss the work, but for that criticism to be credible and valid, it must be informed.


I must get another hearing test. The piece was silent when I 'heard it!

There is no music for the critics to dismiss. it is not a piece. Just an idea.


----------



## DeepR

Meaningful criticism of this piece (music, or not, that's a matter of definition) doesn't seem possible to me. You are presented with something and can either accept or reject it as a whole. Like, or dislike. The pilosophy behind it is what it is. The actual content (that which can be perceived, recorded, measured, analyzed) is beyond meaningful criticism. That is the very problem of this piece and certain avantgarde music in general. And that is why these discussions will never end.


----------



## spokanedaniel

millionrainbows said:


> *Number three:* Cage was serious; he did not create this conceptual work as a joke.


Do we ever really know another's intentions? I know nothing of the life of John Cage, but another poster earlier in this thread commented that he was known to have a sense of humor. There have been examples of jokes presented as serious things. The Kensington Rune Stone* was presented as a serious find for a long time. Created purely as a joke, so many people took it seriously that its creator played along for quite some time.

* The stone was the work of a Kensington, MN, stone engraver and purported to be of Viking origin, "proving" that Vikings had journeyed inland as far as Minnesota before Columbus. But the runic alphabet used, the vocabulary, and even the layout of text on the stone were all decidedly modern, not Viking. It would be like claiming the ancient Romans had been to the New World based on a parchment written in 19th century Italian. It was patently a joke that got taken seriously and developed a life of its own.

I submit that Mr. Cage had a lively sense of humor, wrote 4'33" as a joke, and when people took it seriously, decided to play along and claim it as a serious composition, all while laughing uproariously.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> It's been interesting to see that the same people who argue for strict definitions of music, so as to be able to distinguish it from chairs and trees, have also asserted that everyone gets to decide what music is.


So, who _should _get to decide?


----------



## Woodduck

Some guy and I agree on one thing, anyway:

Comedy still means something whether or not you include the activities of comedians.

That definitely includes the activities of composers who take a vacation from composing but pretend to be still at work.

However, we do not agree on the following:

_The definition of music that many people have advanced leave out the listeners entirely._ Indeed, I have seen it asserted many times in other threads that the great masterpieces would still be great even if nobody listened to them. Well, I find it very peculiar to define music, the whole purpose of which is for listening, without including the listeners. We do understand the whole argument about composing. But we think that there is something about the whole "music" situation that is left out by this insistence on a composer--the listener. _(I also wonder if the "to be... 'music' it needs to have been composed" also think that improvisation and traditional (uncomposed) music are also not music.)_

May I remind some guy of what I said music entails?

As I pointed out, music has traditionally been assumed in all cultures and all times to consist of _sounds, organized in some manner by human beings, and produced by human beings to be heard by human beings._ Concerts, scores, and publishing houses are specific cultural manifestations of the activity of making music, but they are not essential features of it. If we're looking for a viable definition of music, it's those essential features of it that matter.

4'33" eliminates those essential features, retaining only some of the cultural forms of music-making as an empty vessel to be filled by non-musical sounds in place of the expected musical ones. We could reasonably call this an exercise in mindfulness meditation structured as a concert. That tells us much more precisely what it is than does the sloppy use of the term "music."

And in another post:

Traditionally, music has been defined, minimally, as _sound organized by human beings to be performed by human beings and listened to by human beings._ Some definitions of music have sought to include various purposes for which music is made, whether anthropological, psychological, or aesthetic; but nearly all definitions, and the common sense of what music is, have assumed its basic physical existence as _organized sound created by human beings for human perception. _These are properly regarded as fundamental attributes of music, and in combination they distinguish music from other things, including sounds produced for other purposes, sounds produced accidentally, sounds which are not organized, and sounds produced by non-human entities. Sounds of these kinds are properly called "noise" (attaching no value judgment to the word).

4'33" does not exhibit the fundamental attributes of music. In 4'33," sounds which occur during its "performance" are not organized by the nominal "creator" of the "work" and are not performed by the nominal "performer." They are accidental sounds of the sort which would be occurring even if no "creator" or "performer" existed, and even if no one were listening to them. They are, simply, noise. There may be any number of reasons for listening to noise. Doing so may serve practical or aesthetic purposes. It may give us information, and it may give us pleasure. But no purpose served by listening to noise obliterates the useful distinction between noise and music - the fact that music employs sound in a manner, and for purposes, which makes it something distinct from noise.


Observe: the listener is not left out! Music is definitely intended to be heard, even if that "hearing" is purely mental (as in reading a score silently) or if no one happens to be in attendance (though of course whoever is performing the music is hearing it). None of this affects the substance of the argument.

As far as improvised and "traditional" music are concerned, both are obviously composed. They are performed in the very instant that they are composed. Premeditation and notation are not essential elements of composition.

Nathanb makes the following point:

Stockhausen, Brown, Cardew (I think), etc... all have composed at least one piece of music in which not a single note was chosen for the performers. Totally indeterminate sound. The only thing that sets this apart from 4'33", of course, is the fact that, while both 4'33" and the rest call for an instrumental force, only 4'33" implies an inclusion of these other "concrete" sounds.

The "indeterminacy" question is subtle. Composers have allowed performers varying degrees of latitude throughout history. Interpretation itself is indeterminate; very little music is played "exactly as written." If the above composers allow performers complete liberty to do as they please in some instances, these instances are still, to a degree, composed music: it is composed, improvisationally, by the performers. It is not totally indeterminate; someone is determining what gets played. _That_ is what sets it apart from 4'33."

Nor can I accept the idea, advanced by dgee, that Cage's having "quite purposefully established a duration for which an audience are purposefully led to listen to sounds that may be indeterminately produced" is equivalent to composing, even to indeterminate composing (absurd expression for which I apologize). That assumption forces us to call a "composer" anyone who asks, or compels, anyone else to listen to any noise, whatever its source.

The most interesting and amusing remark on this subject I'm seeing today is this one by Ingelou:

We are often advised to 'let the music speak for itself' and not to look at sources, explanatory titles, historical background etc if we are to have a pure piece of musical appreciation, unsullied by extraneous emotions.

Here we have to have extra-musical prompts before we can appreciate 4'33" at all; it is impossible for this piece to speak for itself.

Some of the people who advise against extra-musical knowledge are the same people who admire 4'33" and insist that it is music; which is odd, and a little discombobulating...

This is such a piquant observation about the intellectual chaos and pretension which the era of "Modernism" brought to the arts that I wish there were a TC Award for Post of the Day. As Tom Wolfe brilliantly and hilariously pointed out, the Modernist mission to get "literary" meanings out of the arts - he wrote about painting, but his point applies equally to music - ended up producing works in which there was no conceivable meaning at all without "literature" to explain to audiences what in the name of heaven they were looking at.

It appears that a great deal of literary - i.e. extramusical - meaning must be understood to answer the question: _"Four minutes and thirty-three seconds of what?"_


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MacLeod said:


> So, who _should _get to decide?


Everyone.

By their 'buying' and by their 'abstention from buying.'

People vote with their dollars every day at Amazon.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Some guy and I agree on one thing, anyway:
> 
> Comedy still means something whether or not you include the activities of comedians.
> 
> That definitely includes the activities of composers who take a vacation from composing but pretend to be still at work.
> 
> However, we do not agree on the following:
> 
> _The definition of music that many people have advanced leave out the listeners entirely._ Indeed, I have seen it asserted many times in other threads that the great masterpieces would still be great even if nobody listened to them. Well, I find it very peculiar to define music, the whole purpose of which is for listening, without including the listeners. We do understand the whole argument about composing. But we think that there is something about the whole "music" situation that is left out by this insistence on a composer--the listener. _(I also wonder if the "to be... 'music' it needs to have been composed" also think that improvisation and traditional (uncomposed) music are also not music.)_
> 
> May I remind some guy of what I said music entails?
> 
> As I pointed out, music has traditionally been assumed in all cultures and all times to consist of _sounds, organized in some manner by human beings, and produced by human beings to be heard by human beings._ Concerts, scores, and publishing houses are specific cultural manifestations of the activity of making music, but they are not essential features of it. If we're looking for a viable definition of music, it's those essential features of it that matter.
> 
> 4'33" eliminates those essential features, retaining only some of the cultural forms of music-making as an empty vessel to be filled by non-musical sounds in place of the expected musical ones. We could reasonably call this an exercise in mindfulness meditation structured as a concert. That tells us much more precisely what it is than does the sloppy use of the term "music."
> 
> And in another post:
> 
> Traditionally, music has been defined, minimally, as _sound organized by human beings to be performed by human beings and listened to by human beings._ Some definitions of music have sought to include various purposes for which music is made, whether anthropological, psychological, or aesthetic; but nearly all definitions, and the common sense of what music is, have assumed its basic physical existence as _organized sound created by human beings for human perception. _These are properly regarded as fundamental attributes of music, and in combination they distinguish music from other things, including sounds produced for other purposes, sounds produced accidentally, sounds which are not organized, and sounds produced by non-human entities. Sounds of these kinds are properly called "noise" (attaching no value judgment to the word).
> 
> 4'33" does not exhibit the fundamental attributes of music. In 4'33," sounds which occur during its "performance" are not organized by the nominal "creator" of the "work" and are not performed by the nominal "performer." They are accidental sounds of the sort which would be occurring even if no "creator" or "performer" existed, and even if no one were listening to them. They are, simply, noise. There may be any number of reasons for listening to noise. Doing so may serve practical or aesthetic purposes. It may give us information, and it may give us pleasure. But no purpose served by listening to noise obliterates the useful distinction between noise and music - the fact that music employs sound in a manner, and for purposes, which makes it something distinct from noise.
> 
> 
> Observe: the listener is not left out! Music is definitely intended to be heard, even if that "hearing" is purely mental (as in reading a score silently) or if no one happens to be in attendance (though of course whoever is performing the music is hearing it). None of this affects the substance of the argument.
> 
> As far as improvised and "traditional" music are concerned, both are obviously composed. They are performed in the very instant that they are composed. Premeditation and notation are not essential elements of composition.
> 
> Nathanb makes the following point:
> 
> Stockhausen, Brown, Cardew (I think), etc... all have composed at least one piece of music in which not a single note was chosen for the performers. Totally indeterminate sound. The only thing that sets this apart from 4'33", of course, is the fact that, while both 4'33" and the rest call for an instrumental force, only 4'33" implies an inclusion of these other "concrete" sounds.
> 
> The "indeterminacy" question is subtle. Composers have allowed performers varying degrees of latitude throughout history. Interpretation itself is indeterminate; very little music is played "exactly as written." If the above composers allow performers complete liberty to do as they please in some instances, these instances are still, to a degree, composed music: it is composed, improvisationally, by the performers. It is not totally indeterminate; someone is determining what gets played. _That_ is what sets it apart from 4'33."
> 
> Nor can I accept the idea, advanced by dgee, that Cage's having "quite purposefully established a duration for which an audience are purposefully led to listen to sounds that may be indeterminately produced" is equivalent to composing, even to indeterminate composing (absurd expression for which I apologize). That assumption forces us to call a "composer" anyone who asks, or compels, anyone else to listen to any noise, whatever its source.
> 
> The most interesting and amusing remark on this subject I'm seeing today is this one by Ingelou:
> 
> We are often advised to 'let the music speak for itself' and not to look at sources, explanatory titles, historical background etc if we are to have a pure piece of musical appreciation, unsullied by extraneous emotions.
> 
> Here we have to have extra-musical prompts before we can appreciate 4'33" at all; it is impossible for this piece to speak for itself.
> 
> Some of the people who advise against extra-musical knowledge are the same people who admire 4'33" and insist that it is music; which is odd, and a little discombobulating...
> 
> This is such a piquant observation about the intellectual chaos and pretension which the era of "Modernism" brought to the arts that I wish there were a TC Award for Post of the Day. As Tom Wolfe brilliantly and hilariously pointed out, the Modernist mission to get "literary" meanings out of the arts - he wrote about painting, but his point applies equally to music - ended up producing works in which there was no conceivable meaning at all without "literature" to explain to audiences what in the name of heaven they were looking at.
> 
> It appears that a great deal of literary - i.e. extramusical - meaning must be understood to answer the question: _"Four minutes and thirty-three seconds of what?"_


Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to point out an historic first: Woodduck has now stepped into a larger world by color-coding other people's fonts so as to distinguish their thoughts from his own.

Bravo.


----------



## ArtMusic

dgee said:


> ....
> 
> Industry (in this case devotion to thinking about 4'33") is supplying your deficiency!


Not mine, industry would appear to be audience by and large who reject the piece in this case.


----------



## Art Rock

Well, it did get to #21 in the UK Singles charts. Not many classical works can boast that type of popularity......


----------



## ahammel

Art Rock said:


> Well, it did get to #21 in the UK Singles charts. Not many classical works can boast that type of popularity......


A rare example of a 4'33" joke that is actually amusing.


----------



## Skilmarilion

millionrainbows said:


> ...
> 
> Seeing as Cage was Buddhist, however, lends this "sacred silence" notion some credibility. Remember also, as Cage himself would point out, there is really no such thing as "silence." *That's number one.*
> 
> *Number two:* the piece is a space, an interval of time, in which sounds occur. It is not silence _per se;_ it is a framework of time which is a potentiality for _sounds_ to occur and be listened to.
> 
> *Number three:* Cage was serious; he did not create this conceptual work as a joke.
> 
> *Number four:* All of the complaints of the piece being "nothing" or "silence" are invalidated on two points.
> 
> Firstly, it is not a silent piece, since true silence does not exist, and there are always sounds occurrng;
> 
> ...and secondly, seeing the piece as a_ framework_ or as an _empty space_ provided for sounds to occur within is an Eastern notion of reversing the roles of subjective and objective. The viewer's subjective experience is now the "content" of the work.
> 
> *True, 4'33" does not "exist" objectively as an art work in the normal Western sense;* it can only "exist" as the subjective experience of listening to the sounds which occur within that time frame.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the post, and some of the things you mention are quite interesting.

All I was ever putting across was my opinion that it isn't music. That's all. All of this other commentary on the work as a concept is fine, maybe more than fine. There isn't a lot of disagreement there.

Anyway there's been some interesting discussion in this thread, however futile it all may have been!


----------



## KenOC

A DJ here explained that 4'33" is never played on the radio because the equipment hears it as "dead air" and all the station alarms go off. Could be why you seldom hear people walking around whistling it.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> A DJ here explained that 4'33" is never played on the radio because the equipment hears it as "dead air" and all the station alarms go off. Could be why you seldom hear people walking around whistling it.


It's quite popular with some edgy DJs, who like to use it in mash-ups.
Just unfortunate it goes unnoticed. Of course, unless they reduce the BPM, it doesn't really mix in well.


----------



## Celloman

I fail to see much of a difference between "sacred" and "secular" music. You could make the argument that all music can fall into both categories at the same time. Music expresses metaphorical or spiritual thoughts and feelings that cannot be encountered through any other medium - therefore, in a sense, all music is sacred.


----------



## Guest

Celloman said:


> I fail to see much of a difference between "sacred" and "secular" music. You could make the argument that all music can fall into both categories at the same time. Music expresses metaphorical or spiritual thoughts and feelings that cannot be encountered through any other medium - therefore, in a sense, all music is sacred.


Or, by the same token, nothing is sacred.


----------



## Celloman

dogen said:


> Or, by the same token, nothing is sacred.


You're in the wrong sub-forum, my friend!


----------



## spokanedaniel

Celloman said:


> I fail to see much of a difference between "sacred" and "secular" music. You could make the argument that all music can fall into both categories at the same time. Music expresses metaphorical or spiritual thoughts and feelings that cannot be encountered through any other medium - therefore, in a sense, all music is sacred.


You are using a definition of "sacred" which, while certainly valid, differs from the definition ordinarily used in the context of music. Sacred music, as a category, refers to music written for use in church. The Bach B-Minor Mass is scared music, and his second partita for unaccompanied violin is not, not because the one is more spiritual, but because it was written to be performed in church as part of church services. "Sacred" as it is normally applied to music does not refer to any quality of the music, but rather refers to its intended use.


----------



## Celloman

spokanedaniel said:


> You are using a definition of "sacred" which, while certainly valid, differs from the definition ordinarily used in the context of music. Sacred music, as a category, refers to music written for use in church. The Bach B-Minor Mass is scared music, and his second partita for unaccompanied violin is not, not because the one is more spiritual, but because it was written to be performed in church as part of church services. "Sacred" as it is normally applied to music does not refer to any quality of the music, but rather refers to its intended use.


Correct. I used the phrase "in a sense" precisely for this reason. I wasn't referring to the generally-accepted function of a piece of music, but rather the idea that it can become sacred for someone who views or receives it as such.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Ingélou said:


> This does make me think.
> 
> We are often advised to 'let the music speak for itself' and not to look at sources, explanatory titles, historical background etc if we are to have a pure piece of musical appreciation, unsullied by extraneous emotions.
> 
> Here we *have to* have extra-musical prompts before we can appreciate 4'33" at all; it is *impossible* for this piece to speak for itself.
> 
> Some of the people who advise against extra-musical knowledge are the same people who admire 4'33" and insist that it is music; which is odd, and a little discombobulating...


A more succinct and perfect argument against accepting 4'33" as music can scarcely be imagined.


----------



## Guest

Ingélou said:


> it is *impossible* for this piece to speak for itself.


I'm not sure that's true. Were I to show up for a performance without knowing anything about it, I might be somewhat perplexed at the inactivity of the orchestra - even angry. Depending on my mood, I might, on the other hand, pay close attention, with anticipation that something might at any moment happen. The 4'33" might even last long enough for me to notice the sounds in the background.

I might give some thought to what I had just witnessed and draw a number of conclusions, only one of which might be that the piece wasn't music. I would certainly wonder at the point of the apparently pointless, but I doubt I would just mutter, with conclusive certainty, "Well, I wouldn't call _that _music!"


----------



## Guest

Celloman said:


> You're in the wrong sub-forum, my friend!


That's very true!


----------



## Woodduck

Originally Posted by Ingélou:
It is impossible for this piece to speak for itself.



MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure that's true. Were I to show up for a performance without knowing anything about it, I might be somewhat perplexed at the inactivity of the orchestra - even angry. Depending on my mood, I might, on the other hand, pay close attention, with anticipation that something might at any moment happen. The 4'33" might even last long enough for me to notice the sounds in the background.
> 
> As an intelligent concert-goer, I might give some thought to what I had just witnessed and draw a number of conclusions, only one of which might be that the piece wasn't music. I would certainly wonder at the point of the apparently pointless, but I doubt I would just mutter, with conclusive certainty, "Well, I wouldn't call _that _music!"


Hmmm. What would _I_ do were I a concertgoer untutored in the arcane ideologies of Modernism and unaware of the work of Mr. John Cage, and were I completely ambushed by a performance of 4'33"? I would at first, as usual at a concert, be sharply attentive and focused on the musicians, waiting for them to begin playing. If it were an orchestral concert, I would be watching the conductor, thinking of reasons why he would be standing still: he might be waiting for someone else to be ready, or thinking about the music, and I'd study the other musicians to see what they were doing. I might notice that the tuba player was quite tubby and that the concertmistress looked unhappy about something. If, after a minute or two, nothing happened, I would probably begin to cast glassy-eyed glances at my neighbors as if to say "What's going on?" As people in the audience shuffled their programs, murmured half-audibly, and cleared their throats, I might notice with irritation the blue-haired lady behind me unwrapping a cough drop, or the guy in front of me who smelled like alcohol, or the youngsters down the aisle who were giggling softly about something. I might begin checking my program to make sure I'd read it right the first time - what's supposed to come next? I might see something in it that interested me - is that an adult bookstore sponsoring our local symphony? - or I might think of the last piece I'd heard, or hope that the Bartok concerto that would come after intermission would be well-played. I might have my attention caught by a siren outside the theater and remember that my wife wanted me to pick up some milk on my way home - let's see, is it1% or 2% that she likes? I might feel an itch under my sock and wonder how many more days those damned flea bites on my ankle were going to last and why didn't I get that dog a flea collar when I meant to. I might...I might...I might...

There are many ways for a person to fill four minutes and thirty-three seconds. I rarely waste time. I'd find quite a few things to engage me. But one thing I'd be unlikely to do, at the end of 4'33," would be to say to myself "Whoooo-eeeee! What a piece of music that was! Isn't it great the way music speaks for itself?"


----------



## Guest

Frankly, Blair, whatever decent points Woodduck is making, you're kinda undoing.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Yes. Damn it, Blair! You can't go about agreeing with someone whose opinion fails to tow the party line...


... or some such thing.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Yes. Damn it, Blair! You can't go about agreeing with someone whose opinion fails to tow the party line...
> 
> ... or some such thing.


Your posts aren't particularly helping either, son. Woodduck has made genuine arguments whilst you seem focused on emphasizing an irrelevant dislike.

Thank you, Woodduck. Your posts have demonstrated enough understanding of the subject matter that I feel I can lay down my arms in this here good 'ole internet fight - and just live and let live. Now could you call off some of your less-informed cronies?


----------



## Woodduck

nathanb said:


> Your posts aren't particularly helping either, son. Woodduck has made genuine arguments whilst you seem focused on emphasizing an irrelevant dislike.
> 
> Thank you, Woodduck. Your posts have demonstrated enough understanding of the subject matter that I feel I can lay down my arms in this here good 'ole internet fight - and just live and let live. Now could you call off some of your less-informed cronies?


Thank you for your respectful words, nathanb. But alas, for better or for worse, I've never been able to get anyone to take orders from me. I just have to trust that no matter how many nice things are said about me by those who for reasons of their own think I'm wonderful, most people will realize that I'm just an eccentric but basically harmless old crank whom it's best to humor.

To music that sounds and to sacred silences, wherever we find them,

:tiphat:


----------



## Marschallin Blair

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Yes. Damn it, Blair! You can't go about agreeing with someone whose opinion fails to tow the party line...
> 
> 
> ... or some such thing.


Well I'm no 'model' Marschallin. A model's just an imitation of the real thing. _;D_


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Ingélou said:


> This does make me think.
> 
> We are often advised to 'let the music speak for itself' and not to look at sources, explanatory titles, historical background etc if we are to have a pure piece of musical appreciation, unsullied by extraneous emotions.
> 
> Here we *have to* have extra-musical prompts before we can appreciate 4'33" at all; it is *impossible* for this piece to speak for itself.
> 
> Some of the people who advise against extra-musical knowledge are the same people who admire 4'33" and insist that it is music; which is odd, and a little discombobulating...





Ludric said:


> When listened to side by side, both works sound identical, with the only real difference being the length. Are we to value John Cage's work more so because of the _idea_ behind it? That is, are we suppose to judge it differently based on external factors rather than the work itself? If so (and if we are to consider _4'33"_ a piece of music), then are we to value other pieces of music the same way? Are we to value Beethoven's third symphony based on the ideas behind it, rather than the music itself? Are we to value J.S. Bach's_ Mass in B minor_ based on the ideas behind it as well, or let the music speak for itself?


Very interesting and thought-provoking. I think these are very strong points, I hope someone replies to them.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Well I'm no 'model' Marschallin. A model's just an imitation of the real thing. ;D

Or merely one of those "less-informed cronies"? :lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Very interesting and thought-provoking. I think these are very strong points, I hope someone replies to them.

Oh undoubtedly someone will come along soon enough and let us all know that like myself (among others) both Ingélou and Ludric are among those "less-informed" (although perhaps not among the "cronies") who simply just don't "get it".


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Thank you for your respectful words, nathanb. But alas, for better or for worse, I've never been able to get anyone to take orders from me. I just have to trust that no matter how many nice things are said about me by those who for reasons of their own think I'm wonderful, most people will realize that I'm just an eccentric but basically harmless old crank whom it's best to humor.
> 
> To music that sounds and to sacred silences, wherever we find them,
> 
> :tiphat:


But then, how 'respectful' can sycophancy_ be_?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Very interesting and thought-provoking. I think these are very strong points, I hope someone replies to them.


How _does one _reply to a drop hammer?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Very interesting and thought-provoking. I think these are very strong points, I hope someone replies to them.
> 
> Oh undoubtedly someone will come along soon enough and let us all know that like myself (among others) both Ingélou and Ludric are among those "less-informed" (although perhaps not among the "cronies") who simply just don't "get it".


A horse! A horse! A kingdom for a horse! . . . . . . . . . . . . . or an argument._ ;D_


----------



## SeptimalTritone

I'll respond to these. Before I do, I still encourage everyone to listen to more electronic music, from both Cage and others like Stockhausen, Berio, Xenakis, etc. NathanB has strongly emphasized this, and I will emphasize it very much as well. An intuitive "feeling" for musique concrete is essential in understanding 4'33". I cannot stress this enough. Obviously, one cannot have a full appreciation for the symphonies of Brahms, Bruckner, and Mahler without having listened to the symphonies of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Similarly one needs to get a feeling for more "mild" expressions of the musique concrete paradigm before making a judgement on 4'33". Please everyone! Listen to some electronic music! I've made recommendations in some of my posts here: listen to them. There is no sense talking about a genre of music one is not intuitively familiar with. Isn't that so?



Ingélou said:


> This does make me think.
> 
> We are often advised to 'let the music speak for itself' and not to look at sources, explanatory titles, historical background etc if we are to have a pure piece of musical appreciation, unsullied by extraneous emotions.
> 
> Here we *have to* have extra-musical prompts before we can appreciate 4'33" at all; it is *impossible* for this piece to speak for itself.
> 
> Some of the people who advise against extra-musical knowledge are the same people who admire 4'33" and insist that it is music; which is odd, and a little discombobulating...


Yes, the audience members need to be instructed to keep alert, still, and attentive, but no more prompts are required. If a (definitely musical) artistic auditory experience derives its sounds from the audience, then some instruction is inevitable. This is no flaw, but a virtue. A random troublemaking fool in the audience shouting "LA LA LA LA" during the performance would obviously hurt the piece.

The irrelevance of extra-musical concepts that PetrB and some guy often like to emphasize still stands here. One doesn't need to know about Buddhism or Zen or spiritual philosophy or meditation to enjoy the piece. Simply being alert and attentive is enough, just like with a Beethoven quartet or a Wagner opera or a Webern chamber work.



Ludric said:


> When listened to side by side, both works sound identical, with the only real difference being the length. Are we to value John Cage's work more so because of the _idea_ behind it? That is, are we suppose to judge it differently based on external factors rather than the work itself? If so (and if we are to consider _4'33"_ a piece of music), then are we to value other pieces of music the same way? Are we to value Beethoven's third symphony based on the ideas behind it, rather than the music itself? Are we to value J.S. Bach's_ Mass in B minor_ based on the ideas behind it as well, or let the music speak for itself?


No, the sounds of the crowd combined with the ambient noise is the unique sonic expressivity of 4'33". I've said this before. It's not the same as total silence. And therefore, it stands on its own as a musical experience without the necessity of extra-musical factors needed to appreciate it.


----------



## Guest

SeptimalTritone said:


> An intuitive "feeling" for musique concrete is essential in understanding 4'33". I cannot stress this enough. Obviously, one cannot have a full appreciation for the symphonies of Brahms, Bruckner, and Mahler without having listened to the symphonies of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Similarly one needs to get a feeling for more "mild" expressions of the musique concrete paradigm before making a judgement on 4'33". Please everyone! Listen to some electronic music! I've made recommendations in some of my posts here: listen to them. There is no sense talking about a genre of music one is not intuitively familiar with. Isn't that so?


No .


----------



## tdc

I think 4'33" could work with or without any back ground information - that said, it would work better with a small amount of information, the same kinds of things virtually everyone checks out before listening to any work - who the composer is, the instrument(s) used, or sometimes even certain conceptual ideas related to the piece.*

What I find less helpful are certain descriptive titles or pieces of music that are supposed to be near literal representations of things - sometimes these things can actually work for me but I more often find them limiting. 4'33" has neither of these latter attributes.

***For example in some of Penderecki's early works he was composing with the approach to attempt to completely "liberate sound". This kind of information I can find interesting - yet it is still vague enough to not limit my perception of the piece.


----------



## Ingélou

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure that's true. Were I to show up for a performance without knowing anything about it, I might be somewhat perplexed at the inactivity of the orchestra - even angry. Depending on my mood, I might, on the other hand, pay close attention, with anticipation that something might at any moment happen. The 4'33" might even last long enough for me to notice the sounds in the background.
> 
> As an intelligent concert-goer, I might give some thought to what I had just witnessed and draw a number of conclusions, only one of which might be that the piece wasn't music. I would certainly wonder at the point of the apparently pointless, but I doubt I would just mutter, with conclusive certainty, "Well, I wouldn't call _that _music!"


I am an intelligent concert-goer* too, I hope, but I would just be perplexed and bothered; but you're right, I certainly wouldn't mutter afterwards, 'Well, I wouldn't call _that_ music!', because the thought wouldn't occur to me at all - unless a helpful man in the row behind leaned over to explain that I'd just been listening to 4'33".

Otherwise, I'd just wonder if the musicians were sitting patiently while the stage manager checked to see that no suspicious packages had been left backstage, or a doctor was working to treat an old man who'd passed out.

*Why is everyone so keen to assure everyone that they're intelligent? I say, if we're members of TalkClassical, we are intelligent *enough*.


----------



## DavidA

Ingélou said:


> *Why is everyone so keen to assure everyone that they're intelligent? I say, if we're members of TalkClassical, we are intelligent *enough*.


It's because there's a certain type who assures us that the only reason we don't understand the meaning of pages of music with the word 'tactet' in every bar is because we are not intelligent enough. Actually perhaps we shouldn't protest too much though as it was a little boy who told the Emperor he had no clothes when all the intelligensia were saying he had!


----------



## Guest

Ingélou said:


> I am an intelligent concert-goer* too, I hope, but I would just be perplexed and bothered; but you're right, I certainly wouldn't mutter afterwards, 'Well, I wouldn't call _that_ music!', because the thought wouldn't occur to me at all - unless a helpful man in the row behind leaned over to explain that I'd just been listening to 4'33".
> 
> Otherwise, I'd just wonder if the musicians were sitting patiently while the stage manager checked to see that no suspicious packages had been left backstage, or a doctor was working to treat an old man who'd passed out.
> 
> *Why is everyone so keen to assure everyone that they're intelligent? I say, if we're members of TalkClassical, we are intelligent *enough*.


I didn't mean to imply that you, or anyone else, might _not _be an intelligent concertgoer. I just wanted to emphasise that as a typical concert-goer who is willing to listen first and judge afterwards, I wouldn't dismiss what was going on without at least asking myself why the composer composed what he did. I also think that I would take cues from the rest of the audience and the players. I wouldn't wonder "if the musicians were sitting patiently while the stage manager checked to see that no suspicious packages had been left backstage, or a doctor was working to treat an old man who'd passed out."

Nor, for that matter, could I envisage Woodduck's scenario...



> untutored in the arcane ideologies of Modernism and unaware of the work of Mr. John Cage, and were I completely ambushed by a performance of 4'33"?


----------



## Ingélou

SeptimalTritone said:


> Yes, the audience members need to be instructed to keep alert, still, and attentive, but no more prompts are required. If a (definitely musical) artistic auditory experience derives its sounds from the audience, then some instruction is inevitable. This is no flaw, but a virtue. A random troublemaking fool in the audience shouting "LA LA LA LA" during the performance would obviously hurt the piece.


If the audience has to be *instructed* on how to behave, how can we just be listening to ambient sounds? We are now listening to organised sounds. So the piece doesn't seem to work even on its own terms.

I remember a performance of *Carmen* where there was 'a random troublemaking fool' in the row behind me who kept la-la-la-ing to the music. So it is always a possibility, and should not be ruled out as 'unnatural' in a performance of 4'33". Imagine an audience that has just been 'instructed' on what noises it can make. Is that really the sort of experience that John Cage wanted?

But I think, as Captain Mainwaring says in the British Sit-Com, 'We're getting into the realms of fantasy' here!


----------



## Ingélou

MacLeod said:


> I didn't mean to imply that you, or anyone else, might _not _be an intelligent concertgoer. *I just wanted to emphasise that as a typical concert-goer who is willing to listen first and judge afterwards,* I wouldn't dismiss what was going on without at least asking myself why the composer composed what he did.


Strangely enough, I think I'm that too. 

You appear to imply that anyone who either doesn't realise that a piece is being performed, or feels unhappy that the piece doesn't consist of organised sounds produced on musical instruments, is just not cultured enough.

I don't agree.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> It's because there's a certain type who assures us that the only reason we don't understand the meaning of pages of music with the word 'tactet' in every bar is because we are not intelligent enough. Actually perhaps we shouldn't protest too much though as it was a little boy who told the Emperor he had no clothes when all the intelligensia were saying he had!


Which type is that, David? Me?

Check back through my posts and you'll see I already made exactly the same point in response to a post by some guy about the Emperor.

The point of my response was simply to disagree, politely, I hope, with Ingelou's idea that the piece couldn't speak for itself.

However, I have removed the offending phrase, as it is not meant to be about me, or anyone else in particular, but about an envisaging of a scenario where 4'33" speaks for itself.


----------



## Guest

Ingélou said:


> You appear to imply that anyone who either doesn't realise that a piece is being performed, or feels unhappy that the piece doesn't consist of organised sounds produced on musical instruments is just not cultured enough.
> 
> I don't agree.


That was not my intent. I too disagree with what you disagree with.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Ingélou said:


> If the audience has to be *instructed* on how to behave, how can we just be listening to ambient sounds? We are now listening to organised sounds. So the piece doesn't seem to work even on its own terms.
> 
> I remember a performance of *Carmen* where there was 'a random troublemaking fool' in the row behind me who kept la-la-la-ing to the music. So it is always a possibility, and should not be ruled out as 'unnatural' by some overbearing theatre manager. Imagine an audience that has just been 'instructed' on what noises it can make. Is that really the sort of experience that John Cage wanted?
> 
> But I think, as Captain Mainwaring says in the British Sit-Com, 'We're getting into the realms of fantasy' here!


But that's precisely the point: it is (semi-)organized sounds! It's a controlled and organized auditory dialogue, a musical group meditation. The fact that it is guided as an "audience piece", as arpeggio likes to put it, is a virtue, not a drawback. John Cage would have definitely wanted some discipline and seriousness on both the performers' and the audiences' part. Everyone has to put in a serious effort. Take a look at some guy's posts on good and bad performances of 4'33". We're not talking about a naked emperor here.

BTW ambient sounds refer to environmental sounds. The combination of the ambient environment with the alert and focused crowd and its gesture and sounds serves as an amazing artistic auditory (and therefore musical) experience, not too dissimilar from musique concrete and electronic music.


----------



## Nereffid

I think perhaps that the Emperor's clothes are indeed _real_, but only visible from a certain angle.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Which type is that, David? Me?
> 
> Check back through my posts and you'll see I already made exactly the same point in response to a post by some guy about the Emperor.
> 
> The point of my response was simply to disagree, politely, I hope, with Ingelou's idea that the piece couldn't speak for itself.
> 
> However, I have removed the offending phrase, as it is not meant to be about me, or anyone else in particular, but about an envisaging of a scenario where 4'33" speaks for itself.


I hadn't got anyone particularly in mind but there are quite a few pists which appear to imply that the only reason some of us can't understand 4'33" of silence is because we are lacking intelligence. I happen to disagree. I would feel that anyone of any intelligence would find players turning page after page of blank music for 4'33" would find it mildly ridiculous.


----------



## Ingélou

SeptimalTritone said:


> BTW ambient sounds refer to environmental sounds. The combination of the ambient environment with the alert and focused crowd and its gesture and sounds serves as an amazing artistic auditory (and therefore musical) experience...


You're easily pleased! I have taken part in political demonstrations, which is an exhilarating experience somewhat akin to what you describe. But before I can destcribe any *auditory experience* of mine as 'amazing and artistic', I have to be listening to musicians who are expertly playing musical instruments.

No, after reading this thread, I feel entertained & enlightened as to the opinions held by various forum members - but my personal conclusion, after some thought, is that 4'33" is 'meta-music' rather than real music. Moreover, whatever surprise value it originally had has dissipated and now it has become somewhat 'conventional' - just about as controversial as debating how scandalous it might be to dance the Tango.

But I'm sure it doesn't matter to you what I think & I hope you enjoy many more performances (as in *acting* performances) of 4'33".


----------



## Nereffid

SeptimalTritone said:


> Obviously, one cannot have a full appreciation for the symphonies of Brahms, Bruckner, and Mahler without having listened to the symphonies of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.


I'm sorry, but this strikes me as intellectual snobbery, or nonsense, or both.
When I first heard Mahler's symphonies they hit me like a ton of bricks, and at the time I'd heard 4 Beethoven symphonies, none by Haydn and the opening bars of Mozart's 40th. I'm not sure how I'd have responded if, on learning of my love for Mahler's music, you said "obviously, you can't have a full appreciation for it". Gotten offended or laughed in your face, I suppose.
But of course it's unlikely you'd have said that, because people never say that to people who have the "correct" response (unless of course it's to a person from the "lower orders" who's behaving above their station).

Similarly, as I said earlier in this thread, I thought 4'33" was a fine idea and something I enjoyed. But apparently because I had never even heard the term musique concrete at the time, I couldn't possibly have understood 4'33".

Also, on a broader note, in my old job in publishing we had a rule that you would never use the adjective "famous" before a person's name (eg, "the famous composer Mahler") because if they were famous the reader wouldn't need to be told.
If there needs to be an argument over whether a work needs extra-musical factors to appreciate it, then surely the work _does_?


----------



## science

I've only read the last few pages, but I venture to offer my own view.

I really like the idea of sitting quietly for a few minutes, alone or in company, and listening carefully to the sounds that exist around us, generally unnoticed. I don't care whether it's considered "music" (or "art" or "religion" or any other arbitrary label) or not, it just seems like a good idea to me, a nice thing to do occasionally, especially in a context where listening carefully and thinking carefully about sounds is usually valued. I'm honestly startled that it's such a controversial idea.

If you don't like it, and don't want to participate in such an event, that's fine with me of course; tastes vary. No one can judge you for it.

If you do like it, hey, me too! As to the fact that some people don't like it, who cares? Tastes vary. No one can judge us for it.

Tastes vary.

It is ok that tastes vary.

No one should lose or gain any status based on whether they appreciate any work of any genre in any medium of art.

If we agree to those truths, which I hold to be self-evident, then as far as I can tell there is nothing important at stake in this discussion.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> there are quite a few pists which appear to imply that the only reason some of us can't understand 4'33" of silence is because we are lacking intelligence.


There are no posts that say this. The hedging comes from your own sense that there are no posts that say this, hence "appear" and "to imply." So, in a way, you are already acknowledging that your perception comes from your idea rather than from the posts themselves.

Which is kinda how this whole business of reacting to Cage's music has gone down. Go into a situation with ideas, and the ideas will determine what you are able to experience, which is what makes the whole "it's not music, it's a concept" idea so risible.



Ingélou said:


> You're easily pleased! I have taken part in demonstrations, which is an exhilarating experience somewhat akin to what you describe. But before I can destcribe any *auditory experience* of mine as 'amazing and artistic', I have to be listening to musicians who are expertly playing musical instruments.


This sounds to me like it's you who are easily pleased. Just get you some musicians playing "musical instruments" and you're content. What Septimal is talking about is making an effort to extract an aesthetic experience from sounds that aren't being made by "musicians" and that aren't the sounds made by "musical instruments."

It's an effort many people have rejected. It's an experience that many people are convinced cannot be genuine. Oh well. But sitting around watching other people work has never ever in any other context been presented as an effort.



Ingélou said:


> my personal conclusion, after some thought, is that 4'33" is 'meta-music' rather than real music.


I wish that you would share with us the details of "some thought" rather than just giving us your conclusion. Why is everyone so coy about showing their work? How did you get to your conclusion?



Ingélou said:


> Moreover, whatever surprise value it originally had has dissipated and now it has become somewhat 'conventional' - just about as controversial as debating how scandalous it might be to dance the Tango.


But every single other thing that was surprising at first loses that quality over time. Every. Single. Other. Thing. And your conclusion about controversy flies in the face of dozens of threads of evidence. Why, your own participation on this thread, which has been noticably more aggressive than any other postings I've ever seen of yours, is evidence of that. But so what? No one is arguing or even cares if Cage's piece is "controversial" or "scandalous," so I'm puzzled by those things being used to judge it. It is not and never has been valued for being surprising or controversial or scandalous either one. It's valued for what it is, just like Stravinsky's _Le Sacre._ Do you suppose that anyone would criticize that for being conventional now? For not being surprising any more? For not being controversial?



Ingélou said:


> But I'm sure it doesn't matter to you what I think & I hope you enjoy many more performances (as in acting performances) of 4'33".


Yeah. Like we will also enjoy acting performances of _Idomeneo_ and _Swan Lake_ and _Parsifal_ and _Le Sacre du Printemps._ Do you really believe that theatrical musics are not really music? I would think that at the very least, you and Woodduck would not argue from _this_ particular premise.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> I'm sorry, but this strikes me as intellectual snobbery, or nonsense, or both.


Dear Nerrefid, I think I understand where SeptimalTritone (ST) is coming from, and if he had explained a little more you would have been not so harsh. Of course, receiving the full impact of a Mahler symphony needs no knowledge of previous symphonies by other composers, but to take Bruckner as an example, the fact that I can trace stylistic similarities with, say, Schubert, can only increase my appreciation. Each work has to stand alone, but if one can draw parallels, trace connections or infer some sort of 'resonance' with other works, that is not intellectual snobbery or nonsense. I do think that is what ST meant.


----------



## Nereffid

TalkingHead said:


> Dear Nerrefid, I think I understand where SeptimalTritone (ST) is coming from, and if he had explained a little more you would have been not so harsh. Of course, receiving the full impact of a Mahler symphony needs no knowledge of previous symphonies by other composers, but to take Bruckner as an example, the fact that I can trace stylistic similarities with, say, Schubert, can only increase my appreciation. Each work has to stand alone, but if one can draw parallels, trace connections or infer some sort of 'resonance' with other works, that is not intellectual snobbery or nonsense. I do think that is what ST meant.


Oh, sure, knowing more things will increase your appreciation, why on earth would I dispute that?
But you'll have a hard time convincing me that the argument I was addressing stems from _that_ place.

It boils down to:
"I don't like this thing you like".
You're not listening properly.
You don't understand.
You haven't put in the effort.
You have failed.

"I like this thing you like".
How you listened is irrelevant.
Your understanding is irrelevant.
The effort you've put in is irrelevant.
Well done!


----------



## Stavrogin

Ludric said:


> The idea to compose a piece of "music" with no performed sounds has been done by others before Cage, on several occasions, in fact:
> 
> -Alphonse Allais's _Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man_ (1897)
> -Erwin Schulhoff's _Fünf Pittoresken_ (1919) contains a movement that consists of rests.
> -Yves Klein's _Monotone-Silence Symphony_ (1949) contains two movements consisting of silence.
> 
> In other words, John Cage could be considered a plagiarist. However, if you attempt to have your own composition consisting of silence published, you will promptly be contacted by Peters Edition for a lawsuit over copyright infringement.


Interesting post.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> It boils down to:
> "I don't like this thing you like".
> You're not listening properly.
> You don't understand.
> You haven't put in the effort.
> You have failed.
> 
> "I like this thing you like".
> How you listened is irrelevant.
> Your understanding is irrelevant.
> The effort you've put in is irrelevant.
> Well done!


It "boils down" to nothing of the sort.

I suppose we will never ever get past this, will we?

IT IS NOT NOW AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT LIKING AND DISLIKING.

It has been about turning disliking into description and about turning liking into privileging.

That is what "it" boils down to.


----------



## Ingélou

some guy said:


> There are no posts that say this. The hedging comes from your own sense that there are no posts that say this, hence "appear" and "to imply." So, in a way, you are already acknowledging that your perception comes from your idea rather than from the posts themselves.
> 
> Which is kinda how this whole business of reacting to Cage's music has gone down. Go into a situation with ideas, and the ideas will determine what you are able to experience, which is what makes the whole "it's not music, it's a concept" idea so risible.
> 
> This sounds to me like it's you who are easily pleased. Just get you some musicians playing "musical instruments" and you're content. What Septimal is talking about is making an effort to extract an aesthetic experience from sounds that aren't being made by "musicians" and that aren't the sounds made by "musical instruments."
> 
> It's an effort many people have rejected. It's an experience that many people are convinced cannot be genuine. Oh well. But sitting around watching other people work has never ever in any other context been presented as an effort.
> 
> I wish that you would share with us the details of "some thought" rather than just giving us your conclusion. Why is everyone so coy about showing their work? How did you get to your conclusion?
> 
> But every single other thing that was surprising at first loses that quality over time. Every. Single. Other. Thing. And your conclusion about controversy flies in the face of dozens of threads of evidence. Why, your own participation on this thread, which has been noticably more aggressive than any other postings I've ever seen of yours, is evidence of that. But so what? No one is arguing or even cares if Cage's piece is "controversial" or "scandalous," so I'm puzzled by those things being used to judge it. It is not and never has been valued for being surprising or controversial or scandalous either one. It's valued for what it is, just like Stravinsky's _Le Sacre._ Do you suppose that anyone would criticize that for being conventional now? For not being surprising any more? For not being controversial?
> 
> Yeah. Like we will also enjoy acting performances of _Idomeneo_ and _Swan Lake_ and _Parsifal_ and _Le Sacre du Printemps._ Do you really believe that theatrical musics are not really music? I would think that at the very least, you and Woodduck would not argue from _this_ particular premise.


I admit, I thought that my posts did contain evidence of thought. And I didn't and don't believe that they were - or came across as - 'aggressive'.

I *was* feeling a bit jokier than usual.

Some guy, I wish you many more years to enjoy 4'33" too. Yes, I admit that when I hear musical instruments played really well, I am pleased, without any effort whatsoever. But with the Cage work, I fear that I might become 'easily bored'.

But hey, that's just me. Sitting quietly while the orchestra sits quietly just doesn't really float my boat. Not if it's presented as 'music'. I'd be quite happy if we were all just politely waiting for the stage curtain to be fixed, or something.

I've never made boasts about my musical tastes or knowledge. Does that matter? Not here, in my opinion, because this is a thread about word-meanings, where I'm as qualified as the next native speaker.

No, I *don't* '*really think that theatrical musics are not music*'. You are missing my point, which is that I don't count 4'33" as theatrical music (or music at all, now); I have decided that it is *a short bit of theatre*.

Before reading this thread, I might have liked the idea of sampling it; but now I feel that the vibes from the reverent Cage admirers (and the theatre managers anxious that I only make 'the right sort of noise') might oppress me too much.*

And there again, when it comes to theatre, I prefer drama that makes demands of its actors and audience, and where *some skill in text and performance is readily detectable*. That's just my taste, though it's a taste shared by many people.

I was nearly late for my violin lesson, posting on this thread today. So I think I've said all I want to say. Best wishes to all. :tiphat:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Edit: I also *now *choose not to appear to grant the piece validity as 'music' by my presence at a concert featuring it. I have this thread to thank for making me aware of the issues.


----------



## Taggart

Personally, I find the work derivative. I much prefer Alphonse Allais' Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man (1897). Although more programmatic than Cage (from the title), I find it wears better, and it is, of course, shorter.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> It's because there's a certain type who assures us that the only reason we don't understand the meaning of pages of music with the word 'tactet' in every bar is because we are not intelligent enough. Actually perhaps we shouldn't protest too much though as it was a little boy who told the Emperor he had no clothes when all the intelligensia were saying he had!


If they can get you to believe in 'nothing' then they can get you to believe in 'anything.'

- Con artists, that is.


----------



## DeepR

I guess for the supporters of 4'33", the concept, the philosophy and the audible content are one and the same thing.
The supporters of Cage say some of us don't have informed opinions. Maybe I am one of them. I read the wiki page on this piece, that's it. But like I said earlier, the audible content of 4'33" (the ambient/audience noise) is beyond meaningful criticism. So, an informed opinion about 4'33" would come from understanding the concept, the philosophy of the piece. This is what it would look like: "I understand that Cage is doing this and that, but I don't like it, because..." and then you would have to explain what is "wrong" with the concept, the philosophy of the piece. If such a thing is possible at all. 
It's easy to say "you don't have an informed opinion, you don't understand it.", but honestly, I would like to know how "informed criticism" of this a piece would even look like (other than questioning whether it is music or not).
For most of us, I think, music consists first and foremost and by far most importantly of its audible content; the philosophy is what is is, if we care about it all. And when "we" don't like the audible content, the philosophy is altogether irrelevant. 
Such opposites will never find each other, leading to 28 pages and counting.


----------



## Nereffid

some guy said:


> It "boils down" to nothing of the sort.
> 
> I suppose we will never ever get past this, will we?
> 
> IT IS NOT NOW AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT LIKING AND DISLIKING.
> 
> It has been about turning disliking into description and about turning liking into privileging.
> 
> That is what "it" boils down to.


Yes.

If A likes the thing B likes, then B grants A the privilege of not having to defend her opinions.

If A dislikes the thing B likes, or likes the thing B dislikes, she loses that privilege.


----------



## DavidA

I just can't believe all these words have been written about nothing! Unbelievable!

As Falstaff said in the last great chorus: "We've all been fooled!"

in fact I'll put it on just to celebrate!


----------



## Nereffid

Oh, and also there's the situation where if A likes something B dislikes, B simply thinks A is an idiot...


----------



## Nereffid

someguy to Ingélou:


> your own participation on this thread, which has been noticably more aggressive than any other postings I've ever seen of yours


:lol:
Also, :lol:
And again, :lol:

Ingélou, you know you've made it when someguy calls you out on your aggression!

:lol:
:lol:
That one's going to make me smile for _weeks_.


----------



## Guest

DeepR said:


> For most of us, I think, music consists first and foremost and by far most importantly of its audible content; the philosophy is what is is, if we care about it all. And when "we" don't like the audible content, the philosophy is altogether irrelevant.


Two things. One is that every other piece of music has some sort of philosophical underpinning. Everyone already knows and understands the philosophy of earlier music, so it's not an issue. Only when the philosophy presents too much difference with what people are already comfortable with--all twelve tones treated equally or non-intended sounds presented as being as valid as intended ones--is there a problem.

4'33"--I can't believe this has had to be said so many times--has audible content. And while it might seem obvious to say that most people think music is first and foremost audible content, the evidence is not so clear. Just recall the very heated discussion about meaning that we had recently. Extra-audible content galore.

Two, music consists of sounds and of time. That is, the sounds occur in time and are presented as rhythms. Cage had for a long time been interested in working predominately with the time element. Any percussion composer has done the same. And he has written that in those early pieces, the divisions of time (i.e., rhythms) are more important than the sounds, that any sound would do. _4'33"_ is the ultimate example of that. But just about every piece he wrote for percussion, including prepared piano, is an example of that as well. And, as we have seen over and over again, the prepared piano pieces are "allowed" to be music.

Otherwise, I'll briefly add that up to Cage, music had always consisted of things under the composer's control and of things outside the composer's control. In fact, I'm surprised that an early music specialist should be having the particular difficulties she's reported, given how much of Baroque and earlier music was not under the control of the composer, scores being more suggestive, more like mnemonics, than Classical or Romantic scores. And, until Beethoven started writing them out, the cadenzas of Classical scores were outside the control of the composer. Cage focussed his attention on the unintentional things in a way that no one had done before. Things even outside the performers' control. And argued for a philosophy of music that allowed the unintended sounds to be treated as just as valid and just as welcome as the intended ones.

The issue here is not really that Cage's music is philosophical. All music is philosophical. The difference is that we're familiar with, comfortable with, the philosophical underpinnings of older music, so much so that we don't even notice that there is any such thing, which is what accounts for DeepR's being able to say that "the philosophy is altogether irrelevant." Well, it's not, not really. But it can certainly be unnoticable or disregarded. Ricardo Mandolini had an interesting take on this, using the legend of Narcissus. Before Cage, the act of composition was an act of self-expression. The composer had needs and desires and tastes and the point of composing was to express those things musically. The composition was a mirror, reflecting the composer. Cage said, according to Mandolini, "No. There is another way." And he spend most of his career exploring that other way. Of setting up situations in which sounds would happen, sounds that were not under his direct control. Sounds that he did not try to put under his control, that did not express John Cage. Opening up music, as he said, to life.


----------



## bharbeke

I disparage 4'33" because it is a social experiment or philosophical icebreaker posing as a musical composition. A listener may find what they hear in that time interval to be musical or interesting, but those sounds are not music written by John Cage.

Sometimes, compositions can act as guidelines for the musicians (see many jazz pieces and their improv sections), but they still result in something that is recognizable as music to any layman.

4'33" goes to the extreme, but I mock it the same way I would any minimal composition that can be turned out in less than a minute. While writing this post, I came up with a bit I call "3G Network." It's three quarter notes of G in 3/4 time. The tune lasts one measure. That would qualify as music under most people's definitions a lot more easily than 4'33", but it is still a laughable idea that anyone would play that at a concert.


----------



## nightscape

If you're a fan of 4'33", I have another cool thing right up your alley

Pet Rock. Supplies limited!


----------



## DavidA




----------



## DeepR

some guy said:


> 4'33"--I can't believe this has had to be said so many times--has audible content.


Yes, the ambient/audience noise, I didn't deny that.



some guy said:


> The issue here is not really that Cage's music is philosophical. All music is philosophical. The difference is that we're familiar with, comfortable with, the philosophical underpinnings of older music, so much so that we don't even notice that there is any such thing, which is what accounts for DeepR's being able to say that *"the philosophy is altogether irrelevant."*


Taken a little out of context. I don't think philosophical underpinnings are irrelevant per se, but I think they are irrelevant to most listeners when the audible content has nothing to offer and hold on to except for ambient/audience noise. You like 4'33" for its philosophy and that's just fine. Not for the coughs in the audience. Come on, admit it!


----------



## rrudolph

bharbeke said:


> While writing this post, I came up with a bit I call "3G Network." It's three quarter notes of G in 3/4 time. The tune lasts one measure. That would qualify as music under most people's definitions a lot more easily than 4'33", but it is still a laughable idea that anyone would play that at a concert.


I would like to program your new work. Please advise as to whether you are registered with ASCAP, BMI or GEMA so we can make sure you get your royalties.


----------



## spokanedaniel

SeptimalTritone said:


> No, the sounds of the crowd combined with the ambient noise is the unique sonic expressivity of 4'33". I've said this before. It's not the same as total silence. And therefore, it stands on its own as a musical experience without the necessity of extra-musical factors needed to appreciate it.


But the supporters of 4'33" as music, have told us that there is no such thing as total silence. And obviously, if there's an audience, then there will be ambient sounds from both audiences: the audience of 4'33" and of the funeral for the deaf guy. (Though since it's his funeral, the fact that he was deaf should not require that his funeral music be silent, but let's grant the composer his whim.) So in the end, assuming the audience has not been instructed to make some particular sort of sound, and recognizing that no audience can achieve perfect silence, there's no distinction between the two pieces. (They may be of different lengths, but 4'33" itself is explicitly of indeterminate length.) And the deaf guy's funeral music at least has a justification, though I happen to think it a peculiar one.

So if Cage was aware of the other piece, then 4'33" is plagiarism. If he was not, then he's simply behind the times.


----------



## science

nightscape said:


> If you're a fan of 4'33", I have another cool thing right up your alley
> 
> Pet Rock. Supplies limited!


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> I must get another hearing test. The piece was silent when I 'heard it!
> 
> There is no music for the critics to dismiss. it is not a piece. Just an idea.


Then you weren't listening. You're not supposed to listen to "it" because *"it" does not exist as an objective set of sounds *under the control of the performer or composer. 4'33" "exists" as the sounds you hear during this time; and ideally you are expected to listen.

If you remember what you heard during a performance of 4'33", that doesn't really count, except as a memory. You can't record the piece, either; it only exists in the eternal "now" which lasts 4'33", while it is being performed, as you listen.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> It appears that a great deal of literary - i.e. extramusical - meaning must be understood to answer the question: _"Four minutes and thirty-three seconds of what?"_


True, but it's not rocket science. You're not supposed to listen to "it" because *"it" does not exist as an objective set of sounds *under the control of the performer or composer. 4'33" "exists" as the sounds you hear during this time; and ideally you are expected to listen.

So, really, nobody can criticize a performance of 4'33" because they don't know what sounds will occur, and never will. It is a moment of the eternal now, which is another way of saying sacred "silence" (passive listening), or more precisely,_ sacred awareness._

Of course, you can reject the _*idea*_ of 4'33" as a conceptual idea, but you would not be criticizing the experience of a performance, which is actual sounds; so really, in criticizing or rejecting the idea of 4'33", you are really criticizing "nothing" in the truest sense; just an idea.

But when it is performed, it becomes an actuality.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> I really like the idea of sitting quietly for a few minutes, alone or in company, and listening carefully to the sounds that exist around us, generally unnoticed... I'm honestly startled that it's such a controversial idea.


I do this all the time. I think many, if not most, people enjoy doing it. I don't think it's controversial.

But if, while I'm sitting there listening to and enjoying the sounds around me, someone tells me that what I'm hearing is a piece of music that he has composed and that for just $7.00 I can buy the score and put it on my piano where I can perform it any day I like, I will look at him for a moment with a blank stare, burst out laughing, thank him for his terrific sense of humor, and propose that we make tea and listen to some Sibelius. Sibelius was a composer who obviously listened closely to the sounds around him, and then sat down and made - what was that stuff called?... Ah! Music.


----------



## Woodduck

How remarkable! I am reading a post by some guy, who is having a conversation with another member, and at the very end of it, the following catches me up short:

Do you really believe that theatrical musics are not really music? I would think that at the very least, you and Woodduck would not argue from this particular premise.

I scratch my head and think back: when did I, Woodduck, ever argue anything from a premise that theatrical music is not music? When, for that matter, have I ever seen anyone argue anything from that premise?

The answer comes to me quickly: NEVER.

Then the question comes to me: how did I merit mention in this post? When did I become so important? Should I be flattered that my opinions are considered noteworthy enough that I am used as ammunition in a debate with someone I've never been associated with? And that my opinions - clearly stated everywhere on this thread - are so valued that people can't get enough of them and so are offering to supply me with new ones free of charge?

Popularity is such a burden. You never know whether you're loved for yourself - or for the things your admirers want to see in you.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> How remarkable! I am reading a post by some guy, who is having a conversation with another member, and at the very end of it, the following catches me up short:
> 
> Do you really believe that theatrical musics are not really music? I would think that at the very least, you and Woodduck would not argue from this particular premise.
> 
> I scratch my head and think back: when did I, Woodduck, ever argue anything from a premise that theatrical music is not music? When, for that matter, have I ever seen anyone argue anything from that premise?
> 
> The answer comes to me quickly: NEVER.
> 
> Then the question comes to me: how did I merit mention in this post? When did I become so important? Should I be flattered that my opinions are considered noteworthy enough that I am used as ammunition in a debate with someone I've never been associated with? And that my opinions - clearly stated everywhere on this thread - are so valued that people can't get enough of them and so are offering to supply me with new ones free of charge?
> 
> Popularity is such a burden. You never know whether you're loved for yourself - or for the things your admirers want to see in you.


Reality is 'optional' to some people.

. . . of course it becomes 'mandatory' when someone eventually gets slapped with a slander or libel suit.


----------



## Rhombic

Now, 4'33'' is NOT philosophical in any sense. It conveys nothing. Musically, it is just a bizarre show-off of emptiness. 4'33'' does not serve any purpose in the musical scene. Silences have meaning in between music, but not by themselves.

Would you call peace 'peace' if there had never been war before?

To those who point out that you hear the audience fidgeting... I still do not find that sufficiently interesting for it to be an argument. I mean, you can always go to the nearest park in town or stay at home or whatever.
This is just an example of witty nothingness that has nothing to do with music. In any sense.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> I do this all the time. I think many, if not most, people enjoy doing it. I don't think it's controversial.
> 
> But if, while I'm sitting there listening to and enjoying the sounds around me, someone tells me that what I'm hearing is a piece of music that he has composed and that for just $7.00 I can buy the score and put it on my piano where I can perform it any day I like, I will look at him for a moment with a blank stare, burst out laughing, thank him for his terrific sense of humor, and propose that we make tea and listen to some Sibelius. Sibelius was a composer who obviously listened closely to the sounds around him, and then sat down and made - what was that stuff called?... Ah! Music.


My objections are a little different. As someone who often spends the odd five minutes attending to the sound around me and appreciating its musical qualities, I find no compelling reason why I should want to do that in a concert hall full of wheezing, coughing, program note shuffling strangers. It's just not interesting and, besides, I've heard it before and during every concert I've ever attended. The sound of snow crystals sifting through the pines on a still and frigid night, that I will go out of my way for.


----------



## arpeggio

Maybe _4'33"_ would be more effective if it was implemented (I do not know what else to say since some object to "perform") outdoors in the woods or on a secluded beach.


----------



## EdwardBast

My last post was #433 — Oh wow! One post for every second!


----------



## The nose

^^^no unless you count 100 secons pro minute


----------



## Dim7

EdwardBast said:


> My last post was #433 - Oh wow! One post for every second!


What a coincidence! Post #433 in a thread about 4'33'' happend to be about 4'33''


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> My objections are a little different. As someone who often spends the odd five minutes attending to the sound around me and appreciating its musical qualities, I find no compelling reason why I should want to do that in a concert hall full of wheezing, coughing, program note shuffling strangers. It's just not interesting and, besides, I've heard it before and during every concert I've ever attended. *The sound of snow crystals sifting through the pines on a still and frigid night, that I will go out of my way for.*


That is a glorious sound, isn't it? Sibelius must have known it in every possible variant. "Music" (quote-unquote, in case there are any "AHAH!"s waiting to be uttered) to his ears.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Then you weren't listening. You're not supposed to listen to "it" because *"it" does not exist as an objective set of sounds *under the control of the performer or composer. 4'33" "exists" as the sounds you hear during this time; and ideally you are expected to listen.
> 
> If you remember what you heard during a performance of 4'33", that doesn't really count, except as a memory. You can't record the piece, either; it only exists in the eternal "now" which lasts 4'33", while it is being performed, as you listen.


As a physicist I can tell you that non-vibrating strings produce only silence! The con of course is to say other sounds count. Of course, these sounds are also present whenever music is performed but we don't count them!


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Ingélou said:


> This does make me think.
> 
> We are often advised to 'let the music speak for itself' and not to look at sources, explanatory titles, historical background etc if we are to have a pure piece of musical appreciation, unsullied by extraneous emotions.
> 
> Here we *have to* have extra-musical prompts before we can appreciate 4'33" at all; it is *impossible* for this piece to speak for itself.
> 
> Some of the people who advise against extra-musical knowledge are the same people who admire 4'33" and insist that it is music; which is odd, and a little discombobulating...





Ludric said:


> When listened to side by side, both works sound identical, with the only real difference being the length. Are we to value John Cage's work more so because of the _idea_ behind it? That is, are we suppose to judge it differently based on external factors rather than the work itself? If so (and if we are to consider _4'33"_ a piece of music), then are we to value other pieces of music the same way? Are we to value Beethoven's third symphony based on the ideas behind it, rather than the music itself? Are we to value J.S. Bach's_ Mass in B minor_ based on the ideas behind it as well, or let the music speak for itself?


Because both of these bear repeating. Again. Ingelou's, being one of the strongest and most succinct argument in this entire thread.

---------------------------



SeptimalTritone said:


> No, the sounds of the crowd combined with the ambient noise is the unique sonic expressivity of 4'33". I've said this before. It's not the same as total silence. And therefore, it stands on its own as a musical experience without the necessity of extra-musical factors needed to appreciate it.


The "sounds of the crowd combined with the ambient noise" is not a_ unique sonic expressivity_ of 4'33''. The same situation happens around the world in thousands of theaters, be it movie theaters, outdoor theaters, symphony or opera hall theaters, etc. If one heard a recording of 4'33'' side-by-side with various ambient noises and crowd sounds of various theaters, one couldn't discern which was 4'33''. As Ludric and Ingelou have already said, you *must* know the extra-musical details, you *must* know Cage's concept or idea, you cannot let the "music" speak for itself, because it's literally unable to (yes, literally).

There isn't anything that separates a recording of 4'33'' from various crowd noises and naturally occurring ambient sounds. What is unique or different about a recording of 4'33''? Well, I'll tell ya what is unique about it; Cage's concept/philosophy/idea, which is completely extraneous to the "music". If you say his idea/concept/philosophy aren't extraneous to the music, then you have quite a conundrum on your hands, because music must stand on its own, right?

If you've read the various threads concerning the importance of extra-musical aspects, you'd know why I find this pretty ironic. Beethoven's Eroica and Pastorale symphonies stand on their own, without the extraneous "Bonaparte" and "Nature" extra-musical aspects (*whether one wants to listen with such details in mind is another unrelated matter*). Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique stands on its own. Bach's Mass in B Minor stands on its own. 4'33'' cannot stand on its own, it relies on Cage's concept.

I am completely unconvinced that 4'33'' is music. Rather, it is a concept, an idea, a philosophy. How is that disparaging? Cage has a body of art work, mostly music and one concept art-piece. That's pretty cool in my opinion (whether I'm impressed or not by his idea isn't important, so I won't divulge). What's so wrong with that?


----------



## tdc

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Because both of these bear repeating. Again. Ingelou's, perhaps being the strongest and most succinct argument in this entire thread.


Those points have already been addressed, and I do think Cage's 4'33" can be appreciated as a stand alone work. The fact is if Cage's piece was so derivative, and not unique I don't think it would have generated this many pages of discussion already. I think we've reached the point where debating further isn't going to convince anyone of anything. My last points will be - if one disregards 4'33" as music then a lot of other new music will have to be disregarded such as many pieces in the Fluxus movement. So like it or not Cage's ideas have inspired (what some consider) valid new musical trends.

Finally (as discussed in another thread) Saint Saens did not consider Debussy's _Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune_ music. So new and unique pieces being disregarded as "not music" is nothing new.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

tdc said:


> Those points have already been addressed, and I do think Cage's 4'33" can be appreciated as a stand alone work. The fact is if Cage's piece was so derivative, and not unique I don't think it would have generated this many pages of discussion already. I think we've reached the point where debating further isn't going to convince anyone of anything. My last points will be - if one disregards 4'33" as music then a lot of other new music will have to be disregarded such as many pieces in the Fluxus movement. So like it or not Cage's ideas have inspired (what some consider) valid new musical trends.
> 
> Finally (as discussed in another thread) Saint Saens did not consider Debussy's _Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune_ music. So new and unique pieces being disregarded as "not music" is nothing new.


I never said anything about it being derivative or not. I don't know about the similar pieces that pre-date 4'33''. Those posts were by other people, not me.

I said, "they bear repeating", not "nobody has addressed them". Regardless, I don't feel they've been sufficiently addressed.

Saint-Saens not considering Debussy's _Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune_ to be music *≠* not believing audience noises and naturally occurring sounds to be music.

It can't be a stand-alone _musical_ piece, because it can't be discerned from other naturally occurring ambient sounds and crowd noises. It can, however, be a stand-alone concept artwork. The extra-musical factors are absolutely necessary *to even be conscious of the fact* that you're experiencing what John Cage titled 4'33'' in the first place! Therefore, the extra-musical factors, John Cage's concept is at the extreme forefront, not the "music".

If 4'33'' influences music, that's great! I have nothing to say about that, it also doesn't have anything to do with what we're discussing. Lots of ideas and philosophies have influenced music, right? Enlightenment, Romanticism...


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> I do this all the time. I think many, if not most, people enjoy doing it. I don't think it's controversial.
> 
> But if, while I'm sitting there listening to and enjoying the sounds around me, someone tells me that what I'm hearing is a piece of music that he has composed and that for just $7.00 I can buy the score and put it on my piano where I can perform it any day I like, I will look at him for a moment with a blank stare, burst out laughing, thank him for his terrific sense of humor, and propose that we make tea and listen to some Sibelius. Sibelius was a composer who obviously listened closely to the sounds around him, and then sat down and made - what was that stuff called?... Ah! Music.


The first paragraph shows that you get the point, and none of the stuff in the second paragraph matters.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> The first paragraph shows that you get the point, and none of the stuff in the second paragraph matters.


Can it be? And here I am on page 30! 

I knew I should have consulted you first.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Can it be? And here I am on page 30!
> 
> I knew I should have consulted you first.


Everyone should... but my time is valuable.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Everyone should... but my time is valuable.


I guess that's why you're on page 30 too.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> I guess that's why you're on page 30 too.


To be fair, this is my fifth post in this thread, and the fourth of one sentence or less.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> To be fair, this is my fifth post in this thread, and the fourth of one sentence or less.


Oh, you're no fun! I'm coming at you with a cactus and a feather.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Oh, you're no fun! I'm coming at you with a cactus and a feather.


Plume crazy as always.


----------



## Becca

It is just one week since I found and joined this forum and I can say that it has been a very interesting week. Where else could you see a 30 page discussion of nothing (relatively speaking)? It reminds me of my university days ... which is why I avoided philosophy and quantum mechanics.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Becca said:


> It is just one week since I found and joined this forum and I can say that it has been a very interesting week. Where else could you see a 30 page discussion of nothing (relatively speaking)? It reminds me of my university days ... which is why I avoided philosophy and quantum mechanics.


Very sensible, that.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics."

- Richard Feynman
_
;D_


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeVIX said:


> 4'33'' cannot stand on its own, it relies on Cage's concept.


You do not think it possible for someone to attend a performance of the work and work out their own response to it?


----------



## DavidA

Becca said:


> It is just one week since I found and joined this forum and I can say that it has been a very interesting week. Where else could you see a 30 page discussion of nothing (relatively speaking)? It reminds me of my university days ... which is why I avoided philosophy and quantum mechanics.


"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (Richard Feynman)


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> My last post was #433 - Oh wow! One post for every second!


No, that would be for a piece of work entitled 7'13" I think.


----------



## Ingélou

*Why is 4'33" disparaged, while Western forms of sacred music get their own forum?*

My answers to the OP's question:

a) There seems to be a buried non-sequitur here, as getting your own forum is not the opposite of being disparaged. Western forms of sacred music *are* sometimes disparaged; and a single piece of audience noise could not be reasonably expected to have its own forum.

b) Western sacred music has not been given its own forum on TC. There is now a sub-forum where religious music from any tradition can be discussed.

c) I'm now answering the question, 'why is 4'33" disparaged... etc.'
It seems from the evidence of posts in this thread that 4'33" is disparaged because many of us do not regard it as music, so feel that it doesn't merit serious consideration on a classical music forum; many people, however, regard Western sacred music as worthy of serious consideration for its musical artistry, regardless of their own personal religious belief or lack of religious belief.

d) The question implies another - is it *fair* that 4'33" should be disparaged? My answer is - it probably isn't fair. As a time-slot provided for ambient noise, that someone has copyrighted and made money from, it should not be disparaged; it should be ignored. Just my opinion.


----------



## Ingélou

I am quite grateful to this thread for informing me about Cage and helping me form a point of view. I have just sampled his 'Roaratorio' and found it had a certain charm; it reminds me of the time that I shared a house with someone who owned a BBC sound-effects LP. We played it often, and found that the sounds of chugging lawnmowers and toilet cisterns struggling to flush (the Great British Loo!) were curiously beguiling.

However, I cheated with the Roaratorio - kept moving the video on to see if it was the same throughout, like *Souvenir of Brighton *stamped in a stick of rock.

It was!


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Ingélou said:


> *Why is 4'33" disparaged, while Western forms of sacred music get their own forum?*
> 
> My answers to the OP's question:
> 
> a) There seems to be a buried non-sequitur here, as getting your own forum is not the opposite of being disparaged. Western forms of sacred music are sometimes disparaged; and a single piece of audience noise could not reasonably expect to be given its own forum.
> 
> b) Western sacred music has not been given its own forum on TC. There is now a sub-forum where religious music from any tradition can be discussed.
> 
> c) It seems from the evidence above that 4'33" is disparaged because many of us do not regard it as music, so feel that it doesn't merit serious consideration on a classical music forum; many people, however, regard Western sacred music as worthy of serious consideration for its musical artistry, regardless of their own personal religious belief or lack of religious belief.
> 
> d) The question implies another - is it fair that 4'33" should be disparaged. My answer is - it probably isn't fair. As a time-slot provided for ambient noise, that someone has copyrighted and made money from, it should not be disparaged; it should be ignored.


You'd think that would be an end to it, wouldn't you? But no. Here we are 31 pages later!

I'd be lying if I said I'd read every post. Some are so convoluted, comprehension became a problem. Possibly I lack the intelligence to understand the finer points.

Interestingly I thought I made a very good point several pages back. (I'm not going to bring it up again now) It was ignored, which really gave me my answer.


----------



## Ingélou

GregMitchell said:


> You'd think that would be an end to it, wouldn't you? But no. Here we are 31 pages later!
> 
> I'd be lying if I said I'd read every post. Some are so convoluted, comprehension became a problem. Possibly I lack the intelligence to understand the finer points.
> 
> Interestingly I thought I made a very good point several pages back. (I'm not going to bring it up again now) It was ignored, which really gave me my answer.


I'm going to look for it now! What number is it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is it this one? Several of us have *liked* it - and I still *like* it! :tiphat:

*I'll be honest and say I don't like what I've heard of John Cage. I'm assuming people are allowed to like or dislike whatever they choose. There are people on this forum who don't like Verdi. I find that difficult to fathom, but it's their prerogative.

On the other hand, I could say the only piece of Cage's that I do like is 4'33". This is not me being facetious. This is a serious point. Given that the score apparently stipulates that the piece does not have to be 4'33" in length, one might even say that it's the only piece I listen to every day at some point. Or do I have to sit down and make a conscious decision that I am going to listen to 4'33". Does 4'33 only happen if I take the trouble to sit down and listen to it properly, or is it happening at some point all around us all the time?

I am not listening to or playing any music whilst I type this. Could I be listening to 4'33" now?*


----------



## Guest

I think we need some photos of the person in question. Please print them off and either put them on the wall to throw darts at or place them on a shrine with candles and incense sticks. Whatever we do, it would be an idea to listen to other works by JC to "fill out" our knowledge of what else he has to offer. Anyway, here are the photos:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/ga...-photographs-and-introduction-by-james-klosty


----------



## Guest

And a couple of links to considered articles on JC:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2012/aug/13/john-cage-contemporary-music-guide

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/...prize-runner-up-john-cage-102-michael-perrett


----------



## Ingélou

Thanks for the article links. Is it relevant what a composer looks like, though? My favourite, Lully, was as ugly as sin - rather an apt simile/cliché in his case.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Ingélou said:


> I'm going to look for it now! What number is it?
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Is it this one? Several of us have *liked* it - and I still *like* it! :tiphat:
> 
> *I'll be honest and say I don't like what I've heard of John Cage. I'm assuming people are allowed to like or dislike whatever they choose. There are people on this forum who don't like Verdi. I find that difficult to fathom, but it's their prerogative.
> 
> On the other hand, I could say the only piece of Cage's that I do like is 4'33". This is not me being facetious. This is a serious point. Given that the score apparently stipulates that the piece does not have to be 4'33" in length, one might even say that it's the only piece I listen to every day at some point. Or do I have to sit down and make a conscious decision that I am going to listen to 4'33". Does 4'33 only happen if I take the trouble to sit down and listen to it properly, or is it happening at some point all around us all the time?
> 
> I am not listening to or playing any music whilst I type this. Could I be listening to 4'33" now?*


That was the one. I should have said "largely ignored."


----------



## DiesIraeCX

MacLeod said:


> You do not think it possible for someone to attend a performance of the work and work out their own response to it?


You took a single sentence out of an entire post and then replied to that single sentence without a trace of context... There are no lack of responses to 4'33'', that's for sure. That also has nothing to do with anything at all. Did you perhaps reply to the wrong person? We've been discussing whether it's music or not.

Here's _some_ of the context: "_If you've read the various threads concerning the importance of extra-musical aspects, you'd know why I find this pretty ironic. Beethoven's Eroica and Pastorale symphonies stand on their own, without the extraneous "Bonaparte" and "Nature" extra-musical aspects (whether one wants to listen with such details in mind is another unrelated matter). Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique stands on its own. Bach's Mass in B Minor stands on its own. 4'33'' cannot stand on its own, it relies on Cage's concept._"

No, 4'33'' cannot stand on its own _as a piece of music_. But when you take that single sentence, on its own, with zero context, well, it sure does sound like I'm saying it can't stand on its own, period. In no way, shape, or form. Which I'm clearly not, if you read my previous two posts.

It is unable to stand on its own as a piece of music, I won't elaborate why again. My posts are above to read, if anyone is interested. Here's a snippet.

"... _It can't be a stand-alone musical piece, because it can't be discerned from other naturally occurring ambient sounds and crowd noises. It can, however, be a stand-alone concept artwork. The extra-musical factors are absolutely necessary to even be conscious of the fact that you're experiencing what John Cage titled 4'33'' in the first place! Therefore, the extra-musical factors, John Cage's concept is at the extreme forefront, not the "music"._"

I'm still wrapping my head around how someone attending a performance of 4'33'' and working out their own response to it has to do with anything I said. Believe you me, if myself, Ingelou, or Woodduck, or any else who doesn't consider it music would surely work out our own responses to it if we were to attend a performance.


----------



## Nereffid

One thing that I don't think has come up in this thread regarding why 4'33" isn't accepted as music is what you might call the "slippery slope" argument.
Usually the "slippery slope" argument is a complete logical failure ("if we allow two men to marry, then what's to stop dogs from marrying cats?!") but doesn't 4'33" actually come with the slippery slope already built in?
Namely: "But if you allow 4'33" to be music, surely _anything else_ can be music too?"
To which I assume 4'33"'s supporters would say, "well, yes, that's rather the point".

While I'm sympathetic to that view, and I guess you could say I agree with it on a theoretical level, personally I find something rather irritating about it. Hard to say in precise words what it is; it's to do with cultural norms and a desire for order and some sort of belief in "standards" and various conservative things like that. Always I can't help reacting to 4'33" (and something like, say, "I Am Sitting In A Room") by applauding it, and then thinking, "OK, point made, now let's get back to _proper_ music".


----------



## arpeggio

Ingélou said:


> *Why is 4'33" disparaged, while Western forms of sacred music get their own forum?*
> 
> My answers to the OP's question:
> 
> a) There seems to be a buried non-sequitur here, as getting your own forum is not the opposite of being disparaged. Western forms of sacred music *are* sometimes disparaged; and a single piece of audience noise could not be reasonably expected to have its own forum.
> 
> b) Western sacred music has not been given its own forum on TC. There is now a sub-forum where religious music from any tradition can be discussed.
> 
> c) I'm now answering the question, 'why is 4'33" disparaged... etc.'
> It seems from the evidence of posts in this thread that 4'33" is disparaged because many of us do not regard it as music, so feel that it doesn't merit serious consideration on a classical music forum; many people, however, regard Western sacred music as worthy of serious consideration for its musical artistry, regardless of their own personal religious belief or lack of religious belief.
> 
> d) The question implies another - is it *fair* that 4'33" should be disparaged? My answer is - it probably isn't fair. As a time-slot provided for ambient noise, that someone has copyrighted and made money from, it should not be disparaged; it should be ignored. Just my opinion.


Excellent. You have done a superb job of clarifying the points many of us have been trying to make for years.

I still have not seen the answer to the question has anyone who used to think _4'33"_ was music that changed his mind as a result of all of this rhetoric?


----------



## Guest

Once you recognize that it's a piece of music, once you realize why it is a piece of music, then there would be no reason to go back from that. I suppose one could ask "Has anyone who used to think that the earth was a globe that changed their mind after reading a bunch of arguments by flat-earthers?" and get the same response, i.e., no response.

I still don't understand what those who keep insisting that it's not music hope to accomplish by repeated assertions.

I know what people who keep defending it from that assertion are trying to accomplish, though after awhile, it does dishearten to try to overcome such persistence. Oh well.

In a situation such as we are in, not just on TC by any means but everywhere, where two incompatible (or, at best, disconnected) conclusions can be held simultaneously--"everyone is entitled to their opinion" and "my opinion is more valid than yours"--it is not surprising to find a chorus of contradictory conclusions swirling round and round each other forever. Be fair, there is no agreement on any principle of judging how valid any single opinion is. The only sense of validation comes from holding. If the opinion being expressed is already held by you, then you agree with it, then it is more valid than any other.

Not very useful.

Well, some people argue that if everything is music then nothing is music. I'm not convinced that that need be so, but I am tempted to use that same pattern myself right now: if everyone's opinion is valid, then no one's opinion is. 

There are some simply ways to judge an opinion's validity. I despair of ever seeing any of those either agreed upon or used.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> someguy: In a situation such as we are in, not just on TC by any means but everywhere, where two incompatible (or, at best, disconnected) conclusions can be held simultaneously--"everyone is entitled to their opinion" and "my opinion is more valid than yours"--it is not surprising to find a chorus of contradictory conclusions swirling round and round each other forever. Be fair, there is no agreement on any principle of judging how valid any single opinion is.


Are 'existence' and 'non-existence' mere opinions? Or are they absolute facts?

Try arguing that reality is optional in a court of law or when you're late for work.


----------



## Guest

Well, maybe we can hear just one more opinion:


----------



## arpeggio

TalkingHead said:


> Well, maybe we can hear just one more opinion:


Classic. Shows that the Germans do have a sense of humor.


----------



## spokanedaniel

arpeggio said:


> Maybe _4'33"_ would be more effective if it was implemented (I do not know what else to say since some object to "perform") outdoors in the woods or on a secluded beach.


NO NO NO NO NO!!! When I go out into the woods to enjoy the scent of pine, the chirping of birds, the magnificence of mountain ranges, or to a secluded beach to watch and listen to the pounding surf, the LAST thing I want is a bunch of tuxedo-clad musicians in folding chairs, instruments at the ready, staring blankly at their music stands. Please, implement 4'33" in abandoned warehouses.



Woodduck said:


> Can it be? And here I am on page 30!
> 
> I knew I should have consulted you first.


This is only page 12 for me. That's at 40 posts per page.



MacLeod said:


> You do not think it possible for someone to attend a performance of the work and work out their own response to it?


No, because someone who attends 4'33" without knowing the concept will be unaware that they are experiencing 4'33". They will believe, with good reason, that the performance has not yet begun. In fact, the confusion will be exacerbated when the next piece starts, as the uninformed listener will think that one is 4'33" since they'll be unaware that 4'33" was the period of silence they just experienced.

Hmmm. Maybe that was Cage's real purpose: By inserting a few minutes of nothing into concert program listings, people not in the know will give Cage credit for the program item that comes after it.



TalkingHead said:


> Well, maybe we can hear just one more opinion:


Hilarious! Pure genius! Well, maybe not genius, but wonderful nonetheless.


----------



## DavidA

some guy said:


> Once you recognize that it's a piece of music, once you realize why it is a piece of music, then there would be no reason to go back from that. I suppose one could ask "Has anyone who used to think that the earth was a globe that changed their mind after reading a bunch of arguments by flat-earthers?" and get the same response, i.e., no response.
> 
> I still don't understand what those who keep insisting that it's not music hope to accomplish by repeated assertions.


i think it's the same reason why most people here are not flat earthers!


----------



## Nereffid

some guy said:


> Once you recognize that it's a piece of music, once you realize why it is a piece of music


I think the way you've said this is interesting, because it suggests that the statement "4'33" is a piece of music" is a fact to be recognised or realised, not an opinion to come round to. Which, taken a little bit further, suggests that those who disagree with the statement are failing to accept reality.
Now, I think that a lot of these such debates contain rather too much discussion of the world as it should be, rather than acknowledgement of the world as it is, so I should be welcoming of facts. But, though it seems clear at this stage that history is firmly on 4'33"'s side, there still seems to me to be too much ground-level resistance to the statement "4'33" is a piece of music" for such a fact to be a given - in other words, the strength of resistance is also very much a fact.
So I'm content to treat the statement "4'33" is a piece of music" as something of a Schrodinger's cat.

As for "valid" opinions, I have little time for the notion. Whether an opinion is interesting is the nub of it for me - or rather, whether the expression of the opinion is interesting. I don't share the enthusiasm some people have for "taking down" an honestly held and thoughtful opinion they disagree with.


----------



## Kieran

It used to be that your grandad would complain, _"that's not music, it's just noise!"
_
4'33" isn't even noise...


----------



## Dim7

Kieran said:


> It used to be that your grandad would complain, _"that's not music, it's just noise!"
> _
> 4'33" isn't even noise...


Strangely in the case of 4'33'' it is its _defenders_ who think it's noise.


----------



## Skilmarilion

some guy said:


> Once you recognize that it's a piece of music, once you realize why it is a piece of music, then there would be no reason to go back from that. I suppose one could ask "Has anyone who used to think that the earth was a globe that changed their mind after reading a bunch of arguments by flat-earthers?" and get the same response, i.e., no response.


That's not really an apt analogy given that the two are *worlds* apart. :tiphat:


----------



## Skilmarilion

spokanedaniel said:


> NO NO NO NO NO!!! When I go out into the woods to enjoy the scent of pine, the chirping of birds, the magnificence of mountain ranges, or to a secluded beach to watch and listen to the pounding surf, the LAST thing I want is a bunch of tuxedo-clad musicians in folding chairs, instruments at the ready, staring blankly at their music stands. Please, implement 4'33" in abandoned warehouses.


Yes, I'd imagine that wanting to listen to such surroundings would be far a poorer experience when interrupted by applause afterwards.

btw -- what exactly are the audience applauding after a performance of 4'33"? That they paid money to come and see musicians, whose job it is to perform music, *not* perform music?

It's like going to see a stand-up comedian perform, except he/she will come on stage and stand there for 4 minutes or so, say or do nothing, and then walk off …

YES!! Lets applaud that!!


----------



## Nereffid

Skilmarilion said:


> Yes, I'd imagine that wanting to listen to such surroundings would be far a poorer experience when interrupted by applause afterwards.
> 
> btw -- what exactly are the audience applauding after a performance of 4'33"? That they paid money to come and see musicians, whose job it is to perform music, *not* perform music?
> 
> It's like going to see a stand-up comedian perform, except he/she will come on stage and stand there for 4 minutes or so, say or do nothing, and then walk off …
> 
> YES!! Lets applaud that!!


Oooh, this lets me quote at length from comedian Stewart Lee, who's always curious about where the audience is prepared to go:


> On a good night, I could repeat 'Are you a sardine?' at the end for minutes [he's referring to the punchline to another comedian's joke] and take the crowd through waves of boredom, into hysteria, and back into boredom again. It was a rare source of some pride to me that I usually managed to sell this to many of the doubters who were now coming to see me off the back of three years' good press and my official 41st-best rating.
> The composer John Cage said, 'If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all.' I am glad I found this quote, as the next time someone says, 'This is boring,' I can now say, 'No. It isn't. It is part of the tradition of the post-war avant-garde.'


(That last bit is, I assume, accompanied by a small mischievous grin)


----------



## Dim7

Skilmarilion said:


> It's like going to see a stand-up comedian perform, except he/she will come on stage and stand there for 4 minutes or so, say or do nothing, and then walk off …
> 
> YES!! Lets applaud that!!


I'm pretty sure somebody has done that, and people have found it funny and applauded. It would be a good joke for the first time - like John Cage's 4'33''.


----------



## Celloman

Perhaps we should follow the spirit of Cage's ASLSP. What if, instead of performing the piece for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, we expanded it to _four hours and thirty-three minutes_? Throw in some bathroom breaks between movements. If the Cage quote about boredom is true, then logically this would be much more interesting than the shorter version.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think the way you've said this is interesting, because it suggests that the statement "4'33" is a piece of music" is a fact to be recognised or realised, not an opinion to come round to. Which, taken a little bit further, suggests that those who disagree with the statement are failing to accept reality.

You are not alone in recognizing the real intent of comments such as this.


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeVIX said:


> You took a single sentence out of an entire post and then replied to that single sentence without a trace of context... [etc]


Then let me rephrase again.

Ingelou put the argument that it is impossible for 4'33" to speak for itself: it requires extra-musical prompts. I disagreed, though the manner of my disagreeing was not well received and has possibly obscured my counter. You chose to repeat Ingelou's post, saying it was worth repeating. I simply wished to shortcut my 'repeat' objection to her argument. I didn't think context was necessary.

Clearly, if anyone agreed with me, they would have said so by now. I shall say nothing further on that point.

In an older thread on this issue, I made clear my personal view that 4'33" is *not *music. That opinion has not changed. However, this issue about whether it requires extra-musical prompts to be understood is connected to the question I posed a few pages back which only one person answered: who gets to decide what music is?

I'd be interested in others' views - is it the composer who decides? The public? The publishers? Some unspoken democratic consensus reached who-knows-how? The critics?

Does it even need to be 'decided' at all?


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> Once you recognize that it's a piece of music, once you realize why it is a piece of music, then there would be no reason to go back from that. I suppose one could ask "Has anyone who used to think that the earth was a globe changed their mind after reading a bunch of arguments by flat-earthers?" and get the same response, i.e., no response.
> 
> There are some simple ways to judge an opinion's validity. I despair of ever seeing any of those either agreed upon or used.


Despair no longer!

You have demonstrated incontrovertibly that one of those simple ways of establishing an opinion's validity is to declare in advance that it's opponent's carefully considered and stated philosophical position is equivalent to the uninformed perceptions of an illiterate and superstitious medieval peasant.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Despair no longer!
> 
> You have demonstrated incontrovertibly that one of those simple ways of establishing an opinion's validity is to declare in advance that it's opponent's carefully considered and stated philosophical position is equivalent to the uninformed perceptions of an illiterate and superstitious medieval peasant.


The postmodern paradox is that the postmodernist believes that everything is relative, except of course for the postmodernist's meta-statement that 'everything is relative.'

The statement "everything is relative" is of course an absolutist assertion.


----------



## Dim7

Marschallin Blair said:


> The postmodern paradox is that the postmodernist believes that everything is relative, except of course for the postmodernist's meta-statement that 'everything is relative.'
> 
> The statement "everything is relative" is of course an absolutist assertion.


Where are these mysterious "postmodernists" who claim that "everything is relative"?


----------



## rivulet

The curious case of 4'33" and its purported musicality once again proves that there will always be those who will attempt to rationalize and give value to _absolutely anything_ as long as it's championed by some sort of authority.


----------



## samurai

Kieran said:


> It used to be that your grandad would complain, _"that's not music, it's just noise!"
> _
> 4'33" isn't even noise...


Ah, yes, but its defenders would qualify that as "ambient noise"!


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> Where are these mysterious "postmodernists" who claim that "everything is relative"?


I feel I have this tendency.


----------



## Celloman

The "real" question is, when does noise become music and vice versa?

Music is a very abstract idea and few people agree on its definition. It's difficult to draw lines where there aren't any.


----------



## Art Rock

33 pages and growing. What's the bloody point? Those who believe it's music stand zero chance to convince those who believe it's not, and vice versa. No matter how many times the same arguments on either side are repeated.


----------



## arpeggio

spokanedaniel said:


> NO NO NO NO NO!!! When I go out into the woods to enjoy the scent of pine, the chirping of birds, the magnificence of mountain ranges, or to a secluded beach to watch and listen to the pounding surf, the LAST thing I want is a bunch of tuxedo-clad musicians in folding chairs, instruments at the ready, staring blankly at their music stands. Please, implement 4'33" in abandoned warehouses.


I was trying to be silly.


----------



## Ingélou

Art Rock said:


> 33 pages and growing. What's the bloody point? Those who believe it's music stand zero chance to convince those who believe it's not, and vice versa. No matter how many times the same arguments on either side are repeated.


You're right, of course; but when one has stated one's point of view and someone else comes on and misrepresents what one has said - in one's own judgement, of course - then if one does not come back on to protest, one might look as if one had been cowed, mightn't one? 
That's what happened in my case, anyway. I got told that I had been 'aggressive'...


----------



## arpeggio

Art Rock said:


> 33 pages and growing. What's the bloody point? Those who believe it's music stand zero chance to convince those who believe it's not, and vice versa. No matter how many times the same arguments on either side are repeated.


Exactly. In spite of all the hot air no one has come forward and stated "I used to think _4'33"_ was music until I read this thread."

By the way there have been many threads and over a thousand pages concerning this.

I do not think it is music. The difference between many of the critics and myself is I do not care what others think of the whatever you want to call it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Dim7 said:


> Where are these mysterious "postmodernists" who claim that "everything is relative"?


Oh, look around- they're closer than you think.

No need to name names. _;D_


----------



## arpeggio

Ingélou said:


> I got told that I had been 'aggressive'...


What the!!!!!!!!!!! Tell me who they are and I will challenge them to a balloon fight. I will defend your honor milady.


----------



## Ingélou

I used to think 4'33" might be *definable* as music, until I read this thread... 

But reading the arguments of those who are sure that it's music has completely convinced me that it isn't.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Ingélou said:


> You're right, of course; but when one has stated one's point of view and someone else comes on and misrepresents what one has said - in one's own judgement, of course - then if one does not come back on to protest, one might look as if one had been cowed, mightn't one?
> That's what happened in my case, anyway. I got told that I had been 'aggressive'...
> 
> (And actually, I had originally not made up my mind about 4'33" but now I have - I definitely have!)


Ingélou. . . "aggressive."

I really got the giggles on the cascading irony of that one.

Its right up there with: "Marschallin Blair: 'humble.'"


----------



## Ingélou

In an odd sort of way, suggesting that you're not humble is a very humble thing to say!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Ingélou said:


> I used to think 4'33" might be *definable* as music, until I read this thread...
> 
> But reading the arguments of those who are sure that it's music has completely convinced me that it isn't.


I wouldn't call "muddying the puddle to make it look deep" an 'argument.'

But I would call it 'academic imposture.'


----------



## arpeggio

Marschallin Blair said:


> Oh, look around- there closer than you think.
> 
> No need to name names. _;D_


Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! And I am proud of it. 

And I would still prefer _4'33"_ to 'Yummy, yummy, yummy, I've got love in my tummy" or the symphonies of Middendorf or Nanes.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Ingélou said:


> In an odd sort of way, suggesting that you're not humble is a very humble thing to say!


Oh my God!

I just spat my coffee out.

No kidding.

I got to clean it up now.

- _Thanks Ingélou. _

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

<_sotto voce_> God is this a mess.


----------



## KenOC

Ingélou said:


> In an odd sort of way, suggesting that you're not humble is a very humble thing to say!


Or it could be just an attempt to exhibit false humility -- or to mask it. I'm a little confused about this! :lol:


----------



## Ingélou

~#~~~'@@@~~~pppPPddF~~~~~###~~~~~++=++~~~~^^^~~~~~VVV~~~>>>


----------



## arpeggio

Ingélou said:


> I used to think 4'33" might be *definable* as music, until I read this thread...
> 
> But reading the arguments of those who are sure that it's music has completely convinced me that it isn't.


They got one. The critics will indirectly take credit for it. They will now go into attack mode and try to convince more to return to the true path of enlightenment.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> Or it could be just an attempt to exhibit false humility -- or to mask it. I'm a little confused about this! :lol:


I never gave it much thought to tell the truth.


----------



## Haydn man

So to summarise the previous 504 posts
4'33" may be music or then again it might not

Please carry on in case anybody who has not had a say wants to join in


----------



## Marschallin Blair

-


Ingélou said:


> ~#~~~'@@@~~~~~~~~###~~~~~~~~~^^^~~~~~VVV~~~>>>
> (Read my cogent argument, which consists of my readers' ambient opinions.)


- "It's not 'nothing'- its 'ambient sound.'"

- "It's not 'accountancy fraud'- they're 'derivatives.'"

- "Its not 'insolent noise'- its 'structured musical arcana.'"

- "That's not a 'man behind the curtain'- its the 'unimpeachable Wizard.'"

- and so on. . .

The Biggest Con is subscribing to the Queen of Hearts nonsense in _Alice in Wonderland_ where "words are what she says they are, nothing more, nothing less."


----------



## Taggart

Marschallin Blair said:


> The Biggest Con is subscribing to the Queen of Hearts nonsense in _Alice in Wonderland_ where "words are what she says they are, nothing more, nothing less."


Quite. The quote comes from Humpty Dumpty in chapter 6 of Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871)



> "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
> 
> "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
> 
> "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master- that's all."


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Taggart said:


> Quite. The quote comes from Humpty Dumpty in chapter 6 of Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871)


The last time I read _Alice in Wonderland_ was in the seventh grade- or was that Carroll's galley proofs of his book on symbolic logic?

Who am I fooling?- thanks, Taggart.

_;D_


----------



## Guest

Crap. This silly argument of late disqualifies "I Am Sitting In A Room" as music. You literally can't listen to a single minute of it without Lucier explaining the thing! :lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair

nathanb said:


> Crap. This silly argument of late disqualifies "I Am Sitting In A Room" as music. You literally can't listen to a single minute of it without Lucier explaining the thing! :lol:


I find the apologia for Cage's _4'33"_ more along the lines of: 'explaining the nothingness in terms of the not-worth-knowing,' myself.

- And people thought the Scholastics of the High Middle Ages were bad!


----------



## Wood

MacLeod said:


> Then let me rephrase again.
> 
> Ingelou put the argument that it is impossible for 4'33" to speak for itself: it requires extra-musical prompts. I disagreed,
> 
> Clearly, if anyone agreed with me, they would have said so by now. I shall say nothing further on that point.


I agree with you MacLeod. I'd go further and assert that I would prefer to be at a concert of 4'33 where I did not know anything about it. That way it would have a more powerful effect by my working it out during and after the performance.

Of course, with Wood's Law being so true, I don't think anyone is likely to enjoy that particular experience.


----------



## Rhombic

4'33'' is Elysium for those who do not want to listen to music.
I am hilariously baffled... there are serious music-lovers who defend this utter nothingness.
- It expresses nothing
- It has no music written
- It is unpredictable
- It needs no musicians nor parts (even if these are actually used)
- You get exactly the same result if you stay for 4'33'' in a library

Seriously, now, get a life. Listen to real music. Or, at least, listen to music.

I cannot tell whether something is music or not, but I can surely tell whether it is something at all!


----------



## Wood

Rhombic said:


> 4'33''
> 
> - It expresses nothing
> - It has no music written
> - It is unpredictable
> - It needs no musicians nor parts (even if these are actually used)
> - You get exactly the same result if you stay for 4'33'' in a library


I'll give you one out of five.

Please try harder.


----------



## Rhombic

Wood said:


> I'll give you one out of five.
> 
> Please try harder.


Let Cage try harder too.


----------



## Woodduck

Originally Posted by Ingélou: 
I used to think 4'33" might be definable as music, until I read this thread... 
But reading the arguments of those who are sure that it's music has completely convinced me that it isn't.



arpeggio said:


> They got one. The critics will indirectly take credit for it. They will now go into attack mode and try to convince more to return to the true path of enlightenment.


Here's one critic who leaves the credit where it belongs: to the independent and eminently sensible mind of Ingelou.

The arguments for 4'33" being music come down, I think, to five, which are offered singly or in combination:

1) The they-say-so argument ("they," who are superior to "us" in knowledge, professional status, and cultural cachet, say it's music)
2) The it-looks-like argument (it was created by someone who wrote music, it takes place at concerts, it's been published, the listener is hearing _something_, after all)
3) The it's-an-aesthetic-and/or-spiritual-experience argument (music is nice to listen to, rain on the roof is also nice to listen to, so rain on the roof must be music too)
4) The when-does-orange-become-red argument (its just "total indeterminacy," and "indeterminate" music is still music, and where's boundary between one kind of indeterminacy and another kind of indeterminacy, and one thing just bleeds into another, and its a slippery slope, and why shouldn't men marry wart hogs anyway)
5) The "Through the Looking Glass" argument (anything can be anything if we say it is)

None of these arguments present any real difficulty - except to those who accept them.


----------



## Guest

Rhombic said:


> Let Cage try harder too.


His current state of health makes it unlikely. There are other (insert term) of Cage that could be investigated though.


----------



## Dim7

4'33'' is overrated, I much prefer his 
Variations MCLXVI: For Any Number of Performers Making Any Sounds by Any Means in Any Number of Locations for an Unspecified Length of Time With or Without Recognising That They Are Doing So, and With or Without an Audience, Aware or Unaware That a Performance of Variations MCLXVI is Under Way.

Try to play that work "wrong", now there's a real challenge!


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Originally Posted by Ingélou:
> I used to think 4'33" might be definable as music, until I read this thread...
> But reading the arguments of those who are sure that it's music has completely convinced me that it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one critic who leaves the credit where it belongs: to the independent and eminently sensible mind of Ingelou.
> 
> The arguments for 4'33" being music come down, I think, to five, which are offered singly or in combination:
> 
> 1) The they-say-so argument ("they," who are superior to "us" in knowledge, professional status, and cultural cachet, say it's music)
> 2) The it-looks-like argument (it was created by someone who wrote music, it takes place at concerts, it's been published, the listener is hearing _something_, after all)
> 3) The it's-an-aesthetic-and/or-spiritual-experience argument (music is nice to listen to, rain on the roof is also nice to listen to, so rain on the roof must be music too)
> 4) The when-does-orange-become-red argument (its just "total indeterminacy," and "indeterminate" music is still music, and where's boundary between one kind of indeterminacy and another kind of indeterminacy, and one thing just bleeds into another, and its a slippery slope, and why shouldn't men marry wart hogs anyway)
> 5) The "Through the Looking Glass" argument (anything can be anything if we say it is)
> 
> None of these arguments present any real difficulty - except to those who accept them.


Leaving the particular case of 4'33" aside, do you not think 2, 3, or 4 are used within the worlds of creative endeavour / or are valid approaches? (Serious, genuine enquiry).


----------



## Becca

It all seems to boil down to the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics with a dose of Heisenberg added for good measure, i.e. it is both and only the act of observing it collapses it - plus or minus the Planck constant.

There, does that sum it all up?


----------



## Wood

Becca said:


> It all seems to boil down to the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics with a dose of Heisenberg added for good measure, i.e. it is both and only the act of observing it collapses it - plus or minus the Planck constant.
> 
> There, does that sum it all up?


Only Marschallin Blair could possibly provide a cohesive response to this ideology.

I look forward to reading it.


----------



## Woodduck

Originally Posted by Woodduck:

_The arguments for 4'33" being music come down, I think, to five, which are offered singly or in combination:

1) The they-say-so argument ("they," who are superior to "us" in knowledge, professional status, and cultural cachet, say it's music)
2) The it-looks-like argument (it was created by someone who wrote music, it takes place at concerts, it's been published, the listener is hearing something, after all)
3) The it's-an-aesthetic-and/or-spiritual-experience argument (music is nice to listen to, rain on the roof is also nice to listen to, so rain on the roof must be music too)
4) The when-does-orange-become-red argument (its just "total indeterminacy," and "indeterminate" music is still music, and where's boundary between one kind of indeterminacy and another kind of indeterminacy, and one thing just bleeds into another, and its a slippery slope, and why shouldn't men marry wart hogs anyway)
5) The "Through the Looking Glass" argument (anything can be anything if we say it is)

None of these arguments present any real difficulty - except to those who accept them. _



dogen said:


> Leaving the particular case of 4'33" aside, do you not think 2, 3, or 4 are used within the worlds of creative endeavour / or are valid approaches? (Serious, genuine enquiry).


Evidently they are used, or they wouldn't be trotted out in this discussion. Valid? I don't think so. Do you? Can you cite some exampes showing that they're valid?


----------



## DavidA

Becca said:


> It all seems to boil down to the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics with a dose of Heisenberg added for good measure, i.e. it is both and only the act of observing it collapses it - plus or minus the Planck constant.
> 
> There, does that sum it all up?


You missed out Bohr and Schrodinger!


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> As a physicist I can tell you that non-vibrating strings produce only silence! The con of course is to say other sounds count. Of course, these sounds are also present whenever music is performed but we don't count them!


Well, in the case of 4'33", these "non-intentional" sounds do count. That's the "Eastern" part of it.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Well, in the case of 4'33", these "non-intentional" sounds do count. That's the "Eastern" part of it.


You can't argue with a 'heads I win tails you lose' approach!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Rhombic said:


> Let Cage try harder too.


"If you don't at least _attempt_ a shot then you are guaranteed to miss one-hundred percent of the time."

- Canadian hockey champ, Wayne Gretsky


----------



## Guest

@woodduck

I do think they are valid. They seem (your slight negative spin aside) as almost non-controversial notions to me. Examples? They're in play all the time, across all art endeavours. Art progresses by questioning, by challenging, by breaking rules. Without an avante-garde we would still be clacking two jawbones together and painting horses on cave walls. Behind the frontier, others will be filling in the gaps, perfecting, working on the ramifications. If the avante-garde ceases then what remains will be nostalgia, rehashing, dated and ultimately, dead.


----------



## Ingélou

Surely we are not talking about art here, but word-definitions? And we're not talking about avant-garde art or music in general, but just about one small piece?

The fact that I now don't think 4'33" counts as 'music' - based on my understanding of music as deliberate patterning of sounds by musicians for a human audience - doesn't mean that I would diss experimental music, or experimental poetry or art. I actually like some of it.

_(This thread draws me back even when I'm sure I won't post any more; it ought to be called Fatal Attraction...)_


----------



## Guest

Ingélou said:


> Surely we are not talking about art here, but word-definitions? And we're not talking about avant-garde art or music in general, but just about one small piece?
> 
> The fact that I now don't think 4'33" counts as 'music' - based on my understanding of music as deliberate patterning of sounds by musicians for a human audience - doesn't mean that I would diss experimental music, or experimental poetry or art. I actually like some of it.
> 
> _(This thread draws me back even when I'm sure I won't post any more; it ought to be called Fatal Attraction...)_


Well I did say "setting aside 4'33" ", to speak more generally. I was concerning myself with all artistic endeavour and how it " progresses." I don't just mean in regard to experimental, or only in respect of music.


----------



## arpeggio

OK so _4'33"_ is not music.

Should all discussions concerning the work be banned from Talk Classical?

Should out members who think it is music because of their flawed rhetoric have their membership revoked?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

arpeggio said:


> OK so _4'33"_ is not music.
> 
> Should all discussions concerning the work be banned from Talk Classical?
> 
> Should out members who think it is music because of their flawed rhetoric have their membership revoked?


OK so _4'33"_ is music.

Should all discussions concerning the work be banned from Talk Classical?

Should members who think it isn't music because of their sounder arguments have their memberships revoked?

_Tu quoque_.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Ingélou said:


> Surely we are not talking about art here, but word-definitions? And we're not talking about avant-garde art or music in general, but just about one small piece?
> The fact that I now don't think 4'33" counts as 'music' - based on my understanding of music as deliberate patterning of sounds by musicians for a human audience - doesn't mean that I would diss experimental music, or experimental poetry or art. I actually like some of it.
> 
> _(This thread draws me back even when I'm sure I won't post any more; it ought to be called Fatal Attraction...)_


Precisely.

_Garçon_, hold the red herrings please.


----------



## arpeggio

I do not know.

You tell me.

Should my membership from this forum be banned because I believe that the members who think it is music should be left alone?

Remember. I have already been driven out of another forum because I defended the members who liked Cage.


----------



## Bulldog

arpeggio said:


> I do not know.
> 
> You tell me.
> 
> Should my membership from this forum be banned because I believe that the members who think it is music should be left alone?


Do they want to be left alone? I haven't seen any evidence of that on this board, nor do I think it's best for them to be silent and simply endure.

There isn't really much to this issue. We all hear ambient sounds; some of us call it music, others say it's not music. That's just a matter of definition, since we are hearing the same sounds. Actually, I don't think that Cage is important here at all.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> I do not know.
> 
> You tell me.
> 
> Should my membership from this forum be banned because I believe that the members who think it is music should be left alone?
> 
> Remember. I have already been driven out of another forum because I defended the members who liked Cage.


Good grief Charlie Brown! Driven out? Banned? Can such things happen here? If anyone threatens you with that, you send them to me and I will give them five arguments proving the injustice of it.


----------



## DonAlfonso

If 4'33" is music (and I'm not saying it is or isn't) what form would it be? Too short for a symphony surely. Millionrainbows obviously considers it some sacred form but I disagree, it's actually opera. When performed in concert it needs to be correctly billed not as 4'33" but as "the music from the opera 4'33"


----------



## Becca

DonAlfonso said:


> If 4'33" is music (and I'm not saying it is or isn't) what form would it be? Too short for a symphony surely. Millionrainbows obviously considers it some sacred form but I disagree, it's actually opera. When performed in concert it needs to be correctly billed not as 4'33" but as "the music from the opera 4'33"


Nonsense, it s a ballet. I have never seen so much rapid footwork as has been happening in this thread.


----------



## arpeggio

Woodduck said:


> Good grief Charlie Brown! Driven out? Banned? Can such things happen here? If anyone threatens you with that, you send them to me and I will give them five arguments proving the injustice of it.


I was driven out of another classical music forum which like Valdimort we can not mention. I have mentioned it many times in other threads. As a matter of fact we have several refugees here including one who was outright banned because he defended modernistic music.

One of the reasons I was driven out is because I defended members who liked John Cage. This is why I am overly defensive about discussions like this.

The other forum was badly damaged as a result of the pro-modern music members who left it out of frustration. The level of discourse there was much more hostile.

I have had experiences with performing groups that were destroyed because of feuds that broke out between the musicians and the board who disapproved of the programming. These boards were controlled by non-musicians who disapproved of that nasty modern stuff. Slatkin was driven out of the National Symphony for programming too much modern or contemporary music.

We are going through such a crisis with a group I am playing with now. It is now programming nothing but light classics and pop music. Music that real people want to listen too. This is a voluntary group. As a result it is slowly losing many of its best players to groups that play a wider range of music.

Too many of the members who are critical of 20th or 21st century remind me of these board members I used to clash with.


----------



## Becca

While I may seem very facetious about this thread, a little background is in order. When I was at university, I was in one of the science departments but I would occasionally take some courses from the music department which had a very strong bent towards electronic and experimental music. One of the faculty members was Pauline Oliveros who developed the concepts of "Deep Listening" and "Sonic Awareness". While my hard science background made it difficult for me to accept some of the concepts, I can appreciate how seriously they took their various approaches to the physiology of how we listen and react to sounds of all kinds. I won't pretend to like things like the Cage work and much more of what is very inaccurately called 'modern music', but then I don't listen to polyphonic chant either.


----------



## brotagonist

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I now get how the work is a religious one. I had never heard it called that, but a lot of other things  Anyway, why do I think it is disparaged? Because most people, me included, think it is a cheap shot. Now that I do get it, I get it, but I still think it is cheap, or, to be polite, it is performance art. Probably every other composer would have done that and more by actually composing music... but they're not Cage


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> I was driven out of another classical music forum which like Valdimort we can not mention. I have mentioned it many times in other threads. As a matter of fact we have several refugees here including one who was outright banned because he defended modernistic music.
> 
> One of the reasons I was driven out is because I defended members who liked John Cage. This is why I am overly defensive about discussions like this.
> 
> The other forum was badly damaged as a result of the pro-modern music members who left it out of frustration. The level of discourse there was much more hostile.
> 
> I have had experiences with performing groups that were destroyed because of feuds that broke out between the musicians and the board who disapproved of the programming. These boards were controlled by non-musicians who disapproved of that nasty modern stuff. Slatkin was driven out of the National Symphony for programming too much modern or contemporary music.
> 
> We are going through such a crisis with a group I am playing with now. It is now programming nothing but light classics and pop music. Music that real people want to listen too. This is a voluntary group. As a result it is slowly losing many of its best players to groups that play a wider range of music.
> 
> Too many of the members who are critical of 20th or 21st century remind me of these board members I used to clash with.


Thanks for explaining. I can see why you'd be sensitive. I don't think, though, that anything drastic is brewing here on TC. Regardless of sometimes strong differences of opinion, I see most members here keeping the focus on the ideas being discussed and not on the individuals discussing them, and most of the time the sparring is good-humored. If it weren't, I, for one, wouldn't stick around.


----------



## KenOC

"Driven out" indeed! There are some people who firmly believe that they are criticized for their opinions rather than for their manner.

'Tain't so!


----------



## science

arpeggio said:


> I was driven out of another classical music forum which like Valdimort we can not mention. I have mentioned it many times in other threads. As a matter of fact we have several refugees here including one who was outright banned because he defended modernistic music.
> 
> One of the reasons I was driven out is because I defended members who liked John Cage. This is why I am overly defensive about discussions like this.
> 
> The other forum was badly damaged as a result of the pro-modern music members who left it out of frustration. The level of discourse there was much more hostile.
> 
> I have had experiences with performing groups that were destroyed because of feuds that broke out between the musicians and the board who disapproved of the programming. These boards were controlled by non-musicians who disapproved of that nasty modern stuff. Slatkin was driven out of the National Symphony for programming too much modern or contemporary music.
> 
> We are going through such a crisis with a group I am playing with now. It is now programming nothing but light classics and pop music. Music that real people want to listen too. This is a voluntary group. As a result it is slowly losing many of its best players to groups that play a wider range of music.
> 
> Too many of the members who are critical of 20th or 21st century remind me of these board members I used to clash with.


The people you feel roughed up by, and the people you're roughing up, have chosen Alma Deutscher as their champion.

Modern music won, the National Symphony lost.

You can relax. No matter how _4'33"_ is classified, no matter who dislikes it or what they say about it, at the level of the culture as a whole, Cage has won. His victory is complete and irrevocable: for the rest of human history, as long as there are people who remember a even couple dozen twentieth-century composers, Cage will be remembered among them.

Modernism as a whole has won. Joyce and Eliot and Mann, Monet and Picasso and Pollock have won. You have the upper hand, inherently and inevitably. Be a good winner. Let people have some jokes about _Finnegan's Wake_ and _4'33"_ and Duchamp's _Fountain_. Far from being a threat, the jokes and the outrage and even really meaningful criticism like López's actually promote the establishment, just as Achebe's criticism of _Heart of Darkness_ ensures its interest for future generations of readers.

You're up against Alma Deutscher; the likes of Slatkin are on your side.


----------



## arpeggio

Ken,

I am sorry but I can not let this slide. I know that you are still very active there. I still occasionally review the threads in that other forum. Although some are very interesting I avoid making any contributions. Things have calmed down quite a bit since I left. I know that there have been a few threads where the remaining members have discussed the current state of affairs.

You probably know who I am even though I use a handle here. Some of the attacks that were directed toward us are so ugly that I can not post them here because they would be deleted. When I tried it was. One of the nastiest came from Superhugh who is still very active there.

I have sent PM's to members here where I could quote some of the nastier remarks and they were shocked that people could get away with them over there.

Maybe we were overly sensitive in your eyes but there is only so much abuse one can take.


----------



## Ingélou

I am sorry to hear of your experience.

But although there's been a lot of discussion on this thread, I don't feel that anyone has suggested that anyone's view of Cage means that they should be outlawed. Most of the posts have added a 'live-and-let-live' caveat, and many have been good-natured and jokey. 

Discussion is what we do at TC, and the OP posted this topic, so we all obliged.

I honestly don't think you have anything to worry about on TC. 

Live long & prosper.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Precisely.
> 
> _Garçon_, hold the red herrings please.


My comment was in response to Woodduck's summary of points iro 4'33", it was not for any fishy reason; red or otherwise.


----------



## Nereffid

I don't want this thread to wander off into the old arguments about posting behaviour, but arpeggio said something there about "defending" the supporters of 4'33" and it prompted me to wonder if anyone else sees these "controversial" threads the way I do.

It seems to me there are two very different main groups of people who think 4'33" isn't music.
One group consists of inarticulate buffoons who are not only incapable of thinking outside the box but also incapable of entertaining the possibility that there's a box to think outside of.
The other consists of people with a "live-and-let-live" attitude who have thought about the issue at hand and come to a conclusion, and try to present their ideas politely and thoughtfully.
Unfortunately, the problem (I think) with the way these arguments go is that although the first group's useless flatulence is what causes the noxious atmosphere, their posts are very much hit-and-run, there's nothing worth responding to, and so it's the thoughtful ones who become the face of the "anti" side, and as a result (I think) face rather more exasperation from the "pro" side than their posts seem to warrant.


Closer to the point of the thread, and relating to another post by arpeggio as to who gets their mind changed by these arguments:
I had a look at last year's thread on "the boundaries of music" and saw that, although I didn't actually refer to 4'33" I was happy to say that Cage's "Water Walk", Lucier's "I am sitting in a room", and musique concrete generally, were music. But I seem to have changed my mind.
I say "seem to" because at the time I acknowledged that I see grey areas rather than boundaries; perhaps the areas are less grey now, and perhaps they'll change again later.
No particular argument on this or any other thread has caused this change in my attitude, though I admit I'm the sort of person who finds himself put off an otherwise appealing idea if it's advocated in an unappealing way. In this particular thread a couple of things clarified my position to me: one being the realisation that for some on both the pro and anti side, the answer was "obvious" (indicating that both were wrong, therefore). The other was Ingélou's use of the word "meta-music", which I love.


----------



## GioCar

science said:


> .... Let people have some jokes about _Finnegan's Wake_ and _4'33"_ and Duchamp's _Fountain_. Far from being a threat, the jokes and the outrage and even really meaningful criticism like López's actually promote the establishment, just as Achebe's criticism of _Heart of Darkness_ ensures its interest for future generations of readers.
> ....


You left out Manzoni's contribution to the cause










All the above (Joyce's, Cage's, Duchamp's, Manzoni's works, etc..) are Pieces of Art. Why? Because people are still arguing, discussing, joking or simply thinking of them, and they'll do this for years to come...


----------



## Stavrogin

There is a (50 year old and very common) definition around, which I find very solid.

"_*Conceptual art*_" is (from Wiki) _art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic and material concerns_.

It fits, doesn't it?

So my take is that 4'33" is music, and to be precise it is a "specific" (not superior nor inferior) type of music: conceptual music.


----------



## Kieran

Stavrogin said:


> There is a (50 year old and very common) definition around, which I find very solid.
> 
> "_*Conceptual art*_" is (from Wiki) _art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic and material concerns_.
> 
> It fits, doesn't it?
> 
> So my take is that 4'33" is music, and to be precise it is a "specific" (not superior nor inferior) type of music: conceptual music.


That's it. It's kinda like the musical equivalent of Tracy Emin's Unmade Bed. There's a point it's making about music, what is music etc, that's probably wholly valid. Necessary, even. But for me it's a once off thing. I wouldn't "listen to it" all the way through again...


----------



## spokanedaniel

Celloman said:


> The "real" question is, when does noise become music and vice versa?
> 
> Music is a very abstract idea and few people agree on its definition. It's difficult to draw lines where there aren't any.


The definitions distinguishing noise from music may be fuzzy, but far enough away from that fuzzy line I think it becomes more and more clear. In this case, the musicians do nothing. Ergo, I assert that 4'33" is not music.



Art Rock said:


> 33 pages and growing. What's the bloody point? Those who believe it's music stand zero chance to convince those who believe it's not, and vice versa. No matter how many times the same arguments on either side are repeated.


The point is that the discussion is fun. If it's not fun, then continuing to read/post would be self-destructive. I'm enjoying this, meaningless though it may be. At some point I'll get bored with it and drop out of the thread.



Marschallin Blair said:


> "If you don't at least _attempt_ a shot then you are guaranteed to miss one-hundred percent of the time."
> 
> - Canadian hockey champ, Wayne Gretsky


No disrespect intended to Canada's favorite son of hockey, but I think Mr. Gretsky must have been off skating during math class. Percentage of misses is the number of misses divided by the number of shots. When the number of shots is zero, then the equation is undefined. There is no meaning to the statement "divide by zero." It is not 100%. It is not 0%. It is not anything in between or outside that range. It is simply undefined. What he should have said is that if you attempt no shots you will make no goals. Though maybe even that is wrong, since you might accidentally score a goal when you were merely attempting a pass. I guess the lesson here is that you need not be either a mathematician or a logician to be a popular and successful professional hockey player.

Sorry for the nit-picking. Innumeracy is a pet peeve of mine.



DonAlfonso said:


> If 4'33" is music (and I'm not saying it is or isn't) what form would it be? Too short for a symphony surely. Millionrainbows obviously considers it some sacred form but I disagree, it's actually opera. When performed in concert it needs to be correctly billed not as 4'33" but as "the music from the opera 4'33"


4'33", if it is to be called art at all, is actually minimalist pantomime. The performers make no sound. They just sit there. Thus it's closer to pantomime than to music, though in my opinion it is worthless pantomime. (I also think that a blank canvas, or one with nothing but one tiny spot of a single color is worthless art, if art at all.)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

You can relax. No matter how 4'33" is classified, no matter who dislikes it or what they say about it, at the level of the culture as a whole, Cage has won. His victory is complete and irrevocable: for the rest of human history, as long as there are people who remember a even couple dozen twentieth-century composers, Cage will be remembered among them.

Modernism as a whole has won. Joyce and Eliot and Mann, Monet and Picasso and Pollock have won. You have the upper hand, inherently and inevitably. Be a good winner. Let people have some jokes about Finnegan's Wake and 4'33" and Duchamp's Fountain. Far from being a threat, the jokes and the outrage and even really meaningful criticism like López's actually promote the establishment, just as Achebe's criticism of Heart of Darkness ensures its interest for future generations of readers. 

Lovely sentiment, Science... but how much truth is there to it? Jan Mijtens, Paulus Potter, Dirck van Baburen, Govaert Flinck, Gerard de Lairesse, Bartholomeus van der Helst, Jacob Cats... all names quite familiar to you, no doubt. And how could they not be so, after all they were all among the leading most honored and prized artists of the "Golden Age" of the Dutch Baroque. Of course there were many less honored/less successful artists as well such as Jan Vermeer, Fran's Hals, and one Rembrandt Van Rijn.

The history of the arts is written by the subsequent generations of artists, art "experts", and art lovers. Hans Makart was the single most popular painter of the fin de siècle in Vienna. His paintings were sought by wealthy aristocrats, powerful industrialists, and in-the-know art lovers. He was feted by arts groups and arts institutions. Today he is remembered, if at all, only as the teacher of Gustav Klimt. Klimt, on the other hand, was quite popular in certain circles, but the source of continual criticism and censorship. The leading Modernist architect, Adolf Loos, in his essay on Ornament and Crime, famously dismissed Klimt as not merely a degenerate decorator... but literally a criminal whose concepts of art held no place in the Modern world. Today his paintings are among the most prized, and his famous Kiss has surpassed the Mona Lisa as the single most reproduced painting in history.

Undoubtedly many Modernist masterpieces will survive: the paintings of Monet, Degas, Van Gogh, Picasso, Matisse... Stravinsky, Bartok, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev... the novels of Mann, Hesse, and Proust... the poetry of T.S. Eliot, Eugenio Montale, Rilke, etc... are all solid bets. Others are less set in stone.

I fully believe that Modernism was one of the greatest periods in Western Art. The period from 1870-WWII produced innovations and a wealth of artists, poets, novelists, playwrights, and composers unlike anything seen since the Renaissance. The Renaissance, however, was followed by an 100-year period known as Mannerism that produced far less of lasting value. How many Mannerist painters can you name off hand? How many on par with Botticelli to say nothing of Leonardo or Michelangelo. Bronzino and Pontormo are probably the finest... unless we include El Greco, commonly categorized as "Proto-Baroque". Beside them how many remain house-hold names... even among artists and art lovers?

The notion of the "Triumph of Modernism" is as naive as the notion of the "Triumph of American Painting" or Clement Greenberg's idea of the triumph of abstraction... and subsequently the death of "realism" and/or figurative art. All such "triumphs" are momentary unless they continue to inspire and influence future generations.


----------



## science

StlukesguildOhio said:


> You can relax. No matter how 4'33" is classified, no matter who dislikes it or what they say about it, at the level of the culture as a whole, Cage has won. His victory is complete and irrevocable: for the rest of human history, as long as there are people who remember a even couple dozen twentieth-century composers, Cage will be remembered among them.
> 
> Modernism as a whole has won. Joyce and Eliot and Mann, Monet and Picasso and Pollock have won. You have the upper hand, inherently and inevitably. Be a good winner. Let people have some jokes about Finnegan's Wake and 4'33" and Duchamp's Fountain. Far from being a threat, the jokes and the outrage and even really meaningful criticism like López's actually promote the establishment, just as Achebe's criticism of Heart of Darkness ensures its interest for future generations of readers.
> 
> Lovely sentiment, Science... but how much truth is there to it? Jan Mijtens, Paulus Potter, Dirck van Baburen, Govaert Flinck, Gerard de Lairesse, Bartholomeus van der Helst, Jacob Cats... all names quite familiar to you, no doubt. And how could they not be so, after all they were all among the leading most honored and prized artists of the "Golden Age" of the Dutch Baroque. Of course there were many less honored/less successful artists as well such as Jan Vermeer, Fran's Hals, one one Rembrandt Van Rijn.
> 
> The history of the arts is written by the subsequent generations of artists, art "experts", and art lovers. Hans Makart was the single most popular painter of the fin de siècle in Vienna. His paintings were sought by wealthy aristocrats, powerful industrialists, and in-the-know art lovers. He was feted by arts groups and arts institutions. Today he is remembered, if at all, only as the teacher of Gustav Klimt. Klimt, on the other hand, was quite popular in certain circles, but the source of continual criticism and censorship. The leading Modernist architect, Adolf Loos, in his essay on Ornament and Crime, famously dismissed Klimt as not merely a degenerate decorator... but literally a criminal whose concepts of art held no place in the Modern world. Today his paintings are among the most prized, and his famous Kiss has surpassed the Mona Lisa as the single most reproduced painting in history.
> 
> Undoubtedly many Modernist masterpieces will survive: the paintings of Monet, Degas, Van Gogh, Picasso, Matisse... Stravinsky, Bartok, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev... the novels of Mann, Hesse, and Proust... the poetry of T.S. Eliot, Eugenio Montale, Rilke, etc... are all solid bets. Others are less set in stone.
> 
> I fully believe that Modernism was one of the greatest periods in Western Art. The period from 1870-WWII produced innovations and a wealth of artists, poets, novelists, playwrights, and composers unlike anything seen since the Renaissance. The Renaissance, however, was followed by an 100-year period known as Mannerism that produced far less of lasting value. How many Mannerist painters can you name off hand? How many on par with Botticelli to say nothing of Leonardo or Michelangelo. Bronzino and Pontormo are probably the finest... unless we include El Greco, commonly categorized as "Proto-Baroque". Beside them how many remain house-hold names... even among artists and art lovers?
> 
> The notion of the "Triumph of Modernism" is as naive as the notion of the "Triumph of American Painting" or Clement Greenberg's idea of the triumph of abstraction... and subsequently the death of "realism" and/or figurative art. All such "triumphs" are momentary unless they continue to inspire and influence future generations.


Well, we'll have to wait and see.

This Cage guy, though, he's not from yesterday.


----------



## Stavrogin

Kieran said:


> That's it. It's kinda like the musical equivalent of Tracy Emin's Unmade Bed. There's a point it's making about music, what is music etc, that's probably wholly valid. Necessary, even. But for me it's a once off thing. I wouldn't "listen to it" all the way through again...


I actually wonder, would anyone pick 4'33" in a desert island list?


----------



## Kieran

Stavrogin said:


> I actually wonder, would anyone pick 4'33" in a desert island list?


On a desert island, they'd have no choice! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Still can't believe so much is being written about 4'33" of silence! :lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Still can't believe so much is being written about 4'33" of silence! :lol:


Much ado about nothing.


----------



## Ingélou

But for some, 4'33" is 'as you like it'.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Originally Posted by Ingélou:
> I used to think 4'33" might be definable as music, until I read this thread...
> But reading the arguments of those who are sure that it's music has completely convinced me that it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one critic who leaves the credit where it belongs: to the independent and eminently sensible mind of Ingelou.
> 
> The arguments for 4'33" being music come down, I think, to five, which are offered singly or in combination:
> 
> 1) The they-say-so argument ("they," who are superior to "us" in knowledge, professional status, and cultural cachet, say it's music)
> 2) The it-looks-like argument (it was created by someone who wrote music, it takes place at concerts, it's been published, the listener is hearing _something_, after all)
> 3) The it's-an-aesthetic-and/or-spiritual-experience argument (music is nice to listen to, rain on the roof is also nice to listen to, so rain on the roof must be music too)
> 4) The when-does-orange-become-red argument (its just "total indeterminacy," and "indeterminate" music is still music, and where's boundary between one kind of indeterminacy and another kind of indeterminacy, and one thing just bleeds into another, and its a slippery slope, and why shouldn't men marry wart hogs anyway)
> 5) The "Through the Looking Glass" argument (anything can be anything if we say it is)
> 
> None of these arguments present any real difficulty - except to those who accept them.


If I may, I do believe that there is a 'sixth' "4'33" "argument" as well: 'The Whim Argument': "I like it. I believe in it. That settles it."

- A strong and colorful _opinion_, certainly- which is all to the good; but not a substantive _argument_.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Ingélou said:


> But for some, 4'33" is 'as you like it'.


. . . there's no _Love's Labor's Lost_ over it. _;D_


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> . . . there's no _Love's Labor's Lost_ over it. _;D_


But 'All's well that ends well' - and it ends as well as it begins!


----------



## Woodduck

Stavrogin said:


> There is a (50 year old and very common) definition around, which I find very solid.
> 
> "_*Conceptual art*_" is (from Wiki) _art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic and material concerns_.
> 
> It fits, doesn't it?
> 
> So my take is that 4'33" is music, and to be precise it is a "specific" (not superior nor inferior) type of music: conceptual music.


Well, I've gotten so caught up here this morning in this fascinating debate that I've neglected my stomach.

I'm going to sit for a few minutes before an empty bowl and cup, listen to the kettle boil, and have a *conceptual breakfast.*


----------



## Dim7

DavidA said:


> Still can't believe so much is being written about 4'33" of silence! :lol:


IT IS NOT SILEN... (and here we go again :devil: )


----------



## Guest

I reckon we can get this baby to a 1000 posts.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Well, I've gotten so caught up here this morning in this fascinating debate that I've neglected my stomach.
> 
> I'm going to sit for a few minutes before an empty bowl and cup, listen to the kettle boil, and have a *conceptual breakfast. *


. . . and those 'gnawings' in your stomach are conceptual as well.

Reality bites.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> . . . and those 'gnawings' in your stomach are conceptual as well.
> 
> Reality bites.




Reality...

Now there's a concept!


----------



## Kieran

dogen said:


> I reckon we can get this baby to a 1000 posts.


Perhaps with 400 posts of pure silence?


----------



## EdwardBast

Ingélou said:


> Surely we are not talking about art here, but word-definitions? And we're not talking about avant-garde art or music in general, but just about one small piece?
> 
> The fact that I now don't think 4'33" counts as 'music' - based on my understanding of music as deliberate patterning of sounds by musicians for a human audience - doesn't mean that I would diss experimental music, or experimental poetry or art. I actually like some of it.
> 
> _(This thread draws me back even when I'm sure I won't post any more; it ought to be called Fatal Attraction...)_


Your definition has a couple of flaws:
1. Whether a work of music is ever heard by an audience or intended to be heard by an audience is irrelevant to its nature as music.
2. Patterned sound is produced deliberately by other sentient beings besides humans, and without deliberation by a number of natural processes as well. 
3. The term deliberate is slippery. Music just pours out of some people without any process that satisfies a standard definition of deliberate unless you mean deliberate in the trivial sense that they recognize the likelihood of organized sound emerging if they sit at a piano.


----------



## Ingélou

EdwardBast said:


> Your definition has a couple of flaws:
> 1. Whether a work of music is ever heard by an audience or intended to be heard by an audience is irrelevant to its nature as music.
> 2. Patterned sound is produced deliberately by other sentient beings besides humans, and without deliberation by a number of natural processes as well.
> 3. The term deliberate is slippery. Music just pours out of some people without any process that satisfies a standard definition of deliberate unless you mean deliberate in the trivial sense that they recognize the likelihood of organized sound emerging if they sit at a piano.


Fine. Valid comments. My definition of music was just thrown in _en passant_, on the way to making my main point, that a person's not accepting 4'33" as music need not mean that s/he doesn't admire or accept other avant-garde art and music.

I could quibble with your quibbles, especially over the word 'deliberate', but quite honestly, I can't be bothered.

There are plenty of other definitions of music up above that you might like to find flaws in, if you have the energy!


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Still can't believe so much is being written about 4'33" of silence! :lol:


The answer is: shut up, turn off your ticker-tape mind, and simply listen.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Your definition has a couple of flaws:
> 1. Whether a work of music is ever heard by an audience or intended to be heard by an audience is irrelevant to its nature as music.
> 2. Patterned sound is produced deliberately by other sentient beings besides humans, and without deliberation by a number of natural processes as well.
> 3. The term deliberate is slippery. Music just pours out of some people without any process that satisfies a standard definition of deliberate unless you mean deliberate in the trivial sense that they recognize the likelihood of organized sound emerging if they sit at a piano.


I don't recall John Cage ever saying that 4'33" was _music. _

I think that he would admit to it as consisting of sounds, but not "music." That kinda throws a wet blanket on a lot of these arguments.


----------



## Ingélou

millionrainbows said:


> I don't recall John Cage ever saying that 4'33" was _music._


At this point in the thread, million, your comment comes as something of a bombshell! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Ingélou said:


> At this point in the thread, million, your comment comes as something of a bombshell! :lol:


Boom! Now you are enlightened! :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast

Ingélou said:


> Fine. Valid comments. My definition of music was just thrown in _en passant_, on the way to making my main point, that a person's not accepting 4'33" as music need not mean that s/he doesn't admire or accept other avant-garde art and music.


Agree completely.



Ingélou said:


> I could quibble with your quibbles, especially over the word 'deliberate', but quite honestly, I can't be bothered.
> 
> There are plenty of other definitions of music up above that you might like to find flaws in, if you have the energy!


All of them are flawed. I am perfectly open to the idea that 4'33" is a stupid, trivial, vain, and intelligence-insulting exercise. I just don't think it is easy to disqualify it as music by judiciously rigging the definition. Nor do I see any purpose in doing so.


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> Reality...
> 
> Now there's a concept!


Reality is vastly overrated.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Becca said:


> Reality is vastly overrated.


Of _course_ it is: we fabulous ones always take it by surprise.

_;D_


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Your definition has a couple of flaws:
> 1. Whether a work of music is ever heard by an audience or intended to be heard by an audience is irrelevant to its nature as music.
> 2. Patterned sound is produced deliberately by other sentient beings besides humans, and without deliberation by a number of natural processes as well.
> 3. The term deliberate is slippery. Music just pours out of some people without any process that satisfies a standard definition of deliberate unless you mean deliberate in the trivial sense that they recognize the likelihood of organized sound emerging if they sit at a piano.


The soul of quibbling!

1. I agree, and I don't think Ingelou meant to exclude that possibility. Music can be made and listened to in the mind - I do it constantly - just as pictures can be envisioned. I can thus be composer, performer, and audience all at once. Whether the sounds actually get produced does not change the art form, only the way in which it's experienced. All art is fundamentally conceptual whether or not it ever becomes physical, and this would be a valid meaning for "conceptual" music (as opposed to a gimmicky procedure such as Cage's).

2. Ingelou's "definition" doesn't exclude the presence of patterned sound in nature.

3. "Deliberation," in relation to the making of music, need not mean anything more than the intention of making music. Music might be dreamed, in which case there's no deliberation, but like any dream it will be ephemeral - unless you remember it and sing it or write it down later, in which case no quibbles will arise.

I don't really think Ingelou was trying to offer a "definitive" definition of music, but merely a "for all practical purposes" one. In any case it doesn't admit 4'33", and neither does any other reasonable definition I've seen - certainly none offered on this thread anywhere in its 39 pages.


----------



## spokanedaniel

Kieran said:


> Perhaps with 400 posts of pure silence?


Unfortunately, the board will not permit an empty post. There is a 15-character minimum.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Ingélou said:


> Fine. Valid comments. My definition of music was just thrown in _en passant_, on the way to making my main point, that a person's not accepting 4'33" as music need not mean that s/he doesn't admire or accept other avant-garde art and music.
> 
> I could quibble with your quibbles, especially over the word 'deliberate', but quite honestly, I can't be bothered.
> 
> There are plenty of other definitions of music up above that you might like to find flaws in, if you have the energy!


Quiddities, quiddities, quiddities. . . Quine, Quine, Quine. _;D_


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> I don't really think Ingelou was trying to offer a "definitive" definition of music, but merely a "for all practical purposes" one. In any case it doesn't admit 4'33", and neither does any other reasonable definition I've seen - certainly none offered on this thread anywhere in its 39 pages.


I was looking for a definition that both excluded 4'33" and stood up to scrutiny. Haven't seen one yet.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> I was looking for a definition that both excluded 4'33" and stood up to scrutiny. Haven't seen one yet.


I will have to work harder. :lol:

(But don't hold me to it.)


----------



## ArtMusic

This might help to make up one's mind. I would have burst out laughing part way, I couldn't resist.


----------



## arpeggio

ArtMusic said:


> I would have burst out laughing part way, I couldn't resist.


When I saw 'ArtMusic's' comment on laughter I thought of the time that Cage appeared on the show _I've Got a Secret_.

Please check out the remarks at the 3'10" mark (I am dreading the jokes this will generate):


----------



## hpowders

arpeggio said:


> When I saw 'ArtMusic's' comment on laughter I thought of the time that Cage appeared on the show _I've Got a Secret_.
> 
> Please check out the remarks at the 3'10" mark (I am dreading the jokes this will generate):


Wow! What memories! Gary Moore! The good old days.... when my embouchure could still support my instrument.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

spokanedaniel said:


> Unfortunately, the board will not permit an empty post. There is a 15-character minimum.


. .


----------



## Becca

A constant in the classical music world is the discussion of interpretation of a work, tempi, dynamics, etc., etc. Just how does one interpret 4'33"?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> All art is fundamentally conceptual whether or not it ever becomes physical


No, it isn't. All art is fundamentally physical.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> No, it isn't. All art is fundamentally physical.


You really must expand upon that. When I paint a picture, things don't happen on the canvas before they happen in the mind. Do you do it the other way round?


----------



## Piwikiwi

MacLeod said:


> No, it isn't. All art is fundamentally physical.


A painting is just a bit of chemicals on a piece of plant matter that happen to reflect a certain wave length of light that our stupid monkey brain interpret as resembling something else.


----------



## Ingélou

*'What is mind - never matter; what is matter - never mind!'* - Somehow I don't think we're going to solve this problem on this thread, even if it goes on for another 40 pages.

I think I really will call it a day this time; it's getting to be embarrassing, my farewell tour!


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> You really must expand upon that. When I paint a picture, things don't happen on the canvas before they happen in the mind. Do you do it the other way round?


I would say you too need to expand upon your assertion.



> _whether or not it ever becomes physical_


I didn't infer from it that you meant that all art starts out as a concept - which I accept. My assertion is that unless and until it becomes physical, it isn't art.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Becca said:


> A constant in the classical music world is the discussion of interpretation of a work, tempi, dynamics, etc., etc. Just how does one interpret 4'33"?


Presumably by means of non-existence.


----------



## Dim7

Ingélou said:


> Surely we are not talking about art here, but word-definitions? And we're not talking about avant-garde art or music in general, but just about one small piece?
> 
> The fact that I now don't think 4'33" counts as 'music' - based on my understanding of music as deliberate patterning of sounds by musicians for a human audience - doesn't mean that I would diss experimental music, or experimental poetry or art. I actually like some of it.
> 
> _(This thread draws me back even when I'm sure I won't post any more; it ought to be called Fatal Attraction...)_


Either you accept 4'33'' as music or you hate all avant-garde music! It's a paCAGE deal.
*Grabs the "Worst pun of 2015" award triumphantly*



spokanedaniel said:


> Unfortunately, the board will not permit an empty post. There is a 15-character minimum.


Repeating my joke here, but still: Even with an empty post, there's still all this stuff surrounding it...


----------



## Ingélou

Dim7 said:


> *Either* you accept 4'33'' as music *or* you hate all avant-garde music! It's a paCAGE deal...


*Don't* make me choose!


----------



## science

Ingélou said:


> *'What is mind - never matter; what is matter - never mind!'* - Somehow I don't think we're going to solve this problem on this thread, even if it goes on for another 40 pages.
> 
> I think I really will call it a day this time; it's getting to be embarrassing, my farewell tour!


But when we finish with this discussion, next we're going to decide whether _4'33"_ is really music or not. All of us have something unique to add to that topic, so it's important that we all contribute, and you won't want to miss any of our insights.


----------



## Blake

Becca said:


> Reality is vastly overrated.


The imaginary kind, yes. You know, the one humans superimpose. I have a sneaking suspicion that the ~reality~ we've become so jaded with really isn't the way things are.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

_You really must expand upon that. When I paint a picture, things don't happen on the canvas before they happen in the mind. Do you do it the other way round?_

Yes... But it's not a painting until it becomes a physical object... until you put paint on canvas.


----------



## millionrainbows

Attention: There* is* such a thing as conceptual art; try using it in a sentence.

Cage never said that 4'33" was _*music;*_ he said it was an instruction for us to listen to *sounds* around us during that specified time.

Cage was a visual artist as well, so it's not a "requirement" that everything he does fit the definition of "music." I see him as an overall artist, as well as an important thinker.


----------



## spokanedaniel

EdwardBast said:


> I was looking for a definition that both excluded 4'33" and stood up to scrutiny. Haven't seen one yet.


I think perhaps music is like pornography in that "I cannot define it but I know it when I [hear] it."



arpeggio said:


> ... Cage appeared on the show _I've Got a Secret_.


In his remarks, he says that music is the production of sound. But in 4'33" (which he might not have created yet when the show was aired) he does not produce sound, nor do the musicians.

More to the point, I have a question for the admirers of John Cage's creations:

Can you really say, with a straight face, that the performance on I've Got a Secret was in any way superior as "music" to anything a child might produce when playing "mad scientist" with a room full of found objects? We are told in the remarks that he uses a stopwatch because each sound must be produced at its exact proper moment. For Heaven's sake why??? Would the piece be any better or worse as "music" if the sounds were produced at different times or in a different order, or any other sounds were made instead???

I'll give him credit for this: He seemed happy when the audience laughed.



Piwikiwi said:


> A painting is just a bit of chemicals on a piece of plant matter that happen to reflect a certain wave length of light that our stupid monkey brain interpret as resembling something else.


The coloring need not be on plant matter. I own some paintings that were done on metal. Otherwise, I agree with your comment. Our "stupid monkey brains" for all that are IMO far more interesting than 4'33" or even that silly performance on I've Got a Secret.

Totally irrelevant digression: My mother was on I've Got a Secret once. This would have been just over 50 years ago.



Dim7 said:


> Either you accept 4'33'' as music or you hate all avant-garde music!


I reject 4'33" as "music," but I do not hate avant garde music. I just don't care to listen to any of it. There's a big difference. I hate corn worms and those flea beetles that used to wreak havoc on my garden. I hate racial prejudice and religious dogma when it's used to deny equal rights to people. I hate skunks ever since one got into the crawl space under my rural North Dakota house and everything stank for a month. I hate gasoline because it stinks and pollutes the air and the engines that burn it are noisy and filthy. But I don't hate the music that I choose not to listen to, or foods that I choose not to eat because their taste does not appeal to me.


----------



## spokanedaniel

millionrainbows said:


> Cage never said that 4'33" was _*music;*_ he said it was an instruction for us to listen to *sounds* around us during that specified time.


And it took 597 posts for this to come up???

Thank you, Million!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Attention: There* is* such a thing as conceptual art; try using it in a sentence.


OK. 'Conceptual art' is art physically created with the express aim of conveying a concept.

How's that?


----------



## Sloe

arpeggio said:


> When I saw 'ArtMusic's' comment on laughter I thought of the time that Cage appeared on the show _I've Got a Secret_.
> 
> Please check out the remarks at the 3'10" mark (I am dreading the jokes this will generate):


Much better than 4´33.
For being the front name for the most strange and modern music he could make pleasant music that was strange at the same time. Then that is probably why he is the front name.


----------



## Stavrogin

spokanedaniel said:


> Unfortunately, the board will not permit an empty post. There is a 15-character minimum.


but we can whisper very quietly

oh, I see MoonlightSonata beat me to it


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I didn't infer from it that you meant that all art starts out as a concept - which I accept. My assertion is that unless and until it becomes physical, it isn't art.


Actually that is, basically, what I meant. When we speak of someone's "art," we're not speaking only of the objects he produces. The word "art" refers to the process of making something, and the skills and thought that go into making it, as well as to the product itself. When I said art is fundamentally conceptual, I meant the entire phenomenon, the whole realm of activity and experience, we refer to as "art."


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Actually that is, basically, what I meant. When we speak of someone's "art," we're not speaking only of the objects he produces. The word "art" refers to the process of making something, and the skills and thought that go into making it, as well as to the product itself. When I said art is fundamentally conceptual, I meant the entire phenomenon, the whole realm of activity and experience, we refer to as "art."


Your statement was sufficiently ambiguous to be taken to refer to 'all art(efacts)' not to 'art' (objects and processes/skills in total).


----------



## SimonNZ

What work would hold the position at the opposite extreme of Classical music?

Lou Reed's Metal Machine came to mind first, but is there an obvious candidate from a "classical" composer?

(apologies if this has already been answered, I haven't been following the thread - curiously I have no strong feelings about the subject. My only feeling about 4'33" is: it needed to happen, so it happened.)


----------



## Xaltotun

My take on 4'33":

It's really smart and rather profound and maybe even music, depending on your definition... but it's so completely and utterly against everything that I believe in, that I just have to hate it. Mind you, I respect it, like a worthy, worthy foe.


----------



## Becca

I finally figured out the solution to the various philosophical questions here regarding 4'33" ... then I woke up.


Now, could someone please tell me why the number 42 keeps running through my mind?


----------



## science

SimonNZ said:


> What work would hold the position at the opposite extreme of Classical music?
> 
> Lou Reed's Metal Machine came to mind first, but is there an obvious candidate from a "classical" composer?
> 
> (apologies if this has already been answered, I haven't been following the thread - curiously I have no strong feelings about the subject. My only feeling about 4'33" is: it needed to happen, so it happened.)


To me, folk music is the opposite of classical music. But of course I look at things socio-economically, and with a different perspective the answer would be something else.


----------



## SimonNZ

science said:


> To me, folk music is the opposite of classical music. But of course I look at things socio-economically, and with a different perspective the answer would be something else.


No, no...I meant the opposite extreme of near silence: what work would be absolute noise (or however you wish to define the opposite). Does any work come to mind?


----------



## arpeggio

Becca said:


> I finally figured out the solution to the various philosophical questions here regarding 4'33" ... then I woke up.
> 
> Now, could someone please tell me why the number 42 keeps running through my mind?


Oh no. I get it.


----------



## arpeggio

SimonNZ said:


> No, no...I meant the opposite extreme of near silence: what work would be absolute noise (or however you wish to define the opposite). Does any work come to mind?


The one that popped into my small brain is Jon Lief's _Hekla_.


----------



## SimonNZ

Thanks, but I think I must be explaining myself badly. What I meant was more like this:


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Simon, you might appreciate (if you haven't already heard them) Xenakis's Bohor and S.709, or perhaps Lionel Marchetti's First Mirror or Merzbow's Dharma for stuff on the more stark and uncompromising side of electronic classical music.


----------



## GioCar

SimonNZ said:


> What work would hold the position at the opposite extreme of Classical music?
> 
> Lou Reed's Metal Machine came to mind first, but is there an obvious candidate from a "classical" composer?
> 
> (apologies if this has already been answered, I haven't been following the thread - curiously I have no strong feelings about the subject. My only feeling about 4'33" is: it needed to happen, so it happened.)


I was thinking at the New Complexity movement, e.g. the most complex Ferneyhough's piece. But I haven't in mind a specific work.

EDIT: sorry, I didn't read the following posts. Candidates for absolute noise works could be Pierre Schaeffer's works. But if you think at the Cage's aesthetics behind 4'33", Ferneyhough is a good example of his opposite imo


----------



## Morimur

SeptimalTritone said:


> Simon, you might appreciate (if you haven't already heard them) Xenakis's Bohor and S.709, or perhaps Lionel Marchetti's First Mirror or Merzbow's Dharma for stuff on the more stark and uncompromising side of electronic classical music.


Merzbow is more of 'noise artist' - nothing wrong with that. Problem is he pulls the same trick over and over again... He's not a composer, but more of a studio technician who likes to make 'cool' sounds with his gear.


----------



## spokanedaniel

SimonNZ said:


> What work would hold the position at the opposite extreme of Classical music?
> 
> Lou Reed's Metal Machine came to mind first, but is there an obvious candidate from a "classical" composer?
> 
> (apologies if this has already been answered, I haven't been following the thread - curiously I have no strong feelings about the subject. My only feeling about 4'33" is: it needed to happen, so it happened.)


I don't think that the concept of "opposite" has any meaning when speaking of music. Music affects us in so many different and complex ways, and affects each individual differently, sometimes very differently, relaxing one person while agitating another, etc., and is itself so diverse. Even a specific category like "classical music" or "sacred music" is impossible to define unambiguously.

How can you speak of the "opposite" of something so amorphous and heterogeneous as any category of music?

I honestly think the question has no possible answer.


----------



## arpeggio

*Essay*

The following is an excellent link to an essay about _433_.

http://solomonsmusic.net/4min33se.htm


----------



## Polyphemus

arpeggio said:


> The following is an excellent link to an essay about _433_.
> 
> http://solomonsmusic.net/4min33se.htm


"Much Ado About Nothing" Shakespeare


----------



## SimonNZ

spokanedaniel said:


> I don't think that the concept of "opposite" has any meaning when speaking of music. Music affects us in so many different and complex ways, and affects each individual differently, sometimes very differently, relaxing one person while agitating another, etc., and is itself so diverse. Even a specific category like "classical music" or "sacred music" is impossible to define unambiguously.
> 
> How can you speak of the "opposite" of something so amorphous and heterogeneous as any category of music?
> 
> I honestly think the question has no possible answer.


These replies are interesting, especially for me in the way I seem to be expressing myself badly or talking at cross-purposes.

I don't mean a concept like "the opposite of Mozart" or whoever, which would be nonsense. I mean: if you could think of 4'33' as a piece of white paper (I know it isn't), then what would be the musical equivalent of a sheet of paper that has been gone over with a roller of black paint?

Just a passing thought, which may or may not provide a perspective on the matter at hand.


----------



## Albert7

Mahlerian said:


> Isn't there such a thing as "bad art"?
> 
> Of course you can make art out of any sound, including farts. No, that doesn't mean that any sound automatically makes great or worthwhile art.


For me all art is good.


----------



## starthrower

Some trombone players that don't empty their spit valves sound like sharts!


----------



## spokanedaniel

SimonNZ said:


> These replies are interesting, especially for me in the way I seem to be expressing myself badly or talking at cross-purposes.
> 
> I don't mean a concept like "the opposite of Mozart" or whoever, which would be nonsense. I mean: if you could think of 4'33' as a piece of white paper (I know it isn't), then what would be the musical equivalent of a sheet of paper that has been gone over with a roller of black paint?
> 
> Just a passing thought, which may or may not provide a perspective on the matter at hand.


If the opposite of a blank canvas is a canvas painted completely black, then the opposite of a blank sheet of music notation paper would be a sheet with every possible note filled in. Most instruments cannot play all notes at once, though didn't Cage once instruct the "musician" to strike a piano keyboard with two-by-fours to hit a large number of adjacent keys at once? A sound synthesizer could perhaps be made to create all sounds at once. I'm not sure if this would be the same as what is called "white noise." I would not regard it as music. But then we have the question of whether we are after the simultaneous playing of all notes of the western musical scale at once, or all possible frequencies of noise at once. Two very different things. I suspect I would find the former endurable, if it's not too loud, and the latter to be extremely annoying.

I think one must be very careful with the concept of "opposites," as it is often applied in an intuitive manner that does not hold up to scrutiny.



albertfallickwang said:


> For me all art is good.


I classify created works in three broad and often fuzzy categories: Art I like; art I do not like; and not-art.

I do not use the terms "good" or "bad," merely that which I like or do not like. But I also assert, as a matter of pure subjective opinion, that not everything created is art. I have no clear definitions. Again this is an "I know it when I see it" kind of thing, except that I don't always know where to place an item. Thus, very fuzzy boundaries.

In my own collection I have some contemporary art that I love, and even some non-objective art that I love, but I find most contemporary and non-objective art to be dull or even annoying. Most of my collection is representative art ranging in style from classical to impressionist. My favorite paintings are impressionist and my favorite sculptures are either straightforward representations or whimsical.

I would say that in the Thyssen-Bornemisza (Madrid) I found perhaps half the paintings to be deeply moving, while in the Reina Sofia (also Madrid) there were only two pieces that I liked. The only time I've ever been actually offended by an item presented as "art" was in the latter museum, where there was what appeared to be a page of actual ancient illuminated manuscript that the contemporary "artist" had vandalized by haphazardly defacing it with a magic marker.


----------



## Celloman

albertfallickwang said:


> For me all art is good.


Let's test this idea, shall we? :lol:


----------



## Blake

albertfallickwang said:


> For me all art is good.


It really is relative. I mean, when you hear of the deep underground fringes where people are impressed with the designs made from throwing their feces on the wall... who's to say?


----------



## Stavrogin

SimonNZ said:


> These replies are interesting, especially for me in the way I seem to be expressing myself badly or talking at cross-purposes.
> 
> I don't mean a concept like "the opposite of Mozart" or whoever, which would be nonsense. I mean: if you could think of 4'33' as a piece of white paper (I know it isn't), then what would be the musical equivalent of a sheet of paper that has been gone over with a roller of black paint?
> 
> Just a passing thought, which may or may not provide a perspective on the matter at hand.


If we see 4'33" as blank sheets, some stuff by Merzbow is the closest thing to an opposite of 4'33" I can think of. Yeah, Metal Machine Music also.

If we see 4'33" as the composer giving up his own control on the music so as to let unintentional sound reign, then for the opposite one should think about a score that gives very precise directions on the music to be performed leaving the smallest room to the performers' interpretation (I can't come up with any specifici work at the moment).


----------



## Albert7

At least 4' 33" is only 99 cents on iTunes.


----------



## ArtMusic

If I composed _6'22"_ for silent solo harpsichord only and add that it must be "played" on an 18th century instrument as it bridges the time space between February 2015 and when the harpsichord was made, creating a sound wave of silence between our worlds, would this be accepted? If yes, then thank you. *If not, then why not? *


----------



## Ingélou

I think that it would not be accepted, because the title & concept would seem derivative from Cage's concept. Why not call your composition something different and include the odd note at specified intervals? 

But anyway, wouldn't it be better for you to compose something individual and authentic to you?


----------



## Blancrocher

albertfallickwang said:


> At least 4' 33" is only 99 cents on iTunes.


However, An Homage to John Cage's 4'33'' is going for $9. The person who bought it doesn't seem to happy about it either.

http://www.amazon.com/Homage-John-C...&qid=1424082564&sr=1-1&keywords=homage+4'33''


----------



## Ingélou

'Probably *shouldn't* spend 10 bucks...' - So, did they buy it? And if so, did they think '10 bucks' was worth it just to have a gripe?
Maybe Cage's work is a sure-fire winner in the Internet World of Debating Topics? 
It has certainly been a very popular thread here!


----------



## Ingélou

Ingélou said:


> 'Probably *shouldn't* spend 10 bucks...' - So, did they buy it? And if so, did they think '10 bucks' was worth it just to have a gripe?
> Maybe Cage's work is a sure-fire winner in the Internet World of Debating Topics?
> It *has certainly been* a very popular thread here!


Why am I using the past tense, she wondered.
But one day, someone will put the last post on this thread.
Will there be a prize? Or will the fame or notoriety be enough?


----------



## Polyphemus

Is 'La Petomane' considered art ? At least he made a noise.


----------



## Ingélou

It is certainly 'artful'...
If someone composed an original tune & performed it on the same instrument, I have a sinking feeling that it would be taken up by some. The same sort of thing happens in Art these days, after all. 

I like your signature, 'Noli Illegitimi Carborundum', Polyphemus.


----------



## Polyphemus

Ingélou said:


> It is certainly 'artful'...
> 
> I like your signature, 'Noli Illegitimi Carborundum', Polyphemus.


He certainly boasted a very fine wind section.
Many thanks for the Sig compliment.


----------



## Guest

spokanedaniel said:


> I don't think that the concept of "opposite" has any meaning when speaking of music. Music affects us in so many different and complex ways, and affects each individual differently, sometimes very differently, relaxing one person while agitating another, etc., and is itself so diverse. Even a specific category like "classical music" or "sacred music" is impossible to define unambiguously.
> 
> How can you speak of the "opposite" of something so amorphous and heterogeneous as any category of music?
> 
> I honestly think the question has no possible answer.


That is actually quite easy. Mahler's Symphony No. 8 "Symphony of 1000" would be the musical opposite of John Cage's 4'33".


----------



## spokanedaniel

Blake said:


> It really is relative. I mean, when you hear of the deep underground fringes where people are impressed with the designs made from throwing their feces on the wall... who's to say?


I've noted previously that my own line between art and not-art is often fuzzy, but as a general rule, I figure that if a totally untrained person, with no intention of creating "art" can create something of equal interest and aesthetic value as an intentional creation, then the latter is not art.

With respect to the above notion, a vandal tossing his feces against a wall merely as an attack upon the owner of the wall, would produce something of equal interest and value as an "artist" doing the same thing as an intentional "artistic" creation. Therefore, in my subjective opinion, the latter is not art. The same applies to those "artists" who throw paint haphazardly at a canvas, or who leave the canvas blank, or who pile up old junk any old which way and call it art.

In the case of the feces-throwing artist, I suspect that if he's thinking about his project at all, his intention is likely to be the statement that "everything is art," a sentiment with which I disagree emphatically.

I knew a fairly talented painter who sometimes talked of encasing his feces in clear acrylic and calling it art, but he spoke of it as a joke, making fun of minimalist art and what I will call "garbage art" (which to me is not art).

In my opinion, as stated repeatedly, 4'33" is not music, nor is it art. Cage's performance on the I've Got a Secret episode linked above, might be considered theater art, but in my opinion it's not music any more than a painting is music. And even as theater art it's not very good theater.


----------



## samurai

Blake said:


> It really is relative. I mean, when you hear of the deep underground fringes where people are impressed with the designs made from throwing their feces on the wall... who's to say?


We are, the audience.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Probably shouldn't spend 10 bucks...' - So, did they buy it? And if so, did they think '10 bucks' was worth it just to have a gripe?

I still have the few discs of Cage's music that I purchased:




























Of course I wasn't dumb enough to purchase 4:33.

Unfortunately I was stupid enough to purchase Karl Jenkins...












I ditched that disc almost the same day it arrived.


----------



## Stavrogin

DrMike said:


> That is actually quite easy. Mahler's Symphony No. 8 "Symphony of 1000" would be the musical opposite of John Cage's 4'33".


I don't really agree here... 4'33" can surely be performed by a full orchestra+choir with even more musicians involved.


----------



## Kieran

Stavrogin said:


> I don't really agree here... 4'33" can surely be performed by a full orchestra+choir with even more musicians involved.


As many as can sit perfectly still, eh?


----------



## Polyphemus

Or drugs can be administered if required.


----------



## Guest

Stavrogin said:


> I don't really agree here... 4'33" can surely be performed by a full orchestra+choir with even more musicians involved.


This would be a great way to drive said orchestra into financial ruin. What would be the cost of employing all those people for a performance of nothing? With so many orchestras facing financial difficulties, I would think such a stunt would only exacerbate the problem.

But at any rate, I was thinking more of opposites in terms of the performance, not the performers. Yes, you could do 4'33" with a full orchestra & choir, but you could also do it with a single person. In contrast, Mahler's 8th can't be done on the cheap - at least not effectively. Mahler's 8th is perhaps the furthest thing from listening to ambient sounds.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

With respect to the above notion, a vandal tossing his feces against a wall merely as an attack upon the owner of the wall, would produce something of equal interest and value as an "artist" doing the same thing as an intentional "artistic" creation. Therefore, in my subjective opinion, the latter is not art. The same applies to those "artists" who throw paint haphazardly at a canvas...

Which painters do you have in mind? This sort of criticism is usually leveled toward the Abstract Expressionists...



















These artists employ chance and spontaneity... but they also employ some very deliberate choices as well. I'm not a huge fan of Abstract Expressionism which is far removed from my own aesthetic view... but I have no doubt that the best of such work is quite good.

...or who leave the canvas blank...

The only such examples I know of I know of are Kazimir Malevich' _White Square on a White Background_ dating from 1918, Robert Ryman's paintings...



















... although neither of these are really "blank" canvases.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The closest example would be Robert Rauschenberg's White Painting:










and his Erased DeKooning:










Both of these date from early in his career and were clearly influenced by John Cage who was teaching at Black Mountain College where Rauschenberg was a student.

... or who pile up old junk any old which way and call it art.

Again, one would have to ask which artists you have in mind. Collage and Assemblage have been an accepted means of creating art since Picasso... if not earlier:

I quite like Joseph Cornell's assemblages myself:










Robert Rauschenberg's strongest works are his big assemblages... which are much rawer than Cornell's... but certainly employ a strong sense of composition/design:










In the case of the feces-throwing artist, I suspect that if he's thinking about his project at all, his intention is likely to be the statement that "everything is art," a sentiment with which I disagree emphatically.

I knew a fairly talented painter who sometimes talked of encasing his feces in clear acrylic and calling it art, but he spoke of it as a joke, making fun of minimalist art and what I will call "garbage art" (which to me is not art).

He's far behind the curve. In 1961, Pierro Manzoni had his own excrement canned and labeled...










... and then sold for the same price per ounce as gold in what was purportedly a comment on the gross commercialization of art. Like _4:33_ or Duchamp's _Fountain_ I can appreciate the work as a waggish comment on art... but not as a great work of art... something that brings me pleasure... something worth returning to repeatedly.


----------



## spokanedaniel

DrMike said:


> This would be a great way to drive said orchestra into financial ruin. What would be the cost of employing all those people for a performance of nothing? With so many orchestras facing financial difficulties, I would think such a stunt would only exacerbate the problem.


Not if you could find suckers, erm, sorry, aficionados, to pay for tickets, and sponsors to underwrite it.


----------



## Mahlerian

Cage commented that he was influenced by Rauschenberg's White Painting in creating 4'33", not the other way around. It's in the article that Arpeggio linked to.

I'm not really a Cagean myself (though some of the prepared piano and percussion works are actually quite fascinating), but I can't deny that better musicians than I have thought highly of him and his work.

"Music is something to be listened to, not explained. John Cage is trying to reconfirm the significance of this original act.[...]Genuine art always defies classification. Shallow and flimsy works are always measured by conventional criteria; they do not survive." - Toru Takemitsu, 1971

As for Mahler's Eighth (please, no subtitle), there are works that require larger orchestras, such as Havergal Brian's "Gothic" Symphony, and works where the forces are about as large, such as Schoenberg's Gurrelieder.


----------



## spokanedaniel

I do not condemn all abstract expressionism. Only most of it.  I've actually seen some I liked. But not very often.

My friend was more avant than Manzoni, because in my friend's conception (never carried out, to my knowledge) the feces would have been clearly visible.

When I was young, my mother had something bought I know not where. She was born in Calgary, and brought to the U.S. with her parents when she was still a baby. So she bought this thing. It was a can, the size and shape of a 16-oz can of vegetables. The label said "Calgary Cayoosecrap." It sort of slopped around inside the can when you shook it. We never opened the can, so I have no idea what was really inside it.

In my friend's imaginary art project, there'd have been no such ambiguity.

Back to Manzoni: This is an example of something anyone could do if they had access to canning machinery. Fast-food companies do something similar every day, and while they usually charge less by weight than gold, their annual volume of sales is likely to put Fort Knox to shame. The same argument that says Manzoni's can of feces is art would apply equally, and for similar reasons, to a Hostess Twinkie or a can of spray cheese.


----------



## Becca

DrMike said:


> That is actually quite easy. Mahler's Symphony No. 8 "Symphony of 1000" would be the musical opposite of John Cage's 4'33".


Havergal Brian's Gothic Symphony!


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian; said:


> "Music is something to be listened to, not explained. John Cage is trying to reconfirm the significance of this original act.[...]Genuine art always defies classification. Shallow and flimsy works are always measured by conventional criteria; they do not survive." - Toru Takemitsu, 1971


Thank you for this quote.


----------



## Freischutz

The only music fit for purpose is 4'33'', all the rest is blasphemy.


----------



## samurai

spokanedaniel said:


> I do not condemn all abstract expressionism. Only most of it.  I've actually seen some I liked. But not very often.
> 
> My friend was more avant than Manzoni, because in my friend's conception (never carried out, to my knowledge) the feces would have been clearly visible.
> 
> When I was young, my mother had something bought I know not where. She was born in Calgary, and brought to the U.S. with her parents when she was still a baby. So she bought this thing. It was a can, the size and shape of a 16-oz can of vegetables. The label said "Calgary Cayoosecrap." It sort of slopped around inside the can when you shook it. We never opened the can, so I have no idea what was really inside it.
> 
> In my friend's imaginary art project, there'd have been no such ambiguity.
> 
> Back to Manzoni: This is an example of something anyone could do if they had access to canning machinery. Fast-food companies do something similar every day, and while they usually charge less by weight than gold, their annual volume of sales is likely to put Fort Knox to shame. The same argument that says Manzoni's can of feces is art would apply equally, and for similar reasons, to a Hostess Twinkie or a can of spray cheese.


Absolutely. Look at the trajectory to fame that Andy Warhol was able to effect with Campbell's Tomato Soup cans.


----------



## Albert7

Is this piece music... check this out:






I think that everything is music.


----------



## Blake

I don't know guys. Does it make me want to boogie-woogie?

Not quite........... Okay, it's not music. Science experiment concluded.


----------



## arpeggio

*Is 433 Music?*

Sorry I did not see the above the video. This post was a duplicate of it.

I would like to add the following concerning Prof. Dodd's lecture. Although I disagree with many of his observations, he is still a noteworthy scholar and student of his discipline. His knowledge is far superior to mine.

One of the narratives that occurs in these discussions is that maybe the reason a person dislikes something is because he does not understand it. I am not sure if this is exactly true. We all can come up with lists of great works we understand but we still loath.

It seems that in order to effectively critique something one must understand it.

I have trouble giving credence to the criticisms that come from individuals who have no idea what the work is about.


----------



## Albert7

Blake said:


> I don't know guys. Does it make me want to boogie-woogie?
> 
> Not quite........... Okay, it's not music. Science experiment concluded.


If music = boogie woogie, that leaves only Jelly Roll Morton left .


----------



## science

albertfallickwang said:


> Is this piece music... check this out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that everything is music.


He's got all the tics you would expect of someone who is saying something profound, and he's saying the stupidest things the entire time. That should be shown to every freshman hoping to major in philosophy as an example of what they should never, ever, ever do. A disgusting waste of everyone's time. I've watched it twice now and I enjoy watching it because I hate it more every minute. The lecture itself is quite the avant-garde work of art.


----------



## Polyphemus

The really disgusting thing is that this guy is being paid presumably from the public purse for spouting this garbage. The Kings new clothes are well and truly on display in Manchester.


----------



## spokanedaniel

albertfallickwang said:


> Is this piece music... check this out:
> 
> [link deleted from quote]
> 
> I think that everything is music.


I don't really want to spend 15 minutes watching that. Does he say *anything* that has not already been posted in this thread?

And if everything is music, why do we even bother having a word for it?



arpeggio said:


> ... We all can come up with lists of great works we understand but we still loath.
> 
> It seems that in order to effectively critique something one must understand it.
> 
> I have trouble giving credence to the criticisms that come from individuals who have no idea what the work is about.


I repeat that I do not loath 4'33". How can one loath something which is effectively nothing? I would not pay money or even waste my time on a "performance" of nothing, but I certainly do not loath it.

If one must "understand" something in order to criticize it, must one also understand something in order to adore it? Am I not allowed to love the Bach solo violin repertoire simply because I do not "understand" it? This music baffles me. I do not understand why it affects me the way it does. I have no grounding in music theory to apply to its harmonies or choice of keys or the limits that human physiology and the form of the instrument itself place upon the composer. Yet I adore this music.

No, I believe that music, like literature, speaks for itself. Art, literature, and music that require some "understanding" in order to appreciate is inferior to that which does not. The first time I heard music of Bach (the first keyboard partita, on the radio, c. 1960) I was immediately enthralled by it. I needed no "explanation" or "understanding." I merely wanted the announcer to tell me what it was I was listening to, which he did at the end of the piece.



albertfallickwang said:


> If music = boogie woogie, that leaves only Jelly Roll Morton left .


Oh my word! Jelly Roll Morton was one of the greats, but there are many many more boogie woogie pianists, many of them great. Matthew Ball, the Boogie Woogie Kid:


----------



## DeepR

I've composed a more hardcore work and I call it "∞". Every living soul on the planet is its performer, at any given time. All sounds produced during the perpetual performance of "∞" are unintentional background noises, meaning that I've effectively destroyed music, or have I....? Publisher anyone?


----------



## pierrot

DeepR said:


> I've composed a more hardcore work and I call it "∞". Every living soul on the planet is its performer, at any given time. All sounds produced during the perpetual performance of "∞" are unintentional background noises, meaning that I've effectively destroyed music, or have I....? Publisher anyone?


Sounds like a Borges story.


----------



## rrudolph

DeepR said:


> I've composed a more hardcore work and I call it "∞". Every living soul on the planet is its performer, at any given time.


Unfortunately I've lost my place in your piece. Is there a rehearsal number we can go back to, and are we taking all the repeats?


----------



## Guest

albertfallickwang said:


> Is this piece music... check this out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that everything is music.


Unlike Prof Dodd then! Thanks for posting this; I'm minded to agree with his main points.


----------



## Albert7

I can't wait to get 4' 33" from iTunes soon.


----------



## science

science said:


>


Did people realize this is a bit of a Zen rock garden?


----------



## Taggart

science said:


> Did people realize this is a bit of a Zen rock garden?












I found it an evocative work of art drawing me into a state of contemplation. Because of the symbolism associated with the placement of the rocks and gravel, questions arise concerning the gardener's intended meaning. This meaning is elusive and my mind eventually came to rest in a state of emptiness.


----------



## science

Taggart said:


> I found it an evocative work of art drawing me into a state of contemplation. Because of the symbolism associated with the placement of the rocks and gravel, questions arise concerning the gardener's intended meaning. This meaning is elusive and my mind eventually came to rest in a state of emptiness.


Something like that was supposed to happen. If you'd listened to 4'33" in this garden, you'd probably be a bodhisattva now.

Worked for me.


----------



## ArtMusic

albertfallickwang said:


> I can't wait to get 4' 33" from iTunes soon.


But you can perform it yourself with an instrument and that would be part of the experience.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> But you can perform it yourself with an instrument and that would be part of the experience.


Isn't the instruction NOT to perform on an instrument?


----------



## spokanedaniel

dogen said:


> Isn't the instruction NOT to perform on an instrument?


I think one is supposed to hold the instrument but not play it. This of course means that anyone can "perform" it, and the instrument need not be of concert quality. Considering Cage's sense of humor, I'm sure he'd have no quarrel if you "performed" it with a hand saw, a jug, or even a frying pan and a spoon.

What I'm not so sure about is whether it requires an audience to make the background sounds, or whether you could use whatever background sounds you have on hand.


----------



## Taggart

science said:


> Something like that was supposed to happen. If you'd listened to 4'33" in this garden, you'd probably be a bodhisattva now.
> 
> Worked for me.


Turned it down for super moderator.


----------



## science

Taggart said:


> Turned it down for super moderator.


As Hall & Oates would say: So close, yet so far away.


----------



## Dim7

spokanedaniel said:


> I think one is supposed to hold the instrument but not play it. This of course means that anyone can "perform" it, and the instrument need not be of concert quality. Considering Cage's sense of humor, I'm sure he'd have no quarrel if you "performed" it with a hand saw, a jug, or even a frying pan and a spoon.
> 
> What I'm not so sure about is whether it requires an audience to make the background sounds, or whether you could use whatever background sounds you have on hand.


Does it even require a performer? Or an audience?


----------



## millionrainbows

SimonNZ said:


> Thanks, but I think I must be explaining myself badly. What I meant was more like this:


This was a 2-LP set when it first came out. I bought it, and kept it. Supposedly RCA had more returns on this album than any other album in their history. It's been "remastered" on CD now; the grunge, distortion, and static spunds so much better now! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

albertfallickwang said:


> Is this piece music... check this out:


This is just a pedantic way of stating the obvious.

How come no one pays me when _I_ do it?


----------



## Guest

Well it may be obvious to you, but others on here have argued it IS a piece of music, so it is not obvious to them, is it? The distinction he makes, I've not seen argued on here; maybe I missed it?


----------



## Dim7

Woodduck said:


> This is just a pedantic way of stating the obvious.
> 
> How come no one pays me when _I_ do it?


You do get payed... in 'likes' that is.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> This is just a pedantic way of stating the obvious.
> 
> How come no one pays me when _I_ do it?


Because for a 'mandarin,' and not a taxpayer-tenured radical, virtue is its own reward.


----------



## Becca

Marschallin Blair said:


> Because for a 'mandarin,' and not a taxpayer-tenured radical, virtue is its own reward.




If that is so, then why am I bothering being virtuous?


----------



## Becca

BTW ... Why do we need a Stupid Threads forum when we have this one?


----------



## Celloman

Becca said:


> BTW ... Why do we need a Stupid Threads forum when we have this one?


Wait...I'll get back to you with the answer in four minutes and thirty-three seconds.


----------



## Polyphemus

Becca said:


> BTW ... Why do we need a Stupid Threads forum when we have this one?


Because this one is even dumber.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Becca said:


> If that is so, then why am I bothering being virtuous?


So beauty's its own excuse?- we really do need to get coffee together.


----------



## ArtMusic

dogen said:


> Isn't the instruction NOT to perform on an instrument?


I know that. Perform means to sit by or sit with the instrument for _4'33"_, and the post made it quite clear as well that it could hence be any instrument, literally any.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> I know that. Perform means to sit by or sit with the instrument for _4'33"_, and the post made it quite clear as well that it could hence be any instrument, literally any.


Ok. I was taking "perform" to mean play an instrument; Cage's instruction being to refrain from this.


----------



## Polyphemus

A question, if I may?. During a performance of 4' 33" an orchestral player inadvertently dozes off and drops his/her instrument, thereby introducing non ambient noise into the otherwise extraneous performance, does said player have to leave the stage to a chorus of silent boos and whistles from their fellow orchestra members.
Just asking.


----------



## science

Polyphemus said:


> A question, if I may?. During a performance of 4' 33" an orchestral player inadvertently dozes off and drops his/her instrument, thereby introducing non ambient noise into the otherwise extraneous performance, does said player have to leave the stage to a chorus of silent boos and whistles from their fellow orchestra members.
> Just asking.


Why wouldn't that count as ambient noise?


----------



## Polyphemus

science said:


> Why wouldn't that count as ambient noise?


I rather suspect that it was not regarded as ambient because he was being paid to sit and do nothing for 4' 33" and the only effort required on his part was to keep hold of an orchestral instrument (none of them particularly heavy) and the sound of an instrument hitting the floor is hardly ambient. It must have woken up half of the audience.


----------



## Becca

Polyphemus said:


> A question, if I may?. During a performance of 4' 33" an orchestral player inadvertently dozes off and drops his/her instrument, thereby introducing non ambient noise into the otherwise extraneous performance, does said player have to leave the stage to a chorus of silent boos and whistles from their fellow orchestra members.
> Just asking.


Would this be classified as a wrong note? (see thread about them).
As the judge tells the jury "The audience will please disregard the last note."


----------



## ArtMusic

Polyphemus said:


> A question, if I may?. During a performance of 4' 33" an orchestral player inadvertently dozes off and drops his/her instrument, thereby introducing non ambient noise into the otherwise extraneous performance, does said player have to leave the stage to a chorus of silent boos and whistles from their fellow orchestra members.
> Just asking.


Any noise is part of the experience; audience coughing, chairs squeaking, air conditioning, music sheets moving, instruments accidentally dropping, smartphone accidentally ringing or whatever. That's the point of it, the apparent silence is not that at all.


----------



## Dim7

I think it's safe to say that if anyone of the performers play their instruments during 4'33'', they are doing a "mistake". Dropping an instrument might be considered an unorthodox effect "played" with the instrument, in which case it would be not a part of 4'33''.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Becca said:


> Would this be classified as a wrong note? (see thread about them).
> As the judge tells the jury "The audience will please disregard the last note."


All of this Cage-y conartistry on what _4'33" _ostensibly is or isn't reminds me of when I was an undergraduate and I was talking with one of my professors and he told me to "prove that the chair exists"- to which I replied, "What chair?"- and people started laughing.

The burden of proof is always on the person who denies the self-evident.

If someone wants you to think that 'nothing' is 'something' (as in the example of _4'33"_)- then they can prove it- since they and not you are the ones making the assertion.

If someone wants you to prove that 'existence exists' (like with the chair example), then never allow them to assume the validity of the assertion which they're trying to disprove by allowing it in their question to begin with.

The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept.


----------



## Polyphemus

ArtMusic said:


> Any noise is part of the experience; audience coughing, chairs squeaking, air conditioning, music sheets moving, instruments accidentally dropping, smartphone accidentally ringing or whatever. That's the point of it, the apparent silence is not that at all.


Interesting points :-
Your local concert hall apparently has a noisy air conditioning unit.
If there is no music to be played why would the music sheets need to be moved.
Smartphone accidentally ringing is I am afraid the end of the performance and should be followed by a lynching, unforgivable.
Also unforgivable is the pseudo intellectual claptrap put forward in defence of this joke which I am sure Cage will be laughing at till the day he shuffles off his mortal coil.


----------



## Dim7

Polyphemus said:


> Also unforgivable is the pseudo intellectual claptrap put forward in defence of this joke which I am sure Cage will be laughing at till the day he shuffles off his mortal coil.


Unforgivable?  It's pretty entertaining.


----------



## Woodduck

Woodduck wrote:

_This is just a pedantic way of stating the obvious.
How come no one pays me when I do it?_



dogen said:


> Well it may be obvious to you, but others on here have argued it IS a piece of music, so it is not obvious to them, is it? *The distinction he makes, I've not seen argued on here*; maybe I missed it?


Here are some things I wasn't paid to say:

From 2/3/15: "If I may get down to brass tacks here: I do not think that saying that 4'33" is "only conceptual" is "special pleading." I think it is true. I do not think that a list of instructions for a "performer" to behave in a certain way, for a certain period of time divided into "movements," while playing nothing, constitutes a piece of music. I do not think, either, that instructing musicians to choose what it is that they're going to play, so that no one knows what sounds will occur, and giving it a pompous artsy name like "indeterminacy," constitutes musical composition. These things are certainly "conceptual" - and, yes, all music is "conceptual." But what does that mean? It certainly does not mean that a composition of sounds, composed by an actual composer, and played by musicians, is the same thing as a directive issued to someone in a tuxedo to sit at a piano with his hands folded in his lap while hundreds of people watch him and simultaneously listen to distant traffic and cockroaches scurrying beneath their seats. Whether these people find this an interesting or rewarding experience does not alter the fact that it is a distinctly different experience."

From 2/4/15: "The real debate is whether the definition of "music" ought to include the sort of thing 4'33" is. That singular production is in a very noticeable way not the sort of thing mankind has traditionally defined as "music." The question is whether any purpose is served by changing that definition to accommodate it.

Definitions are provisional and debatable, but they are not, and should not be, arrived at arbitrarily. Neither should they be changed arbitrarily. They are tools of thought, and tools should be chosen according to the requirements of the task. The major task, always, is to make clear what it is we are talking about. With regard to 4'33," the question to ask is: does 4'33" fit the criteria generally regarded as decisive in designating a thing as a piece of music? What does it have in common with other things so designated? How does it resemble those things - and how does it differ from them? Are its resemblances sufficiently fundamental, and its differences sufficiently incidental, to make "music" a useful designation? Or are its differences sufficiently fundamental, and its resemblances sufficiently incidental, to make a different designation more useful?

This is the way definitions are created, and the way intellectual chaos and the reign of nonsense is avoided.

Traditionally, music has been defined, minimally, as sound organized by human beings to be performed by human beings and listened to by human beings. Some definitions of music have sought to include various purposes for which music is made, whether anthropological, psychological, or aesthetic; but nearly all definitions, and the common sense of what music is, have assumed its basic physical existence as organized sound created by human beings for human perception. These are properly regarded as fundamental attributes of music, and in combination they distinguish music from other things, including sounds produced for other purposes, sounds produced accidentally, sounds which are not organized, and sounds produced by non-human entities. Sounds of these kinds are properly called "noise" (attaching no value judgment to the word).

4'33" does not exhibit the fundamental attributes of music. In 4'33," sounds which occur during its "performance" are not organized by the nominal "creator" of the "work" and are not performed by the nominal "performer." They are accidental sounds of the sort which would be occurring even if no "creator" or "performer" existed, and even if no one were listening to them. They are, simply, noise. There may be any number of reasons for listening to noise. Doing so may serve practical or aesthetic purposes. It may give us information, and it may give us pleasure. But no purpose served by listening to noise obliterates the useful distinction between noise and music - the fact that music employs sound in a manner, and for purposes, which makes it something distinct from noise.

It's possible to quibble around the edges of this matter. Quibbling, by definition, does not address fundamentals. The fundamentals of what makes music music are not to be obscured or dismissed by quibbling. No one enjoys the "music" of nature - birdcalls, waterfalls, the wind in the pines - more than I do. But a birdcall produced by a nightingale is something fundamentally different from one imitated in a musical work by Beethoven or Messiaen. Noise is only the raw material of music.
4'33" merely directs us to listen to noise: it produces, and consists of, no music at all.

Nothing - not knowledge, not discernment, not clarity, not enlightenment - is gained by calling 4'33" a piece of "music." What should it be called? Anything we wish - provided our choice of designation serves the needs and purposes of human understanding. My choice would be "guided meditation." The category "meditation" - in the sense of a disciplined exercise in awareness - already existed before Cage conceived the work, and seems to cover very nicely the kind of attention Cage wants his audience to practice. I have to say that such awareness would seem to me easier to practice in the absence of the trappings of a concert, but if this is the device by which Cage wants to suggest we practice it, he's perfectly entitled to it, and we are perfectly entitled to participate in the exercise."

Did Professor Dodd say more than that? Or perhaps less?

I wanna know what his salary is.


----------



## Guest

Ok ta. His salary may be higher, but you choose better colours.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Woodduck wrote:
> 
> _This is just a pedantic way of stating the obvious.
> How come no one pays me when I do it?_
> 
> Here are some things I wasn't paid to say:
> 
> From 2/3/15: "If I may get down to brass tacks here: I do not think that saying that 4'33" is "only conceptual" is "special pleading." I think it is true. I do not think that a list of instructions for a "performer" to behave in a certain way, for a certain period of time divided into "movements," while playing nothing, constitutes a piece of music. I do not think, either, that instructing musicians to choose what it is that they're going to play, so that no one knows what sounds will occur, and giving it a pompous artsy name like "indeterminacy," constitutes musical composition. These things are certainly "conceptual" - and, yes, all music is "conceptual." But what does that mean? It certainly does not mean that a composition of sounds, composed by an actual composer, and played by musicians, is the same thing as a directive issued to someone in a tuxedo to sit at a piano with his hands folded in his lap while hundreds of people watch him and simultaneously listen to distant traffic and cockroaches scurrying beneath their seats. Whether these people find this an interesting or rewarding experience does not alter the fact that it is a distinctly different experience."
> 
> From 2/4/15: "The real debate is whether the definition of "music" ought to include the sort of thing 4'33" is. That singular production is in a very noticeable way not the sort of thing mankind has traditionally defined as "music." The question is whether any purpose is served by changing that definition to accommodate it.
> 
> Definitions are provisional and debatable, but they are not, and should not be, arrived at arbitrarily. Neither should they be changed arbitrarily. They are tools of thought, and tools should be chosen according to the requirements of the task. The major task, always, is to make clear what it is we are talking about. With regard to 4'33," the question to ask is: does 4'33" fit the criteria generally regarded as decisive in designating a thing as a piece of music? What does it have in common with other things so designated? How does it resemble those things - and how does it differ from them? Are its resemblances sufficiently fundamental, and its differences sufficiently incidental, to make "music" a useful designation? Or are its differences sufficiently fundamental, and its resemblances sufficiently incidental, to make a different designation more useful?
> 
> This is the way definitions are created, and the way intellectual chaos and the reign of nonsense is avoided.
> 
> Traditionally, music has been defined, minimally, as sound organized by human beings to be performed by human beings and listened to by human beings. Some definitions of music have sought to include various purposes for which music is made, whether anthropological, psychological, or aesthetic; but nearly all definitions, and the common sense of what music is, have assumed its basic physical existence as organized sound created by human beings for human perception. These are properly regarded as fundamental attributes of music, and in combination they distinguish music from other things, including sounds produced for other purposes, sounds produced accidentally, sounds which are not organized, and sounds produced by non-human entities. Sounds of these kinds are properly called "noise" (attaching no value judgment to the word).
> 
> 4'33" does not exhibit the fundamental attributes of music. In 4'33," sounds which occur during its "performance" are not organized by the nominal "creator" of the "work" and are not performed by the nominal "performer." They are accidental sounds of the sort which would be occurring even if no "creator" or "performer" existed, and even if no one were listening to them. They are, simply, noise. There may be any number of reasons for listening to noise. Doing so may serve practical or aesthetic purposes. It may give us information, and it may give us pleasure. But no purpose served by listening to noise obliterates the useful distinction between noise and music - the fact that music employs sound in a manner, and for purposes, which makes it something distinct from noise.
> 
> It's possible to quibble around the edges of this matter. Quibbling, by definition, does not address fundamentals. The fundamentals of what makes music music are not to be obscured or dismissed by quibbling. No one enjoys the "music" of nature - birdcalls, waterfalls, the wind in the pines - more than I do. But a birdcall produced by a nightingale is something fundamentally different from one imitated in a musical work by Beethoven or Messiaen. Noise is only the raw material of music.
> 4'33" merely directs us to listen to noise: it produces, and consists of, no music at all.
> 
> Nothing - not knowledge, not discernment, not clarity, not enlightenment - is gained by calling 4'33" a piece of "music." What should it be called? Anything we wish - provided our choice of designation serves the needs and purposes of human understanding. My choice would be "guided meditation." The category "meditation" - in the sense of a disciplined exercise in awareness - already existed before Cage conceived the work, and seems to cover very nicely the kind of attention Cage wants his audience to practice. I have to say that such awareness would seem to me easier to practice in the absence of the trappings of a concert, but if this is the device by which Cage wants to suggest we practice it, he's perfectly entitled to it, and we are perfectly entitled to participate in the exercise."
> 
> Did Professor Dodd say more than that? Or perhaps less?
> 
> I wanna know what his salary is.


"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself."

- H.L. Mencken

Marschallin's addendum: So thank God you're a 'Mandarin.'


----------



## arpeggio

Marschallin Blair said:


> "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself."
> 
> - H.L. Mencken


Does this also apply to non-philosophers?


----------



## Dim7

Marschallin Blair said:


> "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself."
> 
> - H.L. Mencken'


Couldn't you shorten that to "Philosophy consists largely of philosophers arguing that all philosophers are jackasses."

edit: Nah, you can't really.


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> Couldn't you shorten that to "Philosophy consists largely of philosophers arguing that all philosophers are jackasses."


Except for Nietzsche presumably, whom he apparently admired...


----------



## Marschallin Blair

arpeggio said:


> Does this also apply to non-philosophers?


You tell me._ ;D_


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Dim7 said:


> Couldn't you shorten that to "Philosophy consists largely of philosophers arguing that all philosophers are jackasses."
> 
> edit: Nah, you can't really.


So much for Plato, Marx, and Nietzsche.


----------



## spokanedaniel

Dim7 said:


> Does it even require a performer? Or an audience?


Like a tree falling in the forest, eh? If 4'33" is "performed" without musicians or an audience, does it make a sound?



Polyphemus said:


> ... the only effort required on his part [the musician performing 4'33"] was to keep hold of an orchestral instrument (none of them particularly heavy) ...


The bass viol is kind of heavy. Especially if you're sleepy.



ArtMusic said:


> Any noise is part of the experience; audience coughing, chairs squeaking, air conditioning, music sheets moving, instruments accidentally dropping, smartphone accidentally ringing or whatever. That's the point of it, the apparent silence is not that at all.


Yes, but the only instruction Cage gives is for the musicians to remain silent. Thus failing to do so must be regarded as a mistake.



Marschallin Blair said:


> All of this Cage-y conartistry on what _4'33" _ostensibly is or isn't reminds me of when I was an undergraduate and I was talking with one of my professors and he told me to "prove that the chair exists"- to which I replied, "What chair?"- and people started laughing.
> 
> The burden of proof is always on the person who denies the self-evident.
> 
> If someone wants you to think that 'nothing' is 'something' (as in the example of _4'33"_)- then they can prove it- since they and not you are the ones making the assertion.
> 
> If someone wants you to prove that 'existence exists' (like with the chair example), then never allow them to assume the validity of the assertion which they're trying to disprove by allowing it in their question to begin with.
> 
> The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept.


Absolutely! Never let your opponent set the terms of the debate.



Polyphemus said:


> ... Smartphone accidentally ringing is [...] unforgivable.


So I am safe with my flip phone. Whew! That's good to know.

And since the question of what philosophers do has been raised, allow me please to expound upon the difference between philosophy and its two related disciplines:

Science is what you get when you apply strict logic to evidence obtained by observation and carefully controlled experiment. Philosophy is what you get when you apply strict logic to suppositions that are drawn from the imagination without any reference to the real world. And religion is what you get when you leave the logic out of philosophy. What worries me is that this paragraph may be philosophy.

If John Cage were alive today, I think he'd agree that this thread is a virtual performance of 4'33".


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> The burden of proof is always on the person who denies the self-evident.


No it isn't. What may be "self-evident" to one person may not be "self-evident" to another.

The burden of proof is always on the person who makes an assertion.

e.g. "God exists."


----------



## Marschallin Blair

dogen said:


> No it isn't. What may be "self-evident" to one person may not be "self-evident" to another.
> 
> The burden of proof is always on the person who makes an assertion.
> 
> e.g. "God exists."


Does reality exist as an absolute?

That theory can be put to the test by stepping into an oncoming bus.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Does reality exist as an absolute?
> 
> That theory can be put to the test by stepping into an oncoming bus.


You said yourself the onus is on the one making the assertion.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

dogen said:


> Except for Nietzsche presumably, whom he apparently admired...


As much as he could admire anyone- short of Schubert, Brahms, and Beethoven.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

dogen said:


> You said yourself the onus is on the one making the assertion.


I agree.

I submit that reality exists as an absolute- and so accordingly I don't step into oncoming buses.

Anyone who counter-intuitively thinks that this is not the case is free to step into an oncoming bus and put their assertion that 'reality is optional' to the test.


----------



## Becca

Marschallin Blair said:


> I agree.
> 
> I submit that reality exists as an absolute- and so accordingly I don't step into oncoming buses.
> 
> Anyone who counter-intuitively thinks that this is not the case is free to step into an oncoming bus and put their assertion that 'reality is optional' to the test.




This is beginning to sound a bit like the Tristan thread regarding death / transfiguration!


----------



## spokanedaniel

I think we need to clarify that stepping into an oncoming bus, once it has stopped, is not usually going to cause the stepper any harm. When I didn't have a car, I regularly stepped into busses. And after a bit, I stepped off of them.

Stepping into the path of a moving, oncoming bus is another matter entirely, and invariably results in bodily harm to the stepper if the bus driver is not quick enough to react and stop the bus.

As regards the placement of the burden of proof, that is generally placed upon the person making the assertion. But in the case of 4'33", we have people making the assertion that it is music, and others making the assertion that it is not. I am not entirely certain that one side is making an assertion more than the other side. Of course, it is difficult to prove something which is a matter of opinion. For those who regard the quiet rustling of an audience as "music," then music is happening when 4'33" is performed. But one must ask, Is it really legitimate to regard the audience's rustling as part of the performance? As a matter of course, in other performances, those where nobody argues they are not music, say for example, a performance of the Bach B-Minor Mass, it is universally agreed that any noise the audience makes is extraneous to the performance. A sound recording engineer will try to exclude such noises from the recording, and an usher will eject a patron who is deemed to be making too much noise.

I submit therefore that the audience's noises are not properly speaking part of the performance, and therefore even if those noises are "music" under some criterion or other, that does not qualify as an argument that 4'33" is music, since they are not part of it. At best, 4'33" is an extreme form of minimalist theater during which the audience is directed to listen to its own "music," if music it be.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Becca said:


> This is beginning to sound a bit like the Tristan thread regarding death / transfiguration!


_Ennui-dammerung_ and its discontents.


----------



## arpeggio

Marschallin Blair said:


> You tell me._ ;D_


No fair. I asked first.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

arpeggio said:


> No fair. I asked first.


If and only if they can meet the monumental presumption of a Hegel, a Veblen, or a Marx- sure.

Why?- do you know any such people?


----------



## arpeggio

Marschallin Blair said:


> If and only if they can meet the monumental presumption of a Hegel, a Veblen, or a Marx- sure.
> 
> Why?- do you know any such people?


I do know. I have met Isaac Asimov and Vincent Persichetti. Would they count?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

arpeggio said:


> I do know. I have met Isaac Asimov and Vincent Persichetti. Would they count?


Does Asimov have the Warner Brothers cartoonish pomposity of Hegel? (I'm nescient on Persichetti.)


----------



## arpeggio

Marschallin Blair said:


> Does Asimov have the Warner Brothers cartoonish pomposity of Hegel? (I'm nescient on Persichetti.)


I do not know. I have only met a few maybe famous people in my life. Having said that you have lost me concerning your comment concerning Asimov, a gentleman I have had the privilege of meeting a few times. Give yourself a brownie point for stumping me. Maybe twenty.


----------



## science

spokanedaniel said:


> I think we need to clarify that stepping into an oncoming bus, once it has stopped, is not usually going to cause the stepper any harm. When I didn't have a car, I regularly stepped into busses. And after a bit, I stepped off of them.
> 
> Stepping into the path of a moving, oncoming bus is another matter entirely, and invariably results in bodily harm to the stepper if the bus driver is not quick enough to react and stop the bus.
> 
> As regards the placement of the burden of proof, that is generally placed upon the person making the assertion. But in the case of 4'33", we have people making the assertion that it is music, and others making the assertion that it is not. I am not entirely certain that one side is making an assertion more than the other side. Of course, it is difficult to prove something which is a matter of opinion. For those who regard the quiet rustling of an audience as "music," then music is happening when 4'33" is performed. But one must ask, Is it really legitimate to regard the audience's rustling as part of the performance? As a matter of course, in other performances, those where nobody argues they are not music, say for example, a performance of the Bach B-Minor Mass, it is universally agreed that any noise the audience makes is extraneous to the performance. A sound recording engineer will try to exclude such noises from the recording, and an usher will eject a patron who is deemed to be making too much noise.
> 
> I submit therefore that the audience's noises are not properly speaking part of the performance, and therefore even if those noises are "music" under some criterion or other, that does not qualify as an argument that 4'33" is music, since they are not part of it. At best, 4'33" is an extreme form of minimalist theater during which the audience is directed to listen to its own "music," if music it be.


Even if all of this is perfectly true - I don't have a problem with any of it, but I simply want to use it as a spring to a different issue - what this brings up is a different aspect of the western musical tradition: the strict separation between audience and performer.

One of the first things we learn from ethnomusicology is that the boundary between audience and performer is usually somewhat fluid and sometimes nonexistent. In a traditional Evangelical Christian church, for example, everyone is expected to sing. If someone wants, they're free to simply listen, but they're free to re-join the music at any time. Even when the words appear to address someone ("O sinner, come home"), those so addressed are not understood as an audience. (In some cases "God" is understood to be the audience, but very many hymns do not address God directly. Perhaps most often the congregation seems to be singing to itself: "O what peace we often forfeit.")

That's rather more typical of human behavior. In western pop or folk music, we often see the performer in concert stop singing, point the mic toward the audience, and the audience becomes the performers. No one expects the audience to passively, silent receive the performance. In music around the world, the "audience" is usually welcome to join in the performance at any time, by dancing, chanting, whooping, singing, hollering, banging on some drums, clapping, whatever. It's almost only in the contexts of court and temple music that participation becomes regulated, and that regulation is probably usually supposed to reflect and reinforce social status.

I'm not sure Cage was thinking about any of this or bothered by any of it, but it is an issue that "the audience is the music" raises.

Theater offers an analogous medium. I'm not an expert in the theater traditions of the world, but one interesting aspect of at least the English tradition is its consciousness of the audience. It goes back at least as far as Shakespeare, who often had "plays within the play." One of the best examples is when Hamlet kills his audience (Polonius) for being noisy during his "performance." But right down to the present we can see this kind of concern, such as standup comedians (probably the most popular form of theater today) who generally interact with their audience in an almost improvisatory way, conscious that the audience itself is a part of the performance. "Mockumentaries" are new-ish twists on this consciousness. Consider what is happening when the Claire character on _Modern Family_ exhales in frustration and glares at the camera, asking for the audience's pity. Shakespeare would've loved it. The ridiculous extreme is the fake audience of laugh tracks: the fake audience is a part of the performance. (I suspect Shakespeare would've laughed at laugh tracks, and then hated them, and mocked them relentlessly.)

Anyway, I mean this only as fun stuff to think about, particularly from the POV of a performer or would-be performer, not as supporting one side or another in the _4'33"_ "debate."


----------



## Guest

Good grist for the mill!



science said:


> such as standup comedians (probably the most popular form of theater today) who generally interact with their audience in an almost improvisatory way, conscious that the audience itself is a part of the performance.


Modern, good comedians have incorporated this into their material; it can be hard to tell what is improvised and what has been pre-scripted (and honed). The post-modernist deconstruction of a "comedy act" by someone such as Stewart Lee dynamically switches between performance TO the audience, performance WITH the audience, performance ABOUT the audience (to a third party, imagined or real) and performance IN RESPONSE to the audience.



science said:


> "Mockumentaries" are new-ish twists on this consciousness. Consider what is happening when the Claire character on _Modern Family_ exhales in frustration and glares at the camera, asking for the audience's pity.


A well-established concept; the breaking of the fourth wall. Reminds me of Oliver Hardy who in moments of utter exasperation would look to camera to connect with the viewer directly.


----------



## science

dogen said:


> Good grist for the mill!
> 
> Modern, good comedians have incorporated this into their material; it can be hard to tell what is improvised and what has been pre-scripted (and honed). The post-modernist deconstruction of a "comedy act" by someone such as Stewart Lee dynamically switches between performance TO the audience, performance WITH the audience, performance ABOUT the audience (to a third party, imagined or real) and performance IN RESPONSE to the audience.
> 
> A well-established concept; the breaking of the fourth wall. Reminds me of Oliver Hardy who in moments of utter exasperation would look to camera to connect with the viewer directly.


Jim Gaffigan does it very well, with the high-pitched voice that represents an audience member.

(Little warning on the video. It's totally PG, maybe even G, but it does address religion in a way some people might find offensive.)


----------



## Guest

performer/audience/viewer interface!!!






:tiphat:


----------



## Albert7

My favorite version of the piece... just the sound of the piano lid open and close mostly.






clap clap clap


----------



## Marilyn

One can call 4'.33'' anything they like, but it's definitely not music. John Cage composed some interesting pieces of work, but nothing was too impressive to remember, at least not for me. 4'.33'' on the other hand is unforgetable, because it is not music.

I can understand the difficulties faced by contemporary composers (and artists in generall). How can one compete with Bach or Motzart or Tchaikovsky or... In a way, it was this realisation, along with the rapid changes in almost every aspect of life during the 20th century, that lead to the creation of new forms of music (and art), forms of a more provocative and interactive character. Having said that, I can understand the context in which John Cage "composed" 4'.33'' and I can accept that it constitutes a form of art, but not music.


----------



## Albert7

Top reason why 4' 33" is so disparaged--

About 99.5% of classical listeners haven't heard the durned piece... judge the cart before the horse eh?


----------



## Albert7

Marilyn said:


> One can call 4'.33'' anything they like, but it's definitely not music. John Cage composed some interesting pieces of work, but nothing was too impressive to remember, at least not for me. 4'.33'' on the other hand is unforgetable, because it is not music.
> 
> I can understand the difficulties faced by contemporary composers (and artists in generall). How can one compete with Bach or Motzart or Tchaikovsky or... In a way, it was this realisation, along with the rapid changes in almost every aspect of life during the 20th century, that lead to the creation of new forms of music (and art), forms of a more provocative and interactive character. Having said that, I can understand the context in which John Cage "composed" 4'.33'' and I can accept that it constitutes a form of art, but not music.


A famous example of the dilemma in defining music is John Cage's composition titled 4'33''. The written score has three movements and directs the performer(s) to appear on stage, indicate by gesture or other means when the piece begins, then make no sound and only mark sections and the end by gesture. This has form and other important attributes of music, but no sound other than whatever ambient sounds may be heard in the room. Some argue this is not music because, for example, it contains no sounds that are conventionally considered "musical" and the composer and performer(s) exert no control over the organization of the sounds heard (Dodd 2013). Others argue it is music because the conventional definitions of musical sounds are unnecessarily and arbitrarily limited, and control over the organization of the sounds is achieved by the composer and performer(s) through their division of what is heard into specific sections (Gann 2010).

So is 4' 33" music or not?

Easy answer: It's both... it's about the only musical piece I know of that isn't music either.


----------



## KenOC

albertfallickwang said:


> Top reason why 4' 33" is so disparaged--
> 
> About 99.5% of classical listeners haven't heard the durned piece... judge the cart before the horse eh?


Actually 100% haven't heard it. So how can they talk about it?


----------



## Albert7

KenOC said:


> Actually 100% haven't heard it. So how can they talk about it?


It's like Beckett's Waiting for Godot... nobody's seen Godot quite yet have they?


----------



## Marilyn

John Cage said that "everything we do is music". If we accept this as an axiom, then yes, 4'.33'' is music. But do we really accept it, especially if we take into consideration all the classical masterpieces? For instance, if I record a barking dog in the middle of the night, do I make music? The recording of a barking dog in the middle of the night can constitute a statement and a form of art, I accept that. But it cannot constitute a musical piece. Why should it be any different with 4'.33''? Just because there's a piano and a soloist on stage?

And for the record, I have "listened" to 4'.33''.


----------



## Albert7

Marilyn said:


> John Cage said that "everything we do is music". If we accept this as an axiom, then yes, 4'.33'' is music. But do we really accept it, especially if we take into consideration all the classical masterpieces? For instance, if I record a barking dog in the middle of the night, do I make music? The recording of a barking dog in the middle of the night can constitute a statement and a form of art, I accept that. But it cannot constitute a musical piece. Why should it be any different with 4'.33''? Just because there's a piano and a soloist on stage?
> 
> And for the record, I have "listened" to 4'.33''.


Indeed:

Every man is an artist.

Joseph Beuys


----------



## Dim7

Marilyn said:


> John Cage said that "everything we do is music". If we accept this as an axiom, then yes, 4'.33'' is music. But do we really accept it, especially if we take into consideration all the classical masterpieces? For instance, if I record a barking dog in the middle of the night, do I make music? The recording of a barking dog in the middle of the night can constitute a statement and a form of art, I accept that. But it cannot constitute a musical piece. Why should it be any different with 4'.33''? Just because there's a piano and a soloist on stage?
> 
> And for the record, I have "listened" to 4'.33''.


If I recorded several barking dogs and organized the barks somehow in the piece with some barks repeated in certain patterns, would you consider that to be music?


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> If I recorded several barking dogs and organized the barks somehow in the piece with some barks repeated in certain patterns, would you consider that to be music?


Would that be Walk the Dog by Laurie Anderson then??!


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> The burden of proof is always on the person who denies the self-evident.


You bet it is! Since 4'33" sounds like music, gets played at musical concerts, was composed as music, and was published as music, that would put the burden of proof with you!

Have fun. I'll have that proof on my desk by Monday, thanks.


----------



## science

Dim7 said:


> If I recorded several barking dogs and organized the barks somehow in the piece with some barks repeated in certain patterns, would you consider that to be music?


Absolutely. How couldn't it be?


----------



## Dim7

science said:


> Absolutely. How couldn't it be?


How about a single bark?


----------



## Celloman

Dim7 said:


> How about a single bark?


That would probably count as "found" art, if for nothing else.


----------



## Dim7

Celloman said:


> That would probably count as "found" art, if for nothing else.


It would be a bit like photography.

Or else the dog is the composer!


----------



## mmsbls

nathanb said:


> You bet it is! Since 4'33" sounds like music, gets played at musical concerts, was composed as music, and was published as music, that would put the burden of proof with you!


Reading this thread one certainly would get the impression that many people do not feel 4'33" sounds like music. If you performed it for 1000 random people, I doubt anyone on TC would expect that most of them would say it sounds like music. Would even 10% believe that? Personally I do not believe it has even been _played_ at concerts. I believe it has been performed, but not played. Again I highly doubt more than a small percentage of general listeners would say it was played. Without question it has been published as music. A major point of Cage's work is trying to show people how to think of part of the world differently. I don't believe it was obvious to anyone that 4'33" was clearly music.

Was it composed as music? I always thought so, but the video in post #45 makes me wonder what Cage truly felt. Cage says, ""When I hear what we call music, it seems to me that someone is talking…But when I hear traffic…I don't have the feeling that anyone is talking. I have the feeling that sound is acting." To me this seems as though Cage is making a distinction between sound acting (as in 4'33") and "what we call music".

I believe it simply does not matter whether one believes 4'33" is music or not. The experience, when listening to it, is the same either way. Arguments on that question can be interesting and rewarding. Arguments on whether 4'33" is garbage, trolling, or useless are decidedly less so.


----------



## Rhombic

If you need 50 pages in a forum to discuss whether something is music or not, among keen listeners, it probably is not music.


----------



## science

Rhombic said:


> If you need 50 pages in a forum to discuss whether something is music or not, among keen listeners, it probably is not music.


Really? I'd conclude that in that case there is a chance it's music.


----------



## Dim7

mmsbls said:


> I believe it simply does not matter whether one believes 4'33" is music or not. The experience, when listening to it, is the same either way. Arguments on that question can be interesting and rewarding. Arguments on whether 4'33" is garbage, trolling, or useless are decidedly less so.


Really? For me the question whether it's music is just boring semantics. I'd be more interested whether the point that is made in 4'33'' is important or profound and why or why not. Or maybe, just maybe, whether there's a possibility that Cage was just pranking us a little bit... not that it's likely or anything but....


----------



## almc

Dim7 said:


> If I recorded several barking dogs and organized the barks somehow in the piece with some barks repeated in certain patterns, would you consider that to be music?


Then, there would be some kind of organization of the sounds, some kind of harmonizing the whole output, some kind of construction ... it is a little bit different, don't you think ?

4'33'' has none of these elements, it is purely accidental, as the barking of a single dog in midnight ... as it was accurately pinpointed, it is a statement, not music per se... exactly, as laying coloured eggs from a ****** is not painting ...


----------



## mmsbls

Dim7 said:


> Really? For me the question whether it's music is just boring semantics.


I think many may feel that way. Defining music is notoriously difficult. I once started a thread, not to define music, but to explore the boundaries of what is music. Unfortunately, that thread did not go as I planned. I think there is a large divide in what people actually view as music, and the reasons for those differences, to me, are quite interesting.



Dim7 said:


> I'd be more interested whether the point that is made in 4'33'' is important or profound and why or why not. Or maybe, just maybe, whether there's a possibility that Cage was just pranking us a little bit... not that it's likely or anything but....


Yes, a debate on whether the point of 4'33" is profound or important would be quite interesting. And since the debate would be interesting, 4'33" is clearly not garbage or useless (otherwise people would not be interesting in debating the question). Given Cage's views on sound, it would be very difficult to argue effectively that 4'33" was trolling.


----------



## Albert7

Dim7 said:


> If I recorded several barking dogs and organized the barks somehow in the piece with some barks repeated in certain patterns, would you consider that to be music?


Yes, it would definitely be music for sure. Maybe not a masterpiece but who am I to judge accordingly?

For example,


----------



## Albert7

almc said:


> Then, there would be some kind of organization of the sounds, some kind of harmonizing the whole output, some kind of construction ... it is a little bit different, don't you think ?
> 
> 4'33'' has none of these elements, it is purely accidental, as the barking of a single dog in midnight ... as it was accurately pinpointed, it is a statement, not music per se... exactly, as laying coloured eggs from a ****** is not painting ...


Actually the latter you just mentioned is painting or sculpture. Dieter Roth did a bunny sculpture out of bunny waste which is marvelous.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Stealing my own Meme from the Meme thread because it seems relevant.
Please note - these are fictional characters and in no way reflect the opinions of the Poster


----------



## Woodduck

"For me the question whether it's music is just boring semantics. I'd be more interested whether the point that is made in 4'33'' is important or profound and why or why not."

I think both questions are interesting.

"Yes, a debate on whether the point of 4'33" is profound or important would be quite interesting. And since the debate would be interesting, 4'33" is clearly not garbage or useless (otherwise people would not be interesting in debating the question)."

Nope. Questioning the value of something doesn't prove that it has value.

"Then, there would be some kind of organization of the sounds, some kind of harmonizing the whole output, some kind of construction ... it is a little bit different, don't you think ? 
4'33'' has none of these elements, it is purely accidental, as the barking of a single dog in midnight ... as it was accurately pinpointed, it is a statement, not music per se... exactly, as laying coloured eggs from a ****** is not painting ..."

Welcome to the forum, almc. Common sense is always appreciated...

"Actually the latter you just mentioned is painting or sculpture. Dieter Roth did a bunny sculpture out of bunny waste which is marvelous."

and not common enough (common sense, that is, not bunny waste. There's plenty of that).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Actually the latter you just mentioned is painting or sculpture. Dieter Roth did a bunny sculpture out of bunny waste which is marvelous.

Piece of crap... literally and figuratively.


----------



## Woodduck

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Actually the latter you just mentioned is painting or sculpture. Dieter Roth did a bunny sculpture out of bunny waste which is marvelous.
> 
> Piece of crap... literally and figuratively.


And your point would be...?

:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

If you need 50 pages in a forum to discuss whether something is music or not, among keen listeners, it probably is not music.

Really? I'd conclude that in that case there is a chance it's music.

Probability? Chance? Gentlemen, please! Are we talking statistics, quantum mechanics, or Russian roulette?


----------



## Albert7

Woodduck said:


> If you need 50 pages in a forum to discuss whether something is music or not, among keen listeners, it probably is not music.
> 
> Really? I'd conclude that in that case there is a chance it's music.
> 
> Probability? Chance? Gentlemen, please! Are we talking statistics, quantum mechanics, or Russian roulette?


I choose quantum mechanics by far. It's my weapon of choice as usual!


----------



## Albert7

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Actually the latter you just mentioned is painting or sculpture. Dieter Roth did a bunny sculpture out of bunny waste which is marvelous.
> 
> Piece of crap... literally and figuratively.


LOL... pretty much if you think so, it's in the MOMA travelling exhibit.

http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2013/03/29/dieter-roths-bunny-leaves-more-than-just-chocolate-and-jelly-beans

I am proud to have seen this fine sculpture up close and personal in NYC.  Very impressive.


----------



## arpeggio

*Common Sense*

If we keep this up we could drive out everyone who does not have common sense.

They succeeded in driving out people without common sense in another forum. If we keep this up our the level of discussion here can be just as exciting as it is over there. Let us have another discussion of which of the 50+ outstanding recordings of Beethoven's _Fifth_ is the best one.

I want to apologize for what I have just stated. We have recently lost several long time members, two of whom were very good friends of mine. One of the many, many reasons they left is because they thought _433_ is music. It seems that they lack common sense.

Their departures have been very disheartening to me and I have lost much of my enthusiasm for this forum. 

There are some new members that are giving me hope. Let's hear it for people without common sense. :trp:

It would be a very boring place without us.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> *If we keep this up we could drive out everyone who does not have common sense.*
> 
> They succeeded in driving out people without common sense in another forum. If we keep this up our the level of discussion here can be just as exciting as it is over there. Let us have another discussion of which of the 50+ outstanding recordings of Beethoven's _Fifth_ is the best one.
> 
> I want to apologize for what I have just stated. *We have recently lost several long time members, two of whom were very good friends of mine. One of the many, many reasons they left is because they thought 433 is music. It seems that they lack common sense.
> *
> Their departures have been very disheartening to me and I have lost much of my enthusiasm for this forum.
> 
> There are some new members that are giving me hope. Let's hear it for people without common sense. :trp:
> 
> *It would be a very boring place without us.*


May I let out an enormous groan? Thanks. :tiphat:

People leave this forum for all kinds of reasons. The inability to tolerate a discussion of the merits of 4'33" must be the most remarkable one I've heard yet. Did your discouraged friends consider avoiding threads where they found opposing opinions? Or starting threads which would reinforce their point of view, such as "Let's discuss the musical merits of 4'33" and not raise any challenging philosophical questions"?

People I'm fond of have also gone away. I too have felt my enthusiasm for the forum ebb at times. I dare say that those with "common sense" and those without it have felt about equally disheartened. It isn't spirited debate that disheartens some of us, however - but apparently our "us" is a different "us" from your "us." I wouldn't dare to say that this place would be boring without "us," since I'm pretty sure that most people here wouldn't miss any of "us" if we were gone, whatever "us" we're talking about.

Nothing hinges on whether a majority think that 4'33" is music - except, it seems, the ability of some people to feel that the world is worth living in. God help them if they ever encounter real adversity.


----------



## Woodduck

Albert7 said:


> Richter applied the paint on using the equivalent of a ice scraper/paint roller for the paint...
> 
> The point is...
> 
> if 4' 33" isn't art or non-art, then this is a traditional Western dichotomy.
> 
> *I being a Buddhist see 4' 33" as both art and non-art at the same time. I see the ying and yang of that **piece all together in one.*


Since you're a Buddhist and I have just a glancing knowledge of the subject, you must correct me if I'm mistaken in thinking that "Yin" and "Yang" refer to the opposites inherent in things and not to outright contradiction. To say that a woman contains both feminine (yin) and masculine (yang) traits is not the same as to say that she is both a woman and not a woman. Or do I misunderstand the idea?


----------



## Albert7

Woodduck said:


> Since you're a Buddhist and I have just a glancing knowledge of the subject, you must correct me if I'm mistaken in thinking that "Yin" and "Yang" refer to the opposites inherent in things and not to outright contradiction. To say that a woman contains both feminine (yin) and masculine (yang) traits is not the same as to say that she is both a woman and not a woman. Or do I misunderstand the idea?


That is correct... the yin and yang are seen as complementary parts of the whole section of the universe indeed. And we don't subscribe to contradiction in fact... In fact, a man has both masculine and feminine qualities which are harbored within the soul.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
-Buddha


----------



## Woodduck

Albert7 said:


> That is correct... the yin and yang are seen as complementary parts of the whole section of the universe indeed. And we don't subscribe to contradiction in fact... In fact, a man has both masculine and feminine qualities which are harbored within the soul.
> 
> Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
> -Buddha


Thanks. ................


----------



## Marilyn

Albert7 said:


> Richter applied the paint on using the equivalent of a ice scraper/paint roller for the paint...
> 
> The point is...
> 
> if 4' 33" isn't art or non-art, then this is a traditional Western dichotomy.
> 
> I being a Buddhist see 4' 33" as both art and non-art at the same time. I see the ying and yang of that piece all together in one.


I thought we were discussing whether 4'.33'' was music or not, not whether it was art. I don't think that anyone doubts that it is a form of art, good for some, bad for some others.

Anyway, I must say that this thread took a very interesting turn, although we filled too many pages with a lot of words about something that constitutes of nothing.


----------



## Marilyn

Dim7 said:


> If I recorded several barking dogs and organized the barks somehow in the piece with some barks repeated in certain patterns, would you consider that to be music?


Maybe that would be music, but not the kind I would pay to listen to. Now imagine the dog I mentioned just sitting there silently for 4'.33''...


----------



## Albert7

Marilyn said:


> I thought we were discussing whether 4'.33'' was music or not, not whether it was art. I don't think that anyone doubts that it is a form of art, good for some, bad for some others.
> 
> Anyway, I must say that this thread took a very interesting turn, although we filled too many pages with a lot of words about something that constitutes of nothing.


In the same vein for me... 4' 33" is both music and non-music. For me, it distills in its continuity what Eastern views on music are within a Western music framework.

We can laugh at 4' 33" but I will continue to revere the piece. For me, it represents a turning point of what Western music is heading into.

And honestly anyone can disregard my opinion. But as a Buddhist, the piece harbors meaning from a spiritual stance. And yes, it is both music and non-music to me.


----------



## arpeggio

One final point about common sense.

I think I mentioned this in another post.

In another forum they recently started a down with Cage thread. It died after a few days. The members without common sense had enough sense not to show up.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Since you're a Buddhist and I have just a glancing knowledge of the subject, you must correct me if I'm mistaken in thinking that "Yin" and "Yang" refer to the opposites inherent in things and not to outright contradiction. To say that a woman contains both feminine (yin) and masculine (yang) traits is not the same as to say that she is both a woman and not a woman. Or do I misunderstand the idea?


I think yin and yang is a notion from Chinese philosophy (particularly Daoist) rather than a Buddhist teaching.


----------



## Woodduck

"In another forum they recently started a down with Cage thread. It died after a few days. *The members without common sense had enough sense not to show up.*" - Arpeggio

"That's because we are smart enough to enjoy our music instead in our TalkClassical online chat group and share new music without wasting our time on *silly* *debates.* In fact, I prefer to spend my time listening to music with online pals in our chat group rather than two hours of posting *circumlocutions* here about whether Cage is worth listening to or not honestly." - Albert7

I can't help observing that certain people who object to the present "silly debate" seem not to be sufficiently "without common sense" to have avoided, not only showing up, but participating in it frequently since February 3, the first day it opened, over a month and 51 pages ago.

Those doggone "circumlocutions" are hard to resist, aren't they?

:devil:


----------



## Dim7

I play just a single note on piano and record it. Music?

I play two notes on a piano and nothing else. Music?

I'm kind of contradicting myself for asking these question because I just said that I found the discussions about definiton of music "boring" but I ask them anyway.

The question is NOT whether the two hypothetical pieces have any value or are garbage but whether they are music.


----------



## science

Dim7 said:


> I play just a single note on piano and record it. Music?
> 
> I play two notes on a piano and nothing else. Music?
> 
> I'm kind of contradicting myself for asking these question because I just said that I found the discussions about definiton of music "boring" but I ask them anyway.
> 
> The question is NOT whether the two hypothetical pieces have any value or are garbage but whether they are music.


If that's not music, I can't imagine what music is.

But I agree that the definition of music is not actually very important.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> If you need 50 pages in a forum to discuss whether something is music or not, among keen listeners, it probably is not music.
> 
> Really? I'd conclude that in that case there is a chance it's music.
> 
> Probability? Chance? Gentlemen, please! Are we talking statistics, quantum mechanics, or Russian roulette?


None of those things! Just semantics. Nothing but semantics.


----------



## Revel

*4'33"*

I think utter silence that everyone is paying attention to & acutely aware of...(especially if in a packed concert hall) is so alien & deafening to some people, that they can't help but find it immensely profound. After the experience, they feel the need to put a positive label on it. So they call this composer's piece _music_, something we all cherish. It's important to note that the silence is arranged for by a composer...someone affiliated with music (or in this case, lack thereof). Because of this (maybe it's subliminal??), the word _music_ is more readily applied. If it were a pre-planned moment of silence at a sporting event, it's essentially no different than what Cage has done (albeit one occassion is more solemn than the other). But Cage is a composer, so the term _music_ is thrown around...whereas the Moment of Silence at the sporting event will always be referred to as a Moment of Silence, nothing more.

As for the OP's question "Why is 4'33" disparaged"......I think many of us are literalists...and calling silence "music" contradicts how music is traditionally defined in texts. Music requires sound at its foundation...and silence is the absence of sound.


----------



## Taggart

*This thread is about Mr Cage and 4'33". It is not a place to insult members or comment on their posting styles.

Please be civil or the thread may be closed. Some posts have been removed.*


----------



## Celloman

Revel said:


> As for the OP's question "Why is 4'33" disparaged"......I think many of us are literalists...and calling silence "music" contradicts how music is traditionally defined in texts. Music requires sound at its foundation...and silence is the absence of sound.


But that's precisely the point. There's no such thing as silence, so it doesn't really fit into that category. Can *any* sound qualify as music? _4'33"_ should be praised or dismissed on these terms, not on its supposed silence which, after all, may be implied but is not really achieved.


----------



## Albert7

Celloman said:


> But that's precisely the point. There's no such thing as silence, so it doesn't really fit into that category. Can *any* sound qualify as music? _4'33"_ should be praised or dismissed on these terms, not on its supposed silence which, after all, may be implied but is not really achieved.


And I need to research whether Cage meant for it to be silence or ambient noise. That I am not entirely sure.


----------



## ptr

Albert7 said:


> And I need to research whether Cage meant for it to be silence or ambient noise. That I am not entirely sure.


There's nothing in the score about "silence", ambient "noise" seems like a wrong wording, more like ambient "sounds"! (There's really no focus on either, but the "focus" is rather on what You audibly perceive of the environment of the "current" performance! This have of course been said multiple times in this thread before! )

/ptr


----------



## Albert7

Here is a copy of the original score:









And based on my view, the ambient sounds, not pure silence, is the score. This for me represents a nature piece (symbolizing the universe) that combines both "silence" and "non-silence."


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

LOL... pretty much if you think so, it's in the MOMA travelling exhibit.

Well there are a good many things that find their way into traveling exhibitions and even permanent collections that are less than brilliant. The last 50 years or so have seen an endless array of "art" works made from excrement and bodily fluids. After a while one becomes rather tired of the SOS... juvenile attempts to shock a jaded audience.


----------



## Albert7

This will be my last post in this thread. For me, I am going to relate to 4' 33" on a personal spiritual level and that I feel is the focus. Whether it is a transcendental experience for others is a separate issue here.


----------



## Posie

I really enjoy some of John Cage's other pieces, but 4'33" only frustrates me.


----------



## Ingélou

I don't, in the end, accept it as music - but my strongest feeling is *surprise* that anyone can feel passionately about the question. One person's 'original piece of music, inducing exalted thoughts' is another person's 'shuffling & coughing in the audience, inducing boredom and mild irritation' - but *so what*? 

At this point, no doubt, I'll be leapt on by both sides - like the John Cleese sketch about some German tourists, 'Don't mention the war', where in the end it's Switzerland that gets it in the neck. :devil:


----------



## Revel

*4'33"*



Celloman said:


> But that's precisely the point. There's no such thing as silence


Not to be combative, but sound waves require molecules to travel. There are no molecules in open space, so there is no sound in open space. Safe to say, 99% (and then some) of the universe cannot accommodate sound. Our planet's atmosphere affords us a very _unique_ ability to experience sound. Yeah, I'm digressing ...but I can't help it 



Celloman said:


> Can *any* sound qualify as music?


In my opinion.....No.

Sure....music can be categorized as sound...as can thunder.

But........sound does not necessarily qualify as music, nor does it necessarily qualify as thunder.

We use descriptors to differentiate the types of sound we hear. Criteria must be met before we can label something. It's called effective communication.

Just like Humans are animals, Elephants are animals, and Lions are animals.

But animals are not necessarily Human, nor are they necessarily Elephants or Lions.

Once again, It's called effective communication. Without it, we'd still be drawing animals on cave walls.


----------



## Rapide

Is there any significance in the duration itself - four minutes and thirty-three seconds - or could it have been any duration, Cage just randomly picked that? Why not thirty-three minutes and four seconds? Would that not work? Why?


----------



## Posie

Isn't a similar effect created when someone requests for a group to have a moment of silence?


----------



## Woodduck

Rapide said:


> Is there any significance in the duration itself - four minutes and thirty-three seconds - or could it have been any duration, Cage just randomly picked that? Why not thirty-three minutes and four seconds? Would that not work? Why?


Cage indicates in the "score" that the "movements" may last any length of time. I'd surmise he just needed a catchy title and thought that a simple number (probably chosen by chance) was less likely to convey a specific meaning than something with a reference like "The Sound of One Hand Clapping." It's like the abstract painters of the time using titles like "Arrangement in White XIV."


----------



## mmsbls

Rapide said:


> Is there any significance in the duration itself - four minutes and thirty-three seconds - or could it have been any duration, Cage just randomly picked that? Why not thirty-three minutes and four seconds? Would that not work? Why?


Years ago I was convinced the 273 seconds could not be a coincidence. Negative 273 degrees Celsius is absolute zero temperature - the lowest temperature possible. The classical theory of temperature suggested that the molecules or atoms would have no motion at absolute zero, but in quantum theory there are random fluctuations of energy. I thought maybe Cage viewed the random sounds heard during 4'33" similarly to these random fluctuations at absolute zero.

But I've never seen anything to suggest that Cage selected 273 to be in any way similar to absolute zero temperature. I don't think the total time has any significance, but if others know otherwise, please let me know.


----------



## science

Posie said:


> Isn't a similar effect created when someone requests for a group to have a moment of silence?


I don't think so. Millionrainbows, who started this, had (or "has" if it is ongoing) been on a campaign to portray the music he likes as sacred, but even if you follow him in that - which I don't, and I'm... skeptical, let's say, of the motivations for obscuring a perfectly sensible distinction between the sacred/religious/supernatural and the profane/ordinary/natural world - there is still a difference in the nature of the attention called for: a "moment of silence" is usually meant to be filled with solemnity, perhaps personal prayer, with attention directed inward; but _4'33"_ is meant to be filled with appreciative attention to ambient sound, with attention therefore directed outward.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Does it not strike anyone else as odd that a piece which involves not one instrumentalist playing anything or any singer singing anything for 4'33" has generated 780 posts since the beginning of February, whilst the *Tristan und Isolde* thread, about an opera, in which a lot of musicians and singers play an awful lot of notes for over three hours has only generated 176 posts since it was started a few days later?

Just an observation.


----------



## Dim7

GregMitchell said:


> Does it not strike anyone else as odd that a piece which involves not one instrumentalist playing anything or any singer singing anything for 4'33" has generated 780 posts since the beginning of February, whilst the *Tristan und Isolde* thread, about an opera, in which a lot of musicians and singers play an awful lot of notes for over three hours has only generated 176 posts since it was started a few days later?
> 
> Just an observation.


Yes it strikes other people too as odd, this observation has been made many times though of course not with the exact Tristan und Isolde thread comparison.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Dim7 said:


> Yes it strikes other people too as odd, this observation has been made many times though of course not with the exact Tristan und Isolde thread comparison.


Sorry I couldn't be bothered to read through all 780 posts.


----------



## Guest

GregMitchell said:


> Does it not strike anyone else as odd that a piece which involves not one instrumentalist playing anything or any singer singing anything for 4'33" has generated 780 posts since the beginning of February, whilst the *Tristan und Isolde* thread, about an opera, in which a lot of musicians and singers play an awful lot of notes for over three hours has only generated 176 posts since it was started a few days later?
> 
> Just an observation.


Some people prefer quantity over quality.


----------



## Dim7

GregMitchell said:


> Sorry I couldn't be bothered to read through all 780 posts.


No need to be sorry, I just answered your question


----------



## EdwardBast

Taggart said:


> *This thread is about Mr Cage and 4'33". It is not a place to insult members or comment on their posting styles.
> 
> Please be civil or the thread may be closed. Some posts have been removed.*


Wait! You mean all we have to do to make this stop is insult a few of our compatriots? Didn't we already try that?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

GregMitchell said:


> Does it not strike anyone else as odd that a piece which involves not one instrumentalist playing anything or any singer singing anything for 4'33" has generated 780 posts since the beginning of February, whilst the *Tristan und Isolde* thread, about an opera, in which a lot of musicians and singers play an awful lot of notes for over three hours has only generated 176 posts since it was started a few days later?
> 
> Just an observation.


The thread_ really_ should have been called "The Disregard of Reality and Other Whims."


----------



## Woodduck

GregMitchell said:


> Does it not strike anyone else as odd that a piece which involves not one instrumentalist playing anything or any singer singing anything for 4'33" has generated 780 posts since the beginning of February, whilst the *Tristan und Isolde* thread, about an opera, in which a lot of musicians and singers play an awful lot of notes for over three hours has only generated 176 posts since it was started a few days later?
> 
> Just an observation.


What it means is that 4'33" is a resounding success. If Cage's objective was to create a void which would be filled by environmental noise, we are achieving that objective for him, probably beyond his wildest dreams.

All Wagner asks us to do is play music. Cage has made us build the Tower of Babble.


----------



## Sloe

Woodduck said:


> What it means is that 4'33" is a resounding success. If Cage's objective was to create a void which would be filled by environmental noise, we are achieving that objective for him, probably beyond his wildest dreams.
> 
> All Wagner asks us to do is play music. Cage has made us build the Tower of Babble.


That made me laugh so much that I started to caugh and nearly cry.

Personally I think 4´33 is the worst piece of music I never heard.
If it is a Budhist ceremony as some users claim it is I would like the people in the audience to be informed of that so they know what is happening.


----------



## Nereffid

Rapide said:


> Is there any significance in the duration itself - four minutes and thirty-three seconds - or could it have been any duration, Cage just randomly picked that? Why not thirty-three minutes and four seconds? Would that not work? Why?


It's my understanding that the first performance of the piece (which at the time was untitled) took 4 minutes and 33 seconds. Which presumably meant there was someone in the room with a stopwatch or at least keeping a close eye on a clock during the performance.


----------



## millionrainbows

GregMitchell said:


> Does it not strike anyone else as odd that a piece which involves not one instrumentalist playing anything or any singer singing anything for 4'33" has generated 780 posts since the beginning of February, whilst the *Tristan und Isolde* thread, about an opera, in which a lot of musicians and singers play an awful lot of notes for over three hours has only generated 176 posts since it was started a few days later?
> 
> Just an observation.


The impication of your observation is that 4'33" is devoid of content provided by musicians, compared to Wagner.

No, it does not strike me as odd, because the whole point of 4'33" is that it is the _opposite_ of the Western approach, where music is provided by musicians.

4'33" turns the "objective" notion of listening to music as a defined thing provided by musicians into a "subjective" process of listening to sounds with no intention behind them.


----------



## millionrainbows

Sloe said:


> That made me laugh so much that I started to caugh_ (sic) _and nearly cry.
> 
> Personally I think 4´33 is the worst piece of music I never heard.


That doesn't make any sense, because 4'33" is not "a piece of music" in the Western sense; it cannot be judged because it is always different. You are talking about it as if it were an unchanging "art object."



Sloe said:


> If it is a Budhist _(sic)_ ceremony as some users claim it is I would like the people in the audience to be informed of that so they know what is happening.


So all the Republicans can walk out? :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> What it means is that 4'33" is a resounding success. If Cage's objective was to create a void which would be filled by environmental noise, we are achieving that objective for him, probably beyond his wildest dreams.
> 
> All Wagner asks us to do is play music. Cage has made us build the Tower of Babble.


I think Cage's intention was to create a space where non-intentioned sounds could appear, and be considered by us as "music." I don't think a bunch of intentioned and often vitriolic argumentation fits the spirit of the piece, and would probably given him a headache.

BTW, I'm taking all of these comments seriously, not as sarcastic humor.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> The thread_ really_ should have been called "The Disregard of Reality and Other Whims."


It seems to me an equally valid argument could be made that "Cage is reality" and that "Western art is a form of unreality based on fantasy and artifice." Isn't that what all "art" is, a form of artifice?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

millionrainbows said:


> It seems to me an equally valid argument could be made that "Cage is reality" and that "Western art is a form of unreality based on fantasy and artifice." Isn't that what all "art" is, a form of artifice?


'Art' is a metaphysical recreation of reality.

- But what's 'nothing' reflecting?- that is to say: "4'33"?

'Being' and 'nothingness' are disparate concepts and never the twain shall meet.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> 'Art' is a metaphysical recreation of reality.
> 
> - But what's 'nothing' reflecting?- that is to say: "4'33"?
> 
> *'Being' and 'nothingness' are disparate concepts and never the twain shall meet.*



Oh, I don't know, didn't Sartre try to weave a common thread in his _L'Être et le néant_?


----------



## Blake

Marschallin Blair said:


> 'Art' is a metaphysical recreation of reality.
> 
> - But what's 'nothing' reflecting?- that is to say: "4'33"?
> 
> 'Being' and 'nothingness' are disparate concepts and never the twain shall meet.




Just look at the words a bit. "Ness" is a statement of being. So, literally, nothing_ness_ would point to the being of no particular thing.

But, this seems like a paradox to a human mind whose sole occupation is of things... always dualistic, haha. Plus, the extreme limitations of the english language don't help either....


----------



## violadude

This thread is still a thing?


----------



## Blake

No, V. You're just having a nightmare. It's time to wake up and go to work.


----------



## Woodduck

The arguments exhaust themselves. 

The posts grow short. 

Soon there will be silence. 

Then the light will come on.


----------



## Ingélou

Woodduck said:


> The arguments exhaust themselves.
> 
> The posts grow short.
> 
> Soon there will be silence.
> 
> *Then the light will come on*.


An art installation?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

TalkingHead said:


> Oh, I don't know, didn't Sartre try to weave a common thread in his _L'Être et le néant_?


Sure he did- just like he tried to meld Existentialism and Marxism- another combo pack of contradictions that will never meet.


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> This thread is still a thing?


Only if you attend to it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Blake said:


> Just look at the words a bit. "Ness" is a statement of being. So, literally, nothing_ness_ would point to the being of no particular thing.
> But, this seems like a paradox to a human mind whose sole occupation is of things... always dualistic, haha. Plus, the extreme limitations of the english language don't help either....


Unicorns and leprechauns are 'nothingness'- are they a "statement of being?"


----------



## EdwardBast

Marschallin Blair said:


> Unicorns and leprechauns are 'nothingness'- are they a "statement of being?"


As frequent subjects of art, they must at least be "metaphysical reflections of reality," right?


----------



## GhenghisKhan

4'33 is a riddle in the same sense that "why did the chicken cross the road" is a riddle.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

violadude said:


> This thread is still a thing?


I know, right?

The philosophical or intellectual radicalism of 4'33" is grossly exaggerated. As I've said multiple times before on this thread, the piece is simply a natural extension of the expressive paradigm of musique concrete. But rather than relying on electronic prerecorded acousmatic sounds (as musique concrete normally does) it relies on a controlled setting of natural/ambient/human/gestural sounds. That's it!

Again, Cage's Roaratorio 



 evokes a similar mindset and atmosphere as 4'33" does. Or, if one desires something more dark and gritty, then take Berio's Visage 



 or... any electroacoustic piece with human and acousmatic elements. You may not _like_ these works, and that's fine, but at least realize that 4'33" isn't as radical of a departure from them as some might think.


----------



## Blake

Marschallin Blair said:


> Unicorns and leprechauns are 'nothingness'- are they a "statement of being?"


They're not "nothingness"... they're ideas in your head based on other ideas in your head.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> 'Art' is a metaphysical recreation of reality.
> 
> - But what's 'nothing' reflecting?- that is to say: "4'33"?
> 
> 'Being' and 'nothingness' are disparate concepts and never the twain shall meet.




All art and religion is concerned with 'being.'

'Nothingness' is simply an absence of that. It doesn't really exist, except as an idea in opposition to being. Privatio boni.


----------



## millionrainbows

GhenghisKhan said:


> 4'33 is a riddle in the same sense that "why did the chicken cross the road" is a riddle.


No, there is no mystery in 4'33". It is simply the sounds which occur around us during whatever performance we happen to be in at the time.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> All art and religion is concerned with 'being.'
> 
> 'Nothingness' is simply an absence of that. It doesn't really exist, except as an idea in opposition to being. Privatio boni.


I'm just playing around with this, as I've always been quite intrigued by the subject. But for "being" to be experiential, wouldn't "non-being" be a logical counterpart? Just as nothing can be perceptible without its contrast. Light-dark, ugliness-beauty, male-female....

It seems abstract, but there's some sense in it. How would we know existence without it being on the background of non-existence? Two sides of the same coin that perpetually flips.


----------



## Giordano

Blake said:


> I'm just playing around with this, as I've always been quite intrigued by the subject. But for "being" to be experiential, wouldn't "non-being" be a logical counterpart? Just as nothing can be perceptible without its contrast. Light-dark, ugliness-beauty, male-female....
> 
> It seems abstract, but there's some sense in it. How would we know existence without it being on the background of non-existence? Two sides of the same coin that perpetually flips.


It's best to be silent. 

As long as I am speaking, I will say that I am and I see because I am not.

Maybe this is better: I see that I am as I am not.


----------



## Blake

Giordano said:


> ^^ It's best to be silent.
> 
> As long as I am speaking, I will say that I am and I see because I am not.
> 
> Maybe this is better: I see that I am as I am not.


As a wise man said - I'm walking, but not walking. Talking, but not talking. Seeing, but not seeing...


----------



## MoonlightSonata

One day, I want to perform 4'33'' - maybe as an encore so that people don't know it's coming. It would be interesting to see how it would be received.
Even better, I could play it in a string quartet, so that it would be perhaps even more unexpected, as the work is best known as a piano one.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'll walk you through a performance of 4'33" so you can better understand it.

Okay, the pianist is walking out. He opens the piano lid, places the score on the stand, and sits back. It has begun.

I'm listening. The sound of people gathered; not really a specific sound, but more of an underpinning, like the sound of the ocean. 
A paper rattles. Wow, that really stood out thematically. 
Somebody made a vocal sound, clearing their throat. I can tell he was a male. 
That's funny, I never really thought about it, but you can tell what a person's voice sounds like just by their coughing. I've recognized my wife's cough fron several aisles away in the grocery store.
A shoe hits the floor, making a darker, percussive sound.
Suddenly, the auditorium door slams shut. Wow, that is dramatic! It really resonated! Reminds me of that live Richter recording in Spoleto.
Some woman giggled. This is almost operatic. Sniff. Airy.
Unintelligible muttering. Somebody is asking what's going on by the sound of it. Funny how meaning is conveyed by gesture.
The air-conditioning kicks on, and outside, a police siren is barely audible. Maybe the highlight.
Now it's over.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I'll walk you through a performance of 4'33" so you can better understand it.


"There is really no "performance" by anyone. Have you thought about this at all?"
- millionrainbows

taken from: http://www.talkclassical.com/37102-movement-433-your-favourite-2.html#post843623


----------



## Dim7

The law of non-contradiction does not apply to Cage!


----------



## Illuminatedtoiletpaper

Recordings have for a while now contained sounds that would have traditionally been considered unmusical, therefore Cage has been part of a movement that has had influence on the development of music. You naysayers are putting down a man who has had more breadth of influence on one of the fundamental behaviours of human beings than you'll likely ever have. So who is truly saying something, you or Cage?


----------



## Marilyn

There's too much philosophy in John Cage's work and too little music to support it. And the result, I must say, is rather inellegant.


----------



## Igneous01

I'm almost certain that if Bach was still alive, he would have composed 14'00, given that some believe it was his sacred number (I really have no idea where this is from, if someone knows please chime in)

In all seriousness, I don't have any quarrels with 4'33. I may make some jokes about it here and there, given its a really funny subject to bring up. But on the whole I don't have any issues with it. It's John Cages 'thesis' to the world. Just like a thesis written by anyone else, some people will like it and agree, while others will refute it and disagree. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Personally I think his prepared piano works are more interesting.


----------



## millionrainbows

dogen said:


> "There is really no "performance"* by anyone*. Have you thought about this at all?"
> - millionrainbows
> 
> taken from: http://www.talkclassical.com/37102-movement-433-your-favourite-2.html#post843623


As I said, there is no "performance" *BY ANYONE. *

I say "performance" because it is a performance piece, although there is no real "performer." Plus, the piece cannot be recorded; the sounds must occur during a performance. This is really what I mean by "performance;" the piece can only occur during a specified "performance space of time", in which the 4'33" space of time is created.

Also, the term "performance" is convenient and useful in reminding people that 4'33" can only occur during the "performance" or actual specified duration. It cannot be referred to as an "object" or recording, or as a composition like other music. It is only in "the now" when it is performed. Only then.


----------



## millionrainbows

dogen said:


> "There is really no "performance"_* by anyone.*_ Have you thought about this at all?"
> - millionrainbows
> 
> taken from: http://www.talkclassical.com/37102-movement-433-your-favourite-2.html#post843623


So, you want to get me on a figure of speech? That's desperate. The key idea here is that there is no "intentioned performer" in the piece, although it is a "performance" space of time in which unintentioned sounds occur.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marilyn said:


> There's too much philosophy in John Cage's work and too little music to support it. And the result, I must say, is rather inellegant.


What is the result? *What did you hear during the performance?

*You must be referring to _"the idea"_ of 4'33", not a performance of it in which you experience sounds around you, which cannot be predicted or referred to in the abstract.

Even if, during the performance you heard, you did not like the sounds, you still can't say that *"I don't like 4'33", *because it only exists as sound during each unique performance of it. It can't be referred to as a constant thing, or object of sound, or as a recording or static thing.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> So, you want to get me on a figure of speech?


I _wanted_ a civil response to my questions. It seems that was not possible.


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> So, you want to get me on a figure of speech? That's desperate. The key idea here is that there is no "intentioned performer" in the piece, although it is a "performance" space of time in which unintentioned sounds occur.


Since essentially everyone refers to performances of the work by performers, I think it's reasonable to accept that the work is performed and there are people who perform it. Cage, himself, used performance and referred to someone performing the work so I think the rest of us can as well. Without performers we would not know when the work started or ended so I think the performers are integral.


----------



## ArtMusic

But there is no musical start nor musical finish with this piece, proven by the conductor using a stopwatch to keep track of the clock. (See youtube clip examples).


----------



## SeptimalTritone

SeptimalTritone said:


> I know, right?
> 
> The philosophical or intellectual radicalism of 4'33" is grossly exaggerated. As I've said multiple times before on this thread, the piece is simply a natural extension of the expressive paradigm of musique concrete. But rather than relying on electronic prerecorded acousmatic sounds (as musique concrete normally does) it relies on a controlled setting of natural/ambient/human/gestural sounds. That's it!
> 
> Again, Cage's Roaratorio
> 
> 
> 
> evokes a similar mindset and atmosphere as 4'33" does. Or, if one desires something more dark and gritty, then take Berio's Visage
> 
> 
> 
> or... any electroacoustic piece with human and acousmatic elements. You may not _like_ these works, and that's fine, but at least realize that 4'33" isn't as radical of a departure from them as some might think.


Sigh...

Let me repeat my stance of 4'33" here by simply quoting myself above.

If any of you honestly and sincerely want to learn about modern music, and the new paradigm of music that began around the 1950s, then listen to the works in my quoted post, plus some Varese, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Kagel, Parmegiani, and, most importantly, other Cage works. Go listen to some Feldman and Webern as well.

If you don't want to honestly and sincerely learn about modern music, then... whatever. Say what you want about 4'33". It won't change a thing.


----------



## Marilyn

millionrainbows said:


> What is the result? *What did you hear during the performance?
> 
> *You must be referring to _"the idea"_ of 4'33", not a performance of it in which you experience sounds around you, which cannot be predicted or referred to in the abstract.
> 
> Even if, during the performance you heard, you did not like the sounds, you still can't say that *"I don't like 4'33", *because it only exists as sound during each unique performance of it. It can't be referred to as a constant thing, or object of sound, or as a recording or static thing.


As I have already stated in this thread, I do not consider 4'.33'' music. I accept it as a form of art, a performance if you wish, but not as music. As far as it's artistic value is concerned, I think it's obvious that I do not appreciate it. Doesn't mean I' m right (or wrong). I just don't. For me, art should not need to be explained. That' s why I'm saying there's too much philosophy about Cage's work and too little music to support it. I trully doubt it that someone who has never heard a word about Cage and his philosophy would realize any of the things that are supposed to be realized when listening to his works. For me, music is like poetry. You need to feel it before you can begin to understand it. It doesn't go the other way round.


----------



## science

SeptimalTritone said:


> Sigh...
> 
> Let me repeat my stance of 4'33" here by simply quoting myself above.
> 
> If any of you honestly and sincerely want to learn about modern music, and the new paradigm of music that began around the 1950s, then listen to the works in my quoted post, plus some Varese, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Kagel, Parmegiani, and, most importantly, other Cage works. Go listen to some Feldman and Webern as well.
> 
> If you don't want to honestly and sincerely learn about modern music, then... whatever. Say what you want about 4'33". It won't change a thing.


Nothing anyone says here is going to change a thing. By the time someone arrives in this thread, their minds have probably been made up on this for several years, maybe decades.

There are no arguments or insights to change anyone's mind.


----------



## Blancrocher

science said:


> Nothing anyone says here is going to change a thing. By the time someone arrives in this thread, their minds have probably been made up on this for several years, maybe decades.
> 
> There are no arguments or insights to change anyone's mind.


I don't know. Prior to having visited this thread, I wouldn't have thought that 4'33'' should have its own forum just because western forms of sacred music do, but given the fact that Cage's piece has received so much more discussion than the rest of the topics in the Religious Music Forum combined I no longer think it's such a bad idea. I'd consider the proposal, at any rate.


----------



## arpeggio

science said:


> Nothing anyone says here is going to change a thing. By the time someone arrives in this thread, their minds have probably been made up on this for several years, maybe decades.
> 
> There are no arguments or insights to change anyone's mind.


This is one of the reasons I gave up participating in many threads. I have said what I have to say many times and there is nothing more that I can contribute to the discussion.

Occasionally I will see a situation that causes one to change his mind but it is very rare.


----------



## science

arpeggio said:


> This is one of the reasons I gave up participating in many threads. I have said what I have to say many times and there is nothing more that I can contribute to the discussion.
> 
> Occasionally I will see a situation that causes one to change his mind but it is very rare.


Of course there are discussions that aren't arguments: Posts #140 forward has been (almost without exception) a very productive and helpful discussion of recordings of Cage's music.

We don't have to win any arguments when we can have such a good time anyway.


----------



## Ingélou

Blancrocher said:


> I don't know. Prior to having visited this thread, I wouldn't have thought that 4'33'' should have its own forum just because western forms of sacred music do, but given the fact that Cage's piece has received so much more discussion than the rest of the topics in the Religious Music Forum combined I no longer think it's such a bad idea. I'd consider the proposal, at any rate.


A sort of 'isolation ward'? Good idea!


----------



## Blancrocher

Ingélou said:


> A sort of 'isolation ward'? Good idea!


May I propose placing it in a sub-forum of the Identifying Music area?


----------



## millionrainbows

dogen said:


> I _wanted_ a civil response to my questions. It seems that was not possible.


I thought it was civil, and logical. "Performance" is used here _differently_ than you are saying. Be logical.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> Since essentially everyone refers to performances of the work by performers, I think it's reasonable to accept that the work is performed and there are people who perform it. Cage, himself, used performance and referred to someone performing the work so I think the rest of us can as well. Without performers we would not know when the work started or ended so I think the performers are integral.


It is a performance piece, true, but the "performer" performs nothing. The content of the work is in the non-intentioned sounds, so the "performer" who comes out and opens the piano lid and sits there is really just a vehicle, and not a performer in the sense dogen and mmsbls are wanting to use to win an argument.


----------



## millionrainbows

ArtMusic said:


> But there is no musical start nor musical finish with this piece, proven by the conductor using a stopwatch to keep track of the clock. (See youtube clip examples).


I'm not sure what you are getting at with this statement.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marilyn said:


> As I have already stated in this thread, I do not consider 4'.33'' music.


That's true, I do not disagree. 4'33" is not a "composition" in the accepted sense.



Marilyn said:


> I accept it as a form of art, a performance if you wish, but not as music.


That's fine, but realize that 4'33" is a piece about sounds. If you do not consider, or cannot listen to, those sounds as "music," then I think you are missing out on a wonderful experience. After knowing about this piece, I go around "listening" all the time. It's fun, and artistic, and yes, I think it's music.



Marilyn said:


> As far as it's artistic value is concerned, I think it's obvious that I do not appreciate it. Doesn't mean I' m right (or wrong). I just don't.


What are you talking about, the "idea" of 4'33", or the sounds around you? If you don't appreciate the sounds around you, you must not be very sound-oriented person, enough to see it as an experience of the sublime "now."

I'm surprised that you like "normal" music, because it is sound, too, but if your point is that you only like "art" when it is presented as "art," then okay.



Marilyn said:


> For me, art should not need to be explained. That' s why I'm saying there's too much philosophy about Cage's work and too little music to support it.


The problem with 4'33" is *UN*-explaining it. People's expectations of what music is needs to be dispensed with, first.



Marilyn said:


> I trully doubt it that someone who has never heard a word about Cage and his philosophy would realize any of the things that are supposed to be realized when listening to his works.


I disagree. My wife never heard of Cage, and immediately liked everything by him I played. After all, it's just sound. She didn't need to "realize" or "understand" it, she just listened. She didn't have any fixed notions of what music "had" to be, so she had nothing to overcome. She just listened.



Marilyn said:


> For me, music is like poetry. You need to feel it before you can begin to understand it. It doesn't go the other way round.


There's nothing to "understand" about Cage, unless you need to "unlearn" your expectations which keep you from engaging with it as music.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> Nothing anyone says here is going to change a thing. By the time someone arrives in this thread, their minds have probably been made up on this for several years, maybe decades.
> 
> There are no arguments or insights to change anyone's mind.


There are no arguments or insights needed, unless these are pre-conceived notions that need to be dispensed with. But as I have said, there is no "understanding" required to simply listen; therefore, whatever "block" exists to prevent an understanding of Cage's music exists in the listener's refusal to openly listen, not in the music itself.


----------



## millionrainbows

Blancrocher said:


> I don't know. Prior to having visited this thread, I wouldn't have thought that 4'33'' should have its own forum just because western forms of sacred music do, but given the fact that Cage's piece has received so much more discussion than the rest of the topics in the Religious Music Forum combined I no longer think it's such a bad idea. I'd consider the proposal, at any rate.


I never said that 4'33" should have its own forum, but simply that it should be accepted as "sacred" music in the religious music thread, just like all other sacred musics.


----------



## millionrainbows

Ingélou said:


> A sort of 'isolation ward'? Good idea!


Bad idea, and I have always opposed the idea of putting modern Western music into its own "ghetto" forum.

The reason being, that generally, most all modernist listeners also listen to Beethoven and Bach, because they are usually open-minded to *all* music.

It's only the "haters" that wish to separate it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Blancrocher said:


> May I propose placing it in a sub-forum of the Identifying Music area?


Sure, Blancrocher, that's a nifty idea! That way, it would be hard to locate. (sarcasm)


----------



## Ingélou

Ingélou said:


> A sort of 'isolation ward'? Good idea!





millionrainbows said:


> Bad idea...
> 
> It's only the "haters" that wish to separate it.


Or the people who like peace and concord.


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> It is a performance piece, true, but the "performer" performs nothing. The content of the work is in the non-intentioned sounds, so the "performer" who comes out and opens the piano lid and sits there is really just a vehicle, and not a performer in the sense dogen and mmsbls are wanting to use to win an argument.


I didn't realize we were having an argument.  No, I was simply suggesting that since knowledgeable people including Cage refer to the work as a performance along with performers, it makes sense that TC members would refer to the work in a similar manner.


----------



## mmsbls

SeptimalTritone said:


> Sigh...
> 
> Let me repeat my stance of 4'33" here by simply quoting myself above.
> 
> If any of you honestly and sincerely want to learn about modern music, and the new paradigm of music that began around the 1950s, then listen to the works in my quoted post, plus some Varese, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Kagel, Parmegiani, and, most importantly, other Cage works. Go listen to some Feldman and Webern as well.
> 
> If you don't want to honestly and sincerely learn about modern music, then... whatever. Say what you want about 4'33". It won't change a thing.


I certainly can understand someone becoming frustrated with those who idly dismiss 4'33" or call it garbage, useless, etc.. But I think there are many people who seriously consider 4'33" and whether it falls within the category of music. Those people could decide that 4'33" is not music, yet they could be happy to listen to works of Varese, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Kagel, Parmegiani, Cage, Feldman, and Webern. They could even enjoy some of those works. I personally have heard at least several works by all except Parmegiani, and I enjoy works by all of those except Xenakis (but I do find some of his methods fascinating). And, as I've stated, I don't believe 4'33" is music (by my definition, which includes at least intentional sounds). So I'm not sure that the desire to "honestly and sincerely learn about modern music" has much to do with having a particular view of whether 4'33" is music.

If you were simply responding to those who disparaged Cage or 4'33" and did not give explanations of their views, then my comment doesn't apply to your post.

Incidentally, before I came to TC, I had not thought much about 4'33". I had a general sense that it was music (since it was only discussed in music circles as far as I knew) but not music of interest to me. After seeing threads on 4'33", I thought much more about music and what I believed music truly is. It was only then that I had a clearer feeling for how I view music (intentional sounds are the two critical components for me). So I can't say this particular thread changed my view, but threads and posts on TC about 4'33" allowed me to better define music. In all honesty I can partially thank the composer, Cage, for acting as a catalyst. That, by the way, should be viewed as a good thing.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> It is a performance piece, true, but the "performer" performs nothing. The content of the work is in the non-intentioned sounds, so the "performer" who comes out and opens the piano lid and sits there is really just a vehicle, and not a performer in the sense dogen and mmsbls are wanting to use to win an argument.


I was not trying to win an argument. I was asking interested serious questions based upon articles I had come across. In my perception, the response was dismissive and rude. No problem. I'm done here.


----------



## Marilyn

millionrainbows said:


> That's true, I do not disagree. 4'33" is not a "composition" in the accepted sense.
> 
> That's fine, but realize that 4'33" is a piece about sounds. If you do not consider, or cannot listen to, those sounds as "music," then I think you are missing out on a wonderful experience. After knowing about this piece, I go around "listening" all the time. It's fun, and artistic, and yes, I think it's music.
> 
> What are you talking about, the "idea" of 4'33", or the sounds around you? If you don't appreciate the sounds around you, you must not be very sound-oriented person, enough to see it as an experience of the sublime "now."
> 
> I'm surprised that you like "normal" music, because it is sound, too, but if your point is that you only like "art" when it is presented as "art," then okay.
> 
> The problem with 4'33" is *UN*-explaining it. People's expectations of what music is needs to be dispensed with, first.
> 
> I disagree. My wife never heard of Cage, and immediately liked everything by him I played. After all, it's just sound. She didn't need to "realize" or "understand" it, she just listened. She didn't have any fixed notions of what music "had" to be, so she had nothing to overcome. She just listened.
> 
> There's nothing to "understand" about Cage, unless you need to "unlearn" your expectations which keep you from engaging with it as music.


Thank you for taking all this time to prove me wrong, but I will insist that art should not need to be explained or justified. Look at all the trouble you get into, trying to convince me - and others. Just because we don't appreciate the same things you do, does not mean that we are naysayers or short-sighted or anything. The fundamental value of all modern societies is the right to be different and to express your personality. The respect for diversity is what keeps us all together. This is the only reason artists like John Cage can actually exist; because society respects diversity. As for my sound-orientation, it's got nothing to do with me liking John Cage's work and you don't really know me, so please do not make assumptions.


----------



## Rhombic

OK, OK. Since baffling with apparent arguments does not seem to be convincing enough, I propose pro-4:33 people to answer this set of questions:

1) What does it convey?
2) Is its essence purely philosophical?
3) What would Kant, Nietzsche or Freud think about this?
4) Would you pay to listen it in a concert hall? (No: jump to 6)
5) Would you pay a more expensive ticket to listen 4:33 being played by an important orchestra or would you go for a cheaper alternative by a local one?
6) Can a conductor decide anything on the nature of the piece or is he just attrezzo? What about the role of the musicians?
7) Do you consider that claiming that it is music is a way for you to feel superior to those that cannot "appreciate" it? (No: go to 9)
8) Is that feeling related to the popular story _the Emperor's New Clothes_?
9) If you were a conductor and you decided to play it in a concert... would you buy the original score, download it illegally or would you not bother to buy a score at all?
10) Isn't 4:33 purely probabilistic in the sense that no performance will be identical to any other one, considering the audience's sounds?
11) Has your answer to these questions been motivated by your urge to blend your musical tastes with experimental music?


----------



## Piwikiwi

Rhombic said:


> OK, OK. Since baffling with apparent arguments does not seem to be convincing enough, I propose pro-4:33 people to answer this set of questions:
> 
> 2) Is its essence purely philosophical?
> 3) What would Kant, Nietzsche or *Freud* think about this?


Freud is a neurologist, not a philosopher and neither of them are contemporaries of Cage; what they think about it is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Marilyn

Piwikiwi said:


> Freud is a neurologist, not a philosopher and neither of them are contemporaries of Cage; what they think about it is completely irrelevant.


Does the term irrelevant have an actuall meaning in today's world where everything is relevant?


----------



## Guest

Rhombic said:


> OK, OK. Since baffling with apparent arguments does not seem to be convincing enough, I propose pro-4:33 people to answer this set of questions:
> 
> 1) What does it convey?
> 2) Is its essence purely philosophical?
> 3) What would Kant, Nietzsche or Freud think about this?
> 4) Would you pay to listen it in a concert hall? (No: jump to 6)
> 5) Would you pay a more expensive ticket to listen 4:33 being played by an important orchestra or would you go for a cheaper alternative by a local one?
> 6) Can a conductor decide anything on the nature of the piece or is he just attrezzo? What about the role of the musicians?
> 7) Do you consider that claiming that it is music is a way for you to feel superior to those that cannot "appreciate" it? (No: go to 9)
> 8) Is that feeling related to the popular story _the Emperor's New Clothes_?
> 9) If you were a conductor and you decided to play it in a concert... would you buy the original score, download it illegally or would you not bother to buy a score at all?
> 10) Has your answer to these questions been motivated by your urge to blend your musical tastes with experimental music?


OK, I'll play.
1) To me, it conveys the idea (and it is really a rather old one) that in certain, non life-threatening situations any sonic phenomena can be perceived as having inherently musical qualities, depending on the mind-set embedded behind the ears.
2) No. I don't believe there is an enormous philosophical superstructure around its basic premise; it has served its purpose well, which is to say it calls into question one's definition of what constitutes "music".
3) I really have no idea, though I imagine that Freud might find it vaguely interesting. That is pure speculation on my part.
4) Yes, though of course part of a wider programme. 
5) No, I prefer it in its chamber music version.
6) To answer the first part, I find conductors an irritant sometimes, so as I said above, I prefer the chamber or solo version. To answer the second, the musician(s) is (are) there to perform the piece as faithfully as the score demands.
7) Not at all. I think it is a fun piece that seems to exasperate many people needlessly. 
8) N/A
9) I would prefer to play it as a solo piece and therefore cut down on paying extra fees to other musicians. I would purchase the original score, but I think it should be available as a free download / public domain document.
10) No, I have simply responded to your questionnaire because it's here on this forum and I have a few minutes to spare.
11) No, I did not click on the box asking if I care to receive other similar promotional material, and no, I don't want the free gift.

Thank you.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Marilyn said:


> Does the term irrelevant have an actuall meaning in today's world where everything is relevant?


What does actuall mean?


----------



## Marilyn

Piwikiwi said:


> What does actuall mean?


Good question! I'm starting to enjoy this thread very much! The truth is, the things I value the most, those which are more real to me than any of my day to day activities, are hundreds of miles away, so I'll agree. What's actual is rather relevant. Which by the way proves my point that everything is relevant.


----------



## Blancrocher

Rhombic said:


> 3) What would Kant, Nietzsche or Freud think about this?


Just a hunch, but I think Kant would have disliked it. On the other hand, I think that 4'33'' wouldn't necessarily contradict his views about aesthetics in the Critique of Judgment. Cage's piece certainly (to my mind) encourages the kind of unmotivated, free play of the imagination in the search of forms that Kant conceived of as the highest form of pleasure.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Marilyn said:


> Good question! I'm starting to enjoy this thread very much! The truth is, the things I value the most, those which are more real to me than any of my day to day activities, are hundreds of miles away, so I'll agree. What's actual is rather relevant. Which by the way proves my point that everything is relevant.


I would say that Julius Caesar's opinion about cage is even more relevant.


----------



## Marilyn

Piwikiwi said:


> I would say that Julius Caesar's opinion about cage is even more relevant.


You' re probably right. He was after all an emperor!


----------



## millionrainbows

dogen said:


> I was not trying to win an argument. I was asking interested serious questions based upon articles I had come across. In my perception, the response was dismissive and rude. No problem. I'm done here.


The feeling is mutual.


----------



## millionrainbows

Ingélou said:


> Or the people who like peace and concord.


People like the peacekeepers in Missouri?


----------



## millionrainbows

dogen said:


> "There is really no "performance" by anyone. Have you thought about this at all?"
> - millionrainbows
> 
> taken from: http://www.talkclassical.com/37102-movement-433-your-favourite-2.html#post843623
> (accusing me of contradiction)





Dim7 said:


> _ (sarcastically)_ The law of non-contradiction does not apply to Cage!





mmsbls said:


> (defending this attack on my argument) Since essentially everyone refers to performances of the work by performers, I think it's reasonable to accept that the work is performed and there are people who perform it. Cage, himself, used performance and referred to someone performing the work so I think the rest of us can as well. Without performers we would not know when the work started or ended so I think the performers are integral.





millionrainbows said:


> (explaining my use of the term "performance") It is a performance piece, true, but the "performer" performs nothing. The content of the work is in the non-intentioned sounds, so the "performer" who comes out and opens the piano lid and sits there is really just a vehicle, and not a performer in the sense dogen and mmsbls are wanting to use to win an argument.





mmsbls said:


> I didn't realize we were having an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was simply suggesting that since knowledgeable people including Cage refer to the work as a performance along with performers, it makes sense that TC members would refer to the work in a similar manner.


That doesn't address MY use of the term, or the accusation that I am presenting a contradictory or inconsistent argument.

I'm not arguing; Dogen is (see post above), and you are defending his position.

I'm just defending the accusation of my contradicting myself. I think I've presented a very logical case with no contradictions. The term "performance" was used in reference to the event, not a "performer," since there is no substantial performer creating sounds or music, but only environmental sounds, not ascribable to any particular performer chosen for the piece.

I'm withdrawing from this particular exchange, since it is degenerating into accusations based on distortions of terminology, strictly for argument's sake, and does nothing to shed light on a true and accurate understanding of John Cage's 4'33" or his general approach.


----------



## Mahlerian

Why all of the analogies to the Emperor's New Clothes?

It is completely irrelevant as far as I can tell. In the story, the tailors flatter the emperor into forcing him to "wear" something he can neither see nor feel, and his subjects likewise pretend, because they have been told that only the enlightened few may see the clothes, that there is something there when nothing exists.

But Cage never pretended that anything exists in 4'33" save for the sounds of the environment, and never told people that anything else was present in the piece. None of us here disagree that during 4'33" one can hear those sounds which are around them, and we only disagree as to whether or not that constitutes a piece of music.


----------



## Guest

(accusing me of contradiction)

This is NOT a quote from my post.

Thus Post 815:



dogen said:


> "There is really no "performance" by anyone. Have you thought about this at all?"
> - millionrainbows
> 
> taken from: http://www.talkclassical.com/37102-movement-433-your-favourite-2.html#post843623


Short of any more "mis-quotes" I _*am*_ done here.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Mahlerian said:


> Why all of the analogies to the Emperor's New Clothes?
> 
> It is completely irrelevant as far as I can tell. In the story, the tailors flatter the emperor into forcing him to "wear" something he can neither see nor feel, and his subjects likewise pretend, because they have been told that only the enlightened few may see the clothes, that there is something there when nothing exists.
> 
> But Cage never pretended that anything exists in 4'33" save for the sounds of the environment, and never told people that anything else was present in the piece. None of us here disagree that during 4'33" one can hear those sounds which are around them, and we only disagree as to whether or not that constitutes a piece of music.


Because we are supposed to see some deep meaning and spirituality where there aren't even any notes present?


----------



## Mahlerian

SiegendesLicht said:


> Because we are supposed to see some deep meaning and spirituality where there aren't even any notes present?


I don't care about those things. I don't even care about 4'33". I just think that The Emperor's New Clothes is an irrelevant metaphor.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> I don't care about those things. I don't even care about 4'33". I just think that The Emperor's New Clothes is an irrelevant metaphor.


Of course it is, because a more germane metaphor would be that the Clothes Have No Emperor.

_Pure_ hokum.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

SiegendesLicht said:


> Because we are supposed to see some deep meaning and spirituality where there aren't even any notes present?


zOMG!!! There is no more meaning and spirituality in 4'33" than any other good piece of modern classical music! It's just a piece like any other musique concrete work. Have you even read my last two posts???


----------



## Albert7

Ugh, I said that I wouldn't jump back into this thread but I feel that I have to again .

I see 4' 33" as being BOTH MUSIC and NON-MUSIC. 

If we keep having dichotomies about this piece then that's a Western paradigm. I see it from an Eastern approach so for me, it is revolutionary in incorporating both sides of the fence.


----------



## MJTTOMB

SiegendesLicht said:


> Because we are supposed to see some deep meaning and spirituality where there aren't even any notes present?


Implicit in this line of thought are a number of assumptions that are erroneous and, like Mahlerian said, ill-fitted to address Cage's paradigm. The first assumption you're making is that music must 'mean' something-I'll address this later. The second assumption is that music's power to convey relies wholly on _notes_, the sole musical element that you cite (i.e. pitches with duration). This is a pretty extreme stance in terms of the limitations it imposes on what musical experience can be-in essence you seem to be implying that without notes, any musical experience (of meaning, spirituality, etc.) is impossible, and that's far from the case. Michael Gordon's "Timber," for instance, is a very effective piece of music thats entire premise rests on the lack of definite pitch (hence, no "notes"), and it is a fascinating work. It is one of many examples that could be offered that challenges the assumption you're making about the role of notes in musical experience.

The first assumption (that music should mean something), however, is a bit more difficult to address. Cage specifically addressed this idea in interviews. If you haven't already seen the interview where he discusses silence, it might clarify somewhat the aims of 4'33". In it, he says: 


> "When I hear what we call music, it seems to me that someone is talking, and talking about his feelings or about his ideas of relationships. But when I hear the sound of traffic here on 6th Avenue, I don't have the feeling that anyone is talking. I have the feeling that sound is acting, and I love the activity of sound. What it does, is it gets louder and quieter, and it gets higher and lower, and it gets longer and shorter. It does all those things, which I'm-I'm completely satisfied with that, I don't need sound to talk to me.


In other words, you've missed the point if you came to 4'33" wanting to be shown meaning, and to Cage that's tragic, because the most beautiful thing in the work, the most spiritual, is surely the experience of sound's unrestrained activity. It would also probably be worth your while to read some of Cage's Lecture on Nothing, which gives an immediate sense of how much delight Cage derived from exploring the paradoxical relationships between sound and silence, substance and nothingness, etc. 4'33" likewise presents such paradoxes, and I suspect that this is what leads so many people to discredit it-namely, that it is both sound *and* silence (in fact, only the performer is actually silent: the piece itself happens in the _mise en scene_), music and non-music, and to boot, music that doesn't mean anything while still accomplishing a great deal. Trying to resolve these paradoxes would be an exercise in futility, and very much beside the point. I think people would have a much easier time understanding Cage if they could relinquish the desire to resolve such contradictions and instead find joy in them.


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> Because we are supposed to see some deep meaning and spirituality where there aren't even any notes present?


Well, there are many sounds that are not _pitch based_ (no discernible "notes") yet still *imbued with deep spirituality* - I'm thinking of certain musical instruments used in *Tibetan monasteries* ...


----------



## Albert7

SiegendesLicht said:


> Because we are supposed to see some deep meaning and spirituality where there aren't even any notes present?


That is possible in fact. Some of my deepest Buddhist meditation sessions have been mired in a wonderful silence and being able to appreciate the sounds of nature outside. I think that everyone has their own personal 4' 33" as a reminder to take life slowly and not be caught up in the modern world.

Actually I think that Mahler who disliked city life would have been appreciative of 4' 33" as a nature piece.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Albert7 said:


> That is possible in fact. Some of my deepest Buddhist meditation sessions have been mired in a wonderful silence and being able to appreciate the sounds of nature outside. I think that everyone has their own personal 4' 33" as a reminder to take life slowly and not be caught up in the modern world.


For me the appreciation of nature usually lasts a lot longer than 4'33". But isn't the piece by John Cage usually performed in concert halls where the only "sounds of nature" are sneezing, coughing and creaky chairs?


----------



## millionrainbows

dogen said:


> (accusing me of contradiction)
> 
> This is NOT a quote from my post.
> 
> Thus Post 815:
> 
> (acting offended) Short of any more "mis-quotes" I _*am*_ done here.


Yes, that was my editorial comment. I am *done,* as well. Enjoy the latest "mis-quote!"


----------



## Albert7

SiegendesLicht said:


> For me the appreciation of nature usually lasts a lot longer than 4'33". But isn't the piece by John Cage usually performed in concert halls where the only "sounds of nature" are sneezing, coughing and creaky chairs?


Indeed, creaky chairs, coughing, and sneezing are all part of the human experience and if we are one with nature, then it makes sense with that view... all encompassing.

Theoretically you could put a piano in the forest and do your own version.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Albert7 said:


> Indeed, creaky chairs, coughing, and sneezing are all part of the human experience and if we are one with nature, then it makes sense with that view... all encompassing.


Yes!!!! And further, coughing and shuffling is _not_ some inert emotionless sound, but directly reflects the level of stillness of the crowd's mind (a familiar Buddhistic concept).

In modern music in general, one should not be resistant to certain sounds and label them as unmusical, because they can all be expressively controlled to evoke an emotional component of our world.


----------



## Blake

SeptimalTritone said:


> Yes!!!! And further, coughing and shuffling is _not_ some inert emotionless sound, but directly reflects the level of stillness of the crowd's mind (a familiar Buddhistic concept).
> 
> In modern music in general, one should not be resistant to certain sounds and label them as unmusical, because they can all be expressively controlled to evoke an emotional component of our world.


"Personal control" is not zen. To find what moves the person... now, that's zen.


----------



## ArtMusic

Rhombic said:


> OK, OK. Since baffling with apparent arguments does not seem to be convincing enough, I propose pro-4:33 people to answer this set of questions:
> 
> 1) What does it convey?
> 2) Is its essence purely philosophical?
> 3) What would Kant, Nietzsche or Freud think about this?
> 4) Would you pay to listen it in a concert hall? (No: jump to 6)
> 5) Would you pay a more expensive ticket to listen 4:33 being played by an important orchestra or would you go for a cheaper alternative by a local one?
> 6) Can a conductor decide anything on the nature of the piece or is he just attrezzo? What about the role of the musicians?
> 7) Do you consider that claiming that it is music is a way for you to feel superior to those that cannot "appreciate" it? (No: go to 9)
> 8) Is that feeling related to the popular story _the Emperor's New Clothes_?
> 9) If you were a conductor and you decided to play it in a concert... would you buy the original score, download it illegally or would you not bother to buy a score at all?
> 10) Isn't 4:33 purely probabilistic in the sense that no performance will be identical to any other one, considering the audience's sounds?
> 11) Has your answer to these questions been motivated by your urge to blend your musical tastes with experimental music?


Excellent questions, thank you. 

No, I would not pay a single dollar of my hard earned money to attend a concert. After all, I could perform it myself or ask *anyone* to perform it for me for free if they are willing to do so. Pure and simple.


----------



## arpeggio

ArtMusic said:


> Excellent questions, thank you.
> 
> No, I would not pay a single dollar of my hard earned money to attend a concert. After all, I could perform it myself or ask *anyone* to perform it for me for free if they are willing to do so. Pure and simple.


Yeah. You are right. I know how to play Beethoven's _Fifth_. Why should I spend my hard earn money to hear someone else do it?

(Note: Sorry. I could not leave this one alone. :lol


----------



## Rhombic

arpeggio said:


> Yeah. You are right. I know how to play Beethoven's _Fifth_. Why should I spend my hard earn money to hear someone else do it?
> 
> (Note: Sorry. I could not leave this one alone. :lol


This is the point that I wanted to mention. Is there, therefore, a difference between 4'33'' and Beethoven's Fifth symphony? Apart from the role of the conductor and musicians (there's another question about it), does it really need to be performed or does it just naturally occur?


----------



## millionrainbows

In a real zen monastery, if you fall asleep, or fart and laugh, they have a master with a paddle who will slap the sh** out of you. 

Reminding us that 4'33" is not locker-room humor.


----------



## tortkis

Cage's thoughts on this piece had been changing. Before composing it, his idea was a silent piece for Muzak. The score for the premiere was notated on music paper, with precious time durations, tempo, bars, etc. The published score (2nd or 3rd version) includes only the movements and 'TACET', with notes that described how it was performed at Woodstock, not how it should be performed, and even the total length of time was up to performers. Then, Cage thought even "performance" was no longer needed for him, since he was always listening to the piece in his daily life. I think one can enjoy the piece whatever way s/he wants, either in a concert hall with "performers," on a street of urban city, or in woods or waste land. However, I think it does not "just naturally occur," without a listener's conscious focus on the surrounding sounds.

(By the way, the premiere of 4'33" was performed in Marverick convert hall that was half-open, surrounded by woods. The audiences heard the wind, raindrops, as well as the sounds caused by themselves.)


----------



## GhenghisKhan

millionrainbows said:


> In a real zen monastery, if you fall asleep, or fart and laugh, they have a master with a paddle who will slap the sh** out of you.


Yeah, if you're a 6 years old kid.

I was raised in a buddhist family. If some monk tried to do this to me, I would steal the paddle and I would slap him.

I would then find a backpacker and also slap him to offset the bad karma


----------



## Albert7

As a Buddhist, I still have great reverence for this piece despite what naysayers keep embarking about it.  And honestly I would pay to see it done no matter who performs it. 

Problem is finding someone to do it.


----------



## Woodduck

Albert7 said:


> Ugh, I said that I wouldn't jump back into this thread but I feel that I have to again .
> 
> I see 4' 33" as being BOTH MUSIC and NON-MUSIC.
> 
> If we keep having dichotomies about this piece then that's a Western paradigm. I see it from an Eastern approach so for me, it is revolutionary in incorporating both sides of the fence.


What it is, it is not. What it is not, it is.

It is what it is not. It is not what it is.

It is, and it is not.

Is it not?

Yes.


----------



## ArtMusic

arpeggio said:


> Yeah. You are right. I know how to play Beethoven's _Fifth_. Why should I spend my hard earn money to hear someone else do it?
> 
> (Note: Sorry. I could not leave this one alone. :lol


Good for you.

4'33" is a piece that could be performed by *anyone*, musically trained or not. That's the difference. So my point was why would I want to pay my money to listen to it performed by just anyone?


----------



## Woodduck

A thing is valuable to me and worth seeking if it gives me something I don't already have without it.

Does 4'33" give me anything I don't have without it?

The "musical" content of 4'33" is said to consist of whatever sounds occur in my surroundings. Sounds are occurring in my surroundings at all times no matter where I am. If I listen to them, I am hearing exactly what I can hear in 4'33." Why then should I listen to 4'33"? What does it offer me that I don't already have? Of what specific value is it to me?

If I attend a concert at which 4'33" is programmed, and if I'm expecting music and don't know in advance what 4'33" is supposed to be about, I will be too preoccupied with wondering where the music is and trying to understand what is going on to listen attentively to environmental sounds. If, on the other hand, I attend that concert knowing what 4'33" is about, how will listening to 4'33" be different from staying home, sitting quietly, and listening to the sounds around me? It will certainly be different in the respect that I will be occupying a less comfortable seat and will have put out time, effort and money. I wouldn't consider any of that to my advantage, however. So perhaps the only possible advantage would be the presence of other people: I would be part of a group of people who would all be doing the same thing I was doing, or at least would all have the opportunity to do that thing together as a group.

If the only thing which makes 4'33" different from other things I can do or have lies not in the experience of listening to sounds but of listening to them, or being asked to listen to them, in the company of other people, then 4'33" must be, fundamentally, a social event of a certain kind - not a kind which permits free interaction between people, but rather one which is tightly structured and ritualized. It is only this structured, quasi-compulsory ritual which distinguishes 4'33" from the voluntary, individual, everyday activity of listening to sounds in the environment. It would thus seem to be only this ritual which gives 4'33" any particular value. If I value this social ritual enough to pay the cost of participating it, then I will be able to say that experiencing 4'33" has value for me. But if I don't value this social experience, 4'33" will give me nothing that I don't already have without it and will be of no value to me at all.

There is, however, a difficulty with conceiving of 4'33" as a social event or ritual. Cage didn't characterize it that way, and that is not the way it's usually characterized. A social ritual is not a meaningless gathering of people. It has a purpose. The purpose of 4'33" is supposed to be that of listening. But it's hard to see how a social setting is more conducive than solitude to accomplishing that purpose. In fact the opposite would seem to be the case. And if the supposed purpose of 4'33" and the means by which that purpose is realized are incompatible or at odds, how is a performance of the work in concert to be justified?

Whether or not 4'33" should be called music is thus not the only question it raises. I think we have to ask whether a concert performance of this work is even a reasonable way to accomplish what it sets out to accomplish - to ask, in other words, whether what 4'33" is claimed to be in theory is what it actually is in practice.

Perhaps the actual value of 4'33," if it has value, is not to be found in the attempt to realize it as a musical performance at all. Perhaps what has value is not 4'33" but the _idea_ of 4'33" - not the thing itself but what is thought and said about it.

Perhaps what we've all been doing for six weeks and fifty-nine pages is performing 4'33" in the best possible way, and deriving from it the greatest possible value.


----------



## hpowders

If my MD ever tells me that I only have 4'33" to live, I will die of a heart attack from the irony!


----------



## Albert7

Perhaps there are other songs which last 4' 33" in duration too? Which aren't 4' 33" itself .


----------



## DeepR

If its true purpose was to stir up discussions like these, or make the audience think about what can be considered music... well, then it has succeeded and only then it deserves my respect. Not as art, but as a method to make people question the nature of music.



tortkis said:


> *Then, Cage thought even "performance" was no longer needed for him, since he was always listening to the piece in his daily life.*
> I think one can enjoy the piece whatever way s/he wants, either in a concert hall with "performers," on a street of urban city, or in woods or waste land. However, I think it does not "just naturally occur," without a listener's conscious focus on the surrounding sounds.


That must have been some epiphany for mr. Cage. Maybe mr. Cage realized himself that he had needlessly presented the idea that ambient/surrounding sounds can be music too, _as a piece of music_, his _own_ piece of music even. After all, how silly is it to "claim" the ever present surrounding, ambient sounds and present those as your piece of music? 
He could've simply walked up on stage, explaining the idea/philosphy, then telling the audience to focus on the ambient, surrounding sounds for a while. Yeah of course, then it wouldn't be all artsy fartsy and mysterious anymore...

Or are you saying that after 4'33" was "composed", whenever anybody consciously focused on their surrounding sounds, they were actually listening to 4'33"? 
But what about all those people who have focused on their surrounding sounds before 4'33" was "composed"?


----------



## Blancrocher

Albert7 said:


> Perhaps there are other songs which last 4' 33" in duration too? Which aren't 4' 33" itself .


Freddy Rzewski's "A Life" comes to mind.


----------



## millionrainbows

GhenghisKhan said:


> Yeah, if you're a 6 years old kid.
> 
> I was raised in a buddhist family. If some monk tried to do this to me, I would steal the paddle and I would slap him.
> 
> I would then find a backpacker and also slap him to offset the bad karma


No, they do that to adult monks who are seriously pursuing meditation skills. There wouldn't be a six-year-old kid in there.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The "musical" content of 4'33" is said to consist of whatever sounds occur in my surroundings. Sounds are occurring in my surroundings at all times no matter where I am. If I listen to them, I am hearing exactly what I can hear in 4'33." Why then should I listen to 4'33"? ......The purpose of 4'33" is supposed to be that of listening. But it's hard to see how a social setting is more conducive than solitude to accomplishing that purpose. In fact the opposite would seem to be the case. And if the supposed purpose of 4'33" and the means by which that purpose is realized are incompatible or at odds, how is a performance of the work in concert to be justified?


You're taking the work out of its context. Cage was working within the Western music establishment, and was using the trappings of a Western concert hall experience: the auditorium, the gathering, the piano, and the performer.



Woodduck said:


> Whether or not 4'33" should be called music is thus not the only question it raises. I think we have to ask whether a concert performance of this work is even a reasonable way to accomplish what it sets out to accomplish - to ask, in other words, whether what 4'33" is claimed to be in theory is what it actually is in practice.


If you did that, you'd be defeating Cage's intent to present the work to a Western audience in a Western setting.



Woodduck said:


> Perhaps the actual value of 4'33," if it has value, is not to be found in the attempt to realize it as a musical performance at all. Perhaps what has value is not 4'33" but the _idea_ of 4'33" - not the thing itself but what is thought and said about it.


Ideally, it should exist as a concert experience, in a concert hall. Then one could realize its "value as an idea" after it has been experienced, if one wanted.



Woodduck said:


> Perhaps what we've all been doing for six weeks and fifty-nine pages is performing 4'33" in the best possible way, and deriving from it the greatest possible value.


That's stretching the limits a bit; perhaps one of the benefits of 4'33" could be to open people's minds to the possibility of all sounds as music; perhaps that was Cage's intent.

In the end, 4'33" still exists as it is, as a prescribed duration of listening at a concert hall; not as an idea, not necessarily out in the woods, but as Cage prescibed it.


----------



## millionrainbows

DeepR said:


> If its true purpose was to stir up discussions like these, or make the audience think about what can be considered music... well, then it has succeeded and only then it deserves my respect.* Not as art,* but as a method to make people question the nature of music.


I think that's true of all of Cage's work, not just 4'33". And the rest of his music is "art," and I appreciate it in the same way.



DeepR said:


> That must have been some epiphany for mr. Cage. Maybe mr. Cage realized himself that he had needlessly presented the idea that ambient/surrounding sounds can be music too, _as a piece of music_, his _own_ piece of music even.


I don't think so. The need was there, especially back when it was composed, in 1952, during the McCarthy/Eisenhower atomic cold war era of fear.



DeepR said:


> After all, how silly is it to "claim" the ever present surrounding, ambient sounds and present those as your piece of music?


I don't think Cage's intent was so egoistic, or that he wanted to "own" the sounds. 4'33" is not a "composition" which "owns" the sounds, like a Western composition.



DeepR said:


> He could've simply walked up on stage, explaining the idea/philosophy, then telling the audience to focus on the ambient, surrounding sounds for a while. Yeah of course, then it wouldn't be all artsy fartsy and mysterious anymore...


That's a ridiculous conclusion. Cage communicated through his art, and that is very beautiful and eloquent, certainly not "artsy-fartsy."

_*From WIK:

4′33″ became for Cage the epitome of his idea that any sounds may constitute music. It was also a reflection of the influence of Zen Buddhism, which Cage studied since the late 1940s. In a 1982 interview, and on numerous other occasions, Cage stated that 4′33″ was, in his opinion, his most important work.*_



DeepR said:


> Or are you saying that after 4'33" was "composed", whenever anybody consciously focused on their surrounding sounds, they were actually listening to 4'33"?


No; I don't think Cage meant it that literally; he just wanted people to open up their ears.



DeepR said:


> But what about all those people who have focused on their surrounding sounds before 4'33" was "composed"?


Then they were probably not Cage's intended audience, and didn't need to be reminded.

_You're putting too much emphasis on 4'33" as an "exclusive composition" which "contains the sounds" as we see in Western composition. It's not the same thing.
_


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> You're taking the work out of its context. Cage was working within the Western music establishment, and was using the trappings of a Western concert hall experience: the auditorium, the gathering, the piano, and the performer.
> 
> Ideally, it should exist as a concert experience, in a concert hall. Then one could realize its "value as an idea" after it has been experienced, if one wanted.
> 
> In the end, 4'33" still exists as it is, as a prescribed duration of listening at a concert hall; not as an idea, not necessarily out in the woods, but as Cage prescibed it.


You've overlooked my main point. I haven't taken the work out of context. I've asked whether the piece "works" in its context. I don't think it does. You left out the part of my post which explains why I think that:

_"If I attend a concert at which 4'33" is programmed, and if I'm expecting music and don't know in advance what 4'33" is supposed to be about, I will be too preoccupied with wondering where the music is and trying to understand what is going on to listen attentively to environmental sounds. If, on the other hand, I attend that concert knowing what 4'33" is about, how will listening to 4'33" be different from staying home, sitting quietly, and listening to the sounds around me?...Whether or not 4'33" should be called music is thus not the only question it raises. I think we have to ask whether a concert performance of this work is even a reasonable way to accomplish what it sets out to accomplish - to ask, in other words, whether what 4'33" is claimed to be in theory is what it actually is in practice." _

In other words, if you don't know what Cage's point is, you will not get the point on first exposure to the piece. But once you do know what the point is, you don't need the piece. It's like hearing a badly told joke in which the punch line is flubbed and you don't get it until it's explained to you. Once you get it, you don't need to hear the joke again. In both cases the point is made, not by the thing itself but by the explanation.

The necessity of "explaining" a work, so characteristic of modern art of the mid-20th century and so wickedly chronicled by Tom Wolfe in "The Painted Word," finally brought us "conceptual art" in which the artwork _is_ the explanation. The irony, as Wolfe tells us, is that one of the primary objectives of "modernism" in art was to "purify" it, to expunge from it the "literary" associations and justifications so characteristic of Romanticism, to get rid of the "program." The result of this campaign, by mid-century, was works of pure abstraction (or, alternately, unadorned concreteness, as in "found art" or "musique concrete") which were so completely baffling to audiences as to leave them groping for verbal explanations, explanations which were supplied in torrents of verbiage - and are still being supplied - by artists and critics eager to welcome us into their ivory towers. It was the revenge, and ultimate triumph, of The Program.

Cage's 4'33" embodies that triumph perfectly. But here literary Romanticism returns and outtops all historical precedent: here, the program exists not to explain the music, but to explain why there isn't any.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> You've overlooked my main point. I haven't taken the work out of context. I've asked whether the piece "works" in its context. I don't think it does. You left out the part of my post which explains why I think that:
> 
> _"If I attend a concert at which 4'33" is programmed, and if I'm expecting music and don't know in advance what 4'33" is supposed to be about, I will be too preoccupied with wondering where the music is and trying to understand what is going on to listen attentively to environmental sounds. If, on the other hand, I attend that concert knowing what 4'33" is about, how will listening to 4'33" be different from staying home, sitting quietly, and listening to the sounds around me?...Whether or not 4'33" should be called music is thus not the only question it raises. I think we have to ask whether a concert performance of this work is even a reasonable way to accomplish what it sets out to accomplish - to ask, in other words, whether what 4'33" is claimed to be in theory is what it actually is in practice." _
> 
> In other words, if you don't know what Cage's point is, you will not get the point on first exposure to the piece. But once you do know what the point is, you don't need the piece. It's like hearing a badly told joke in which the punch line is flubbed and you don't get it until it's explained to you. Once you get it, you don't need to hear the joke again. In both cases the point is made, not by the thing itself but by the explanation.
> 
> The necessity of "explaining" a work, so characteristic of modern art of the mid-20th century and so wickedly chronicled by Tom Wolfe in "The Painted Word," finally brought us "conceptual art" in which the artwork _is_ the explanation. The irony, as Wolfe tells us, is that one of the primary objectives of "modernism" in art was to "purify" it, to expunge from it the "literary" associations and justifications so characteristic of Romanticism, to get rid of the "program." The result of this campaign, by mid-century, was works of pure abstraction (or, alternately, unadorned concreteness, as in "found art" or "musique concrete") which were so completely baffling to audiences as to leave them groping for verbal explanations, explanations which were supplied in torrents of verbiage - and are still being supplied - by artists and critics eager to welcome us into their ivory towers. It was the revenge, and ultimate triumph, of The Program.
> 
> Cage's 4'33" embodies that triumph perfectly. But here literary Romanticism returns and outtops all historical precedent: here, the program exists not to explain the music, but to explain why there isn't any.


When you brought up Wolfe, it reminded me of the late editor of the _New Criterion_ magazine, Hilton Kramer- himself a fan of a lot of modernist painting, who said that he couldn't 'see' a modernist painting _without_ a program.

Wolfe's _Painted Word _also reminds me of Morley Safer of _Sixty Minutes_ when he went to an art gallery and came across a basketball encased in a see-through plexiglass cube.

The curator was giving Safer this utter bosh about the artist of the cube exploring 'thesis,' 'antithesis,' and 'curved space'- or some such nonsense.

Safer just said, "It looks like a basketball in a cube to me."

The Emperor Has No Clothes- 'or' Hegelian Dialectic.


----------



## Albert7

I am super excited next month to get 4' 33" off iTunes. Just need the proper timing here.


----------



## GhenghisKhan

waiting impatiently for 240' 33''


----------



## Albert7

GhenghisKhan said:


> waiting impatiently for 240' 33''


Just put 4' 33" on endless repeat on your iPhone and there you have it.


----------



## arpeggio

Woodduck said:


> You've overlooked my main point.


The irony here is that we all do get your main points. In spite of this the ones who think it is music still think it is music.


----------



## Vesteralen

Could we consider Calypso to be a muse?


----------



## Albert7

Vesteralen said:


> Could we consider Calypso to be a muse?


Perhaps she is one of the missing ones?


----------



## DeepR

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think Cage's intent was so egoistic, or that he wanted to "own" the sounds. 4'33" is not a "composition" which "owns" the sounds, like a Western composition.
> 
> That's a ridiculous conclusion. Cage communicated through his art, and that is very beautiful and eloquent, certainly not "artsy-fartsy."
> 
> _*From WIK:
> 
> 4′33″ became for Cage the epitome of his idea that any sounds may constitute music. It was also a reflection of the influence of Zen Buddhism, which Cage studied since the late 1940s. In a 1982 interview, and on numerous other occasions, Cage stated that 4′33″ was, in his opinion, his most important work.*_
> 
> No; I don't think Cage meant it that literally; he just wanted people to open up their ears.
> 
> _You're putting too much emphasis on 4'33" as an "exclusive composition" which "contains the sounds" as we see in Western composition. It's not the same thing.
> _


Ok. 4'33" is a way for Cage to communicate that any sounds can be music, a way to open up people's minds and ears to non-intentional, ambient sounds. So in essence, 4'33" is a means to direct the listener's attention to the ambient sounds that surround them. And perhaps also to make people question the nature of music, to expand their horizons. I can respect that up to here. What makes me cringe however, is that it is presented as a musical composition, with score and to be performed. You may find that beautiful and eloquent, but I just find it silly. 
As Woodduck pointed out, the uninformed, unsuspecting listener who hears it for the first time, will only be surprised and left guessing what's going on during the confusion, which doesn't make 4'33" a very effective way of communication. Its "message" will only become clear to the informed listener. But once you are informed, you don't need to listen to 4'33" anymore, since you can simply put the 4'33" philosophy in practice by focusing on ambient sounds anywhere, anytime.
The 4'33" philosophy could've been communicated more effectively and eloquently right from the beginning, in a speech, a paper or whatever. There's nothing about 4'33" intentions that can't be (better) expressed in words, which leaves no point in presenting it as music.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> The irony here is that we all do get your main points. In spite of this the ones who think it is music still think it is music.


What irony? Who are the "we all" for whom you're speaking? Are you speaking for millionrainbows, to whom I was responding?

You "all" may think anything you like about 4'33." Rest assured that I don't expect to disturb your thoughts in any way.

Pardon me if I'm assuming anything, but your remarks sound awfully much like an invitation to keep my ideas to myself.


----------



## Albert7

Woodduck said:


> What irony? Who are the "we all" for whom you're speaking? Are you speaking for millionrainbows, to whom I was responding?
> 
> You "all" may think anything you like about 4'33." Rest assured that I don't expect to disturb your thoughts in any way.
> 
> Pardon me if I'm assuming anything, but your remarks sound awfully much like an invitation to keep my ideas to myself.


Fanning the flames in the forest here like a fanatic... wave wave wave...

I don't think that was arpeggio's intent honestly. You read too much into the comment.


----------



## Woodduck

Albert7 said:


> Fanning the flames in the forest here like a fanatic... wave wave wave...
> 
> I don't think that was arpeggio's intent honestly. You read too much into the comment.


Hmmm... Perhaps you're right. Perhaps "they" will clarify what "they" meant by "their" remarks.

Here is what "I" think. I've noticed what seems to be a perception, expressed by a number of people over the course of this lengthy discussion, that the purpose of presenting our thoughts on controversial subjects is to influence others to think as we do. I'm always a little surprised by that. I've never perceived people who express ideas opposed to mine as wanting to change my mind, unless of course they say they do (and then I tell them "Weh-heh-heh-hell! Good luck with _that,_ Roscoe!").

I pop back into this thread from time to time because I want to see what interesting or amusing thoughts people have come up with, and if I read something here that inspires a new thought of my own I relish the pleasure of formulating that thought as clearly as I can, finding just the right words to express it, and offering it as the same sort of stimulus I've just received. This feels quite normal to me; I've been under the impression for some time now - probably most of a lifetime - that debate can be friendly, noncoercive, interesting, and fun (at least if I'm not losing too badly, in which case give me about ten minutes to recover my self-esteem).

If anyone feels that any of the views I offer are either an attempt to change their thinking or a personal attack, I can assure them that neither of those things is my intention. But that doesn't mean, Roscoe, that if I think I've got you pinned to the mat I'm going to let you up before the bell rings.

Another round?

:tiphat:


----------



## tortkis

DeepR said:


> If its true purpose was to stir up discussions like these, or make the audience think about what can be considered music... well, then it has succeeded and only then it deserves my respect. Not as art, but as a method to make people question the nature of music.
> 
> That must have been some epiphany for mr. Cage. Maybe mr. Cage realized himself that he had needlessly presented the idea that ambient/surrounding sounds can be music too, _as a piece of music_, his _own_ piece of music even. After all, how silly is it to "claim" the ever present surrounding, ambient sounds and present those as your piece of music?
> He could've simply walked up on stage, explaining the idea/philosphy, then telling the audience to focus on the ambient, surrounding sounds for a while. Yeah of course, then it wouldn't be all artsy fartsy and mysterious anymore...
> 
> Or are you saying that after 4'33" was "composed", whenever anybody consciously focused on their surrounding sounds, they were actually listening to 4'33"?
> But what about all those people who have focused on their surrounding sounds before 4'33" was "composed"?


I think Cage never made such a "claim" at all.

Here is exactly what he said about 4'33" to William Duckworth in a 1982 interview.

_"I use it constantly in my life experience. No day goes by without my making use of that piece in my life and in my work. I listen to it every day ... I don't sit down to do it; I turn my attention toward it. I realize that it's going on continuously. So, more and more, my attention, as now, is on it. More than anything else, it's the source of my enjoyment of life."_

Obviously he was saying that he used the concept of 4'33" every day. That's it.


----------



## tortkis

DeepR said:


> Ok. 4'33" is a way for Cage to communicate that any sounds can be music, a way to open up people's minds and ears to non-intentional, ambient sounds. So in essence, 4'33" is a means to direct the listener's attention to the ambient sounds that surround them. And perhaps also to make people question the nature of music, to expand their horizons. I can respect that up to here. What makes me cringe however, is that it is presented as a musical composition, with score and to be performed. You may find that beautiful and eloquent, but I just find it silly.
> As Woodduck pointed out, the uninformed, unsuspecting listener who hears it for the first time, will only be surprised and left guessing what's going on during the confusion, which doesn't make 4'33" a very effective way of communication. Its "message" will only become clear to the informed listener. But once you are informed, you don't need to listen to 4'33" anymore, since you can simply put the 4'33" philosophy in practice by focusing on ambient sounds anywhere, anytime.
> The 4'33" philosophy could've been communicated more effectively and eloquently right from the beginning, in a speech, a paper or whatever. There's nothing about 4'33" intentions that can't be (better) expressed in words, which leaves no point in presenting it as music.


Why must there be only one way? Some people understand everything with an explanation. Some people find a revelation with an actual experience. As I quoted, eventually Cage himself didn't need it to be presented as a music concert. It does not mean that performing it is useless to everyone.


----------



## GhenghisKhan

Woodduck said:


> debate can be friendly, noncoercive, interesting, and fun


aha... aha... ahahaha.

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAhahahahHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA


----------



## Woodduck

GhenghisKhan said:


> aha... aha... ahahaha.
> 
> AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAhahahahHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA


See. I told you it could be fun.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

GhenghisKhan said:


> aha... aha... ahahaha.
> 
> AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAhahahahHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA


Isn't that the beginning of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song"?


----------



## millionrainbows

Albert7 said:


> I am super excited next month to get 4' 33" off iTunes. Just need the proper timing here.


4'33" is a performance piece, and its sounds exist only during that prescribed time. It is not "stuff" you can record; it's a prescribed duration of sounds only.


----------



## millionrainbows

DeepR said:


> Ok. 4'33" is a way for Cage to communicate that any sounds can be music, a way to open up people's minds and ears to non-intentional, ambient sounds. So in essence, 4'33" is a means to direct the listener's attention to the ambient sounds that surround them. And perhaps also to make people question the nature of music, to expand their horizons. I can respect that up to here. What makes me cringe however, is that it is presented as a musical composition, with score and to be performed. You may find that beautiful and eloquent, but I just find it silly.
> As Woodduck pointed out, the uninformed, unsuspecting listener who hears it for the first time, will only be surprised and left guessing what's going on during the confusion, which doesn't make 4'33" a very effective way of communication. Its "message" will only become clear to the informed listener. But once you are informed, you don't need to listen to 4'33" anymore, since you can simply put the 4'33" philosophy in practice by focusing on ambient sounds anywhere, anytime.
> *The 4'33" philosophy could've been communicated more effectively and eloquently right from the beginning, in a speech, a paper or whatever. There's nothing about 4'33" intentions that can't be (better) expressed in words, which leaves no point in presenting it as music.*


I disagree; your post is very presumptuous, in that it "messes" with history.

4'33" is a performance piece, and it was conceived to be a Western concert hall experience, within the context of the American musical establishment. Cage was a part of what was going on in New York, and he had every right to publish & present 4'33" in a concert setting. After all, he was already an established figure in American music.

Cage had the piece published by a music firm, and copyrighted. He wanted this idea to be a part of his catalogue.

The guy who plagarized probably cringed, too, when he got sued by the Cage estate for using Cage's name with his on a silent CD track.

4'33" is a serious piece, so don't "play" with it. It is already part of history, and this will always be associated with the man and his philosophy & artistic output.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> You've overlooked my main point. I haven't taken the work out of context. I've asked whether the piece "works" in its context. I don't think it does. You left out the part of my post which explains why I think that:
> 
> _"If I attend a concert at which 4'33" is programmed, and if I'm expecting music and don't know in advance what 4'33" is supposed to be about, I will be too preoccupied with wondering where the music is and trying to understand what is going on to listen attentively to environmental sounds. If, on the other hand, I attend that concert knowing what 4'33" is about, how will listening to 4'33" be different from staying home, sitting quietly, and listening to the sounds around me?...Whether or not 4'33" should be called music is thus not the only question it raises. I think we have to ask whether a concert performance of this work is even a reasonable way to accomplish what it sets out to accomplish - to ask, in other words, whether what 4'33" is claimed to be in theory is what it actually is in practice." _
> 
> In other words, if you don't know what Cage's point is, you will not get the point on first exposure to the piece. But once you do know what the point is, you don't need the piece. It's like hearing a badly told joke in which the punch line is flubbed and you don't get it until it's explained to you. Once you get it, you don't need to hear the joke again. In both cases the point is made, not by the thing itself but by the explanation.


I think you are overly-intellectualizing. You are trying to second-guess or "predict" a reaction to 4'33". This experience has probably changed since 1952. It is now known by almost every concert-goer, at least by reputation. I think you are taking yourself too seriously.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The necessity of "explaining" a work, so characteristic of modern art of the mid-20th century and so wickedly chronicled by Tom Wolfe in "The Painted Word," finally brought us "conceptual art" in which the artwork _is_ the explanation. The irony, as Wolfe tells us, is that one of the primary objectives of "modernism" in art was to "purify" it, to expunge from it the "literary" associations and justifications so characteristic of Romanticism, to get rid of the "program."


I've read Wolfe's book, and I don't subscribe to his views. I like abstraction and minimalism.



Woodduck said:


> The result of this campaign, by mid-century, was works of pure abstraction (or, alternately, unadorned concreteness, as in "found art" or "musique concrete") which were so completely baffling to audiences as to leave them groping for verbal explanations, explanations which were supplied in torrents of verbiage - and are still being supplied - by artists and critics eager to welcome us into their ivory towers. It was the revenge, and ultimate triumph, of The Program.


They want a narrative. Painting doesn't perform that function any more. We have photography, TV, and movies. If you don't like modern art, that's your business, but don't presume to invalidate it with overly-intellectualized ideas, supposedly certified by Tom Wolfe.



Woodduck said:


> Cage's 4'33" embodies that triumph perfectly. But here literary Romanticism returns and outtops all historical precedent: here, the program exists not to explain the music, but to explain why there isn't any.


I think you are over-complicating things. The only thing 4'33" exists for, is as a suggestion for you to open your ears and listen.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> When you brought up Wolfe, it reminded me of the late editor of the _New Criterion_ magazine, Hilton Kramer- himself a fan of a lot of modernist painting, who said that he couldn't 'see' a modernist painting _without_ a program.
> 
> Wolfe's _Painted Word _also reminds me of Morley Safer of _Sixty Minutes_ when he went to an art gallery and came across a basketball encased in a see-through plexiglass cube.
> 
> The curator was giving Safer this utter bosh about the artist of the cube exploring 'thesis,' 'antithesis,' and 'curved space'- or some such nonsense.


One of the big mistakes people always make is taking art out of context. The basketball would probably make more sense if one was informed about the artist's overall output.



Marschallin Blair said:


> Safer just said, "It looks like a basketball in a cube to me."
> 
> The Emperor Has No Clothes- 'or' Hegelian Dialectic.


I like modern art, and abstraction. I like conceptual art, too, and I have a big coffee-table book of Yoko Ono's art. I like Donald Judd, Dan Flavin (Paul McCartney does too), and Carl Andre's "brick" pieces. I like Maderna's opera "Satyricon."

So, this is bigger than just put-downs of 4'33"; apparently, you critics do not like modern art, period.

This is the total opposite of who I am, and why I come to this forum. You don't hear me going around invalidating 19th century opera.


----------



## millionrainbows

Here is the Morely Safer program, spoken of earlier:

[video]http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/morley-safers-infamous-1993-art-story/[/video]

After seeing it, I can see how Koons could be misunderstood. He is basically playing with conceptual ideas, and embodying them in concrete form. Of course, if you don't understand conceptual art in the first place, then the "manifestation" of it in object form will be totally lost on you (and Morely), and most ham-sandwich-eating Americans.

Art is a history of objects and ideas; you have to engage with it. If that's too "programmatic" for you, then go to Target or Wal-Mart and get some art that you like.

I see they are putting down Basquat as well. That's wrong. In the background, I saw several paintings I liked.

Art, especially painting, is an intellectual pursuit. You must be able to "speak and understand" the language of non-utilitarian art. If you don't that's your lack.

Modern art is hated by our society; it is "useless." If you don't like it, go eat a ham sandwich and watch TV. I think you could get into that.

Quite frankly, I am disappointed in the direction this thread is taking, and in the attitudes of some of the people here, whom I considered to be more intelligent and curious. Instead, they're starting to sound like a bunch of West Texas ******** holed-up in a mobile home.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> *I think you are overly-intellectualizing.* You are trying to second-guess or "predict" a reaction to 4'33". This experience has probably changed since 1952. It is now known by almost every concert-goer, at least by reputation.* I think you are taking yourself too seriously.*


Well, million, I do enjoy a chuckle before breakfast. Keeps me from taking myself too seriously.

It takes no over-intellectualizing to see the little trick which is 4'33." Maybe it takes just a teeny bit more to explain why I think the trick is unsuccessful, but even that falls far short of taxing my gray matter. Returning to this thread after analyzing the psycho-mythology of _P__arsifal_ is a day at the beach.

Seems to me that the folks who take themselves really seriously are the ones who'd get all dressed up, go out to a concert, pay admission and parking, sit in solemn stillness watching a pianist do nothing onstage except turn the page twice and fiddle with the piano lid, and listen to their fellow attendees breathe and try not to belch or fart. Of course the solemnities would all be over in four and a half minutes, and then they could look forward to a nice concerto or something, followed by dinner at Luigi's.

Now veal parmesan and a bottle of wine are things we can all take seriously.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

millionrainbows said:


> Here is the Morely Safer program, spoken of earlier:
> 
> [video]http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/morley-safers-infamous-1993-art-story/[/video]
> 
> After seeing it, I can see how Koons could be misunderstood. He is basically playing with conceptual ideas, and embodying them in concrete form. Of course, if you don't understand conceptual art in the first place, then the "manifestation" of it in object form will be totally lost on you (and Morely), and most ham-sandwich-eating Americans.
> 
> Art is a history of objects and ideas; you have to engage with it. If that's too "programmatic" for you, then go to Target or Wal-Mart and get some art that you like.
> 
> I see they are putting down Basquat as well. That's wrong. In the background, I saw several paintings I liked.
> 
> Art, especially painting, is an intellectual pursuit. You must be able to "speak and understand" the language of non-utilitarian art. If you don't that's your lack.
> 
> Modern art is hated by our society; it is "useless." If you don't like it, go eat a ham sandwich and watch TV. I think you could get into that.
> 
> Quite frankly, I am disappointed in the direction this thread is taking, and in the attitudes of some of the people here, whom I considered to be more intelligent and curious. Instead, they're starting to sound like a bunch of West Texas ******** holed-up in a mobile home.


Millionrainbows, _au contraire_ on your _'au contraire'_- because _I'm_ disappointed. _;D_

To me, nothing's more unspeakably discourteous in a 'West-Texan-Target-and-Walmart-way' than forcing one's artistic tastes onto others- even when there may none to begin with.

Reason and persuasion are civilized. _Ex cathedra_ proclamations are not.


----------



## KenOC

Gratuitous smears of "types" of people and whole parts of a diverse society are usually considered neither polite nor intelligent.


----------



## Guest

Oh dear, it's all turning sour again, and needlessly so. Let me repeat once more that I'm a big fan of Cage and that, _pace_ Millionrainbows, I consider 4'33" to be a _fun_ piece with a nifty little idea (i.e. all sounds can be considered as "music" in the right context). I think also that it is essentially a "pedagogical" piece which does not require repeat listenings once we have grasped its message. Moreover, I would say that since the development of electroacoustic music these last 30 years or so, the _raison d'être_ of 4'33" has become redundant. Nevertheless, whatever our opinion, the piece will continue to hold its place in the canon of Western art music.


----------



## arpeggio

We are not perfect. We all make mistakes. I know some people who love to tell me when I screw up. You should see some of the PM's I have received. The following may be a big mistake.

I know some people here who love to inform other people when they screw up.

But if anyone dares to tell them that they screwed up. Well that is a 'no no' and a violation of the TOS, the IRS, ERISA, and the EIEIO.

Not only is _433_ catching it here but Beethoven's _Ninth_ is catching it in another thread. In that thread I have already said why I consider it a masterpiece and I really have no interest is repeating why.

There are some members who keep repeating their objections to something over and over and over again. It seems that they think if they keep repeating their objections eventually their opinions will become facts.

All a person has to do is tell us once that they dislike _433_. Hey arpeggio, do you think _433_ is music? No. Is any further explanation necessary? Will those of you who think it is music will stop thinking it is music simply because of my opinion? If I spend a thousand words explaining why would that change anybody's mind? It seems to me that the only ones who would love to see a thousand word essay trashing _433_ are the one who already hate it. Since I do not care if other people like _433_ why bother?

I have done the best job at trying to explain how I feel about this subject. I have done the best I can. Yet I know I will be subjected to all sorts of bogus rhetoric on what is wrong with what I have just stated. Like I am overly sensitive and I take these discussion too seriously or I am an elitist (I have received that one many times) or whatever...

And some people still do not get why some very knowledgeable members get frustrated and leave.


----------



## Ingélou

It's best if we just all agree to differ. Some think 4'33" is a great piece of music - some think it's not music, but a challenging concept - some think it's not music and is not worth paying attention to - some think it's not music but a refreshing invitation.*

Etc, etc - fifty shades of puce.*

We're all entitled to an opinion, and to express it, and it's unrealistic to think that anyone will change their mind as a result of what we say. Why not talk about something else?

_Judging by what he told me in his emails, this thread did not figure in PetrB's decision to leave, btw.
There were a number of factors, and the clincher was something quite different, that will have to remain confidential._


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I've read Wolfe's book, and I don't subscribe to his views. I like abstraction and minimalism.
> 
> They want a narrative. Painting doesn't perform that function any more. We have photography, TV, and movies. If you don't like modern art, that's your business, but don't presume to invalidate it with overly-intellectualized ideas, supposedly certified by Tom Wolfe.
> 
> I think you are over-complicating things. The only thing 4'33" exists for, is as a suggestion for you to open your ears and listen.


Tom Wolfe's essays on the culture of modernism are not so much appraisals of art as appraisals of its appraisers.

I have no problem with abstract art or any other kind of art, and I'm not trying to invalidate it. It all has its place. It all means something.

But the question of what constitutes art also means something. An all-white canvas calling itself a "painting" or a few minutes of silence calling itself "music" legitimately raises that question.

Is "conceptual art" art? Is a concept in itself a work of art? If not, what has to be done with it before the product can be considered art? When is the expression or objectification of a concept art, and when is it something else?

If 4'33" were only a "suggestion," we'd either take the suggestion or not. No one would be discussing it, debating it, or finding humor in it.

The connecting line I've drawn between Cage's "suggestion" and the "suggestions" made by Clement Greenburg or Thomas Lawson to art lovers confronted with wall-sized drip-paintings and uniform fields of cobalt blue is not an imaginary line or an irrelevant one. What a thing is intended or claimed to "suggest" may be very different from what the thing actually communicates.

That difference may matter to you or it may not. I've merely "suggested" taking a look at it.


----------



## isorhythm

mmsbls said:


> *I believe it simply does not matter whether one believes 4'33" is music or not.* The experience, when listening to it, is the same either way. Arguments on that question can be interesting and rewarding. Arguments on whether 4'33" is garbage, trolling, or useless are decidedly less so.


Totally agree - I don't think conversations about what is and isn't art, in any field, ever accomplish anything.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Tom Wolfe's essays on the culture of modernism are not so much appraisals of art as appraisals of its appraisers.
> 
> I have no problem with abstract art or any other kind of art, and I'm not trying to invalidate it. It all has its place. It all means something.
> 
> But the question of what constitutes art also means something. An all-white canvas calling itself a "painting" or a few minutes of silence calling itself "music" legitimately raises that question.
> 
> Is "conceptual art" art? Is a concept in itself a work of art? If not, what has to be done with it before the product can be considered art? When is the expression or objectification of a concept art, and when is it something else?
> 
> If 4'33" were only a "suggestion," we'd either take the suggestion or not. No one would be discussing it, debating it, or finding humor in it.
> 
> The connecting line I've drawn between Cage's "suggestion" and the "suggestions" made by Clement Greenburg or Thomas Lawson to art lovers confronted with wall-sized drip-paintings and uniform fields of cobalt blue is not an imaginary line or an irrelevant one. What a thing is intended or claimed to "suggest" may be very different from what the thing actually communicates.
> 
> That difference may matter to you or it may not. I've merely "suggested" taking a look at it.


And therein lie the rub: The 'deconstructors' of traditional art don't like having their modernist abstractions 'deconstructed.'

Aesthetic criticism is no respecter of creeds or ideologies- if its good for 'tradition' then its equally good for 'innovation.'


----------



## mmsbls

arpeggio said:


> All a person has to do is tell us once that they dislike _433_. Hey arpeggio, do you think _433_ is music? No. Is any further explanation necessary? Will those of you who think it is music will stop thinking it is music simply because of my opinion? If I spend a thousand words explaining why would that change anybody's mind? It seems to me that the only ones who would love to see a thousand word essay trashing _433_ are the one who already hate it. Since I do not care if other people like _433_ why bother?


arpeggio, I understand your position and fully accept your view. I'm quoting you here simply as a starting place to focus on something I consider important. (Also I'm very glad you're back ).

Disliking 4'33" and believing 4'33" is not music are 2 entirely separate things. They _may_ often (or mostly) go hand in hand, but I believe one evaluates the aesthetic (or perhaps philosophical) content of 4'33" in a very different way than one evaluates whether one believes 4'33" is music.

Personally I would hate to see a long essay trashing 4'33", but I enjoy discussions concerning what is and what is not music. I even started a thread hoping that people would talk about their views, but unfortunately people focused on 4'33" rather than their philosophical view of music (partly my fault since I brought 4'33" into the discussion).

4'33" gives rise to very emotional responses probably because some have trashed the work without seeming to understand what Cage intended, causing those who view it as a serious work to feel that Cage's efforts have been trivialized. Unfortunately, I think many simply assume that anyone whose comments are not unambiguously positive _must intend_ to disparage the work.

In an early post there was a video of Cage discussing "sound talking". In that video Cage seems to differentiate between "sound talking" and "what we call music". To me it seems as though he believes they are 2 distinct things. Did he believe that? If so, what does that mean about 4'33"?

I have a couple of times brought up the concept of "intentional sound". Does music require intentional sound? What exactly is intentional in the context of modern music? Can ambient sound or sound not created explicitly for music be recorded and placed intentionally in a work that then _is_ music? In other words, does unintentional sound _become_ intentional sound?

I think there are many very interesting discussions one can have related to Cage's work, 4'33", without disparaging, trashing, or invalidating the work or the composer. I wish others believed the same.


----------



## Giordano

The so-called "discovery" of America by whatshisname is part of history and is actually significant to world history.

The idea behind 4'33" is hardly new or profound or challenging, and anyone "discovering" it and patenting it belongs in the absurd category. At best, it is _a contrivance of an excited novice_. Its "significance" to the history of music depends on what one considers significant -- Haha, is that a tautology?

In my opinion, of course.


----------



## Ingélou

In the early stages I read this thread feeling interest in the discussions as to what is or is not music. Since 'a rose by any other name will smell as sweet', I did not imagine that if I decided - as finally I did - that 4'33" was not music but conceptual art or metamusic, I would be hurting someone's feelings - that the tenor of my remarks would be misinterpreted - that I would be told off for being 'more aggressive than usual' - and that I would receive two pms from someone who disagreed with me that raked over everything I'd said, and still got me wrong. 

But all these things happened.

Nevertheless, I cannot see anything wrong with having a thread like this. The OP is framed on purpose - so its author told us - to provoke discussion, and it did. I don't see why some of those who think that 4'33" is music should be bothered if rather a lot of people don't agree with them. These things are never settled by democracy, after all.

I am sorry if the thread has upset anyone, but I am honestly puzzled to know why it would have. 
I often wish that people would agree with me, but I am realistic enough to accept that they don't!


----------



## Albert7

isorhythm said:


> Totally agree - I don't think conversations about what is and isn't art, in any field, ever accomplish anything.


I really like exploring what art is... since Joseph Beuys did mention everyone being an artist, perhaps the art of everyday living is something that I value a lot and it really helps me feel through what I want in life.


----------



## Nereffid

arpeggio said:


> All a person has to do is tell us once that they dislike _433_. Hey arpeggio, do you think _433_ is music? No. Is any further explanation necessary? Will those of you who think it is music will stop thinking it is music simply because of my opinion? If I spend a thousand words explaining why would that change anybody's mind? It seems to me that the only ones who would love to see a thousand word essay trashing _433_ are the one who already hate it. Since I do not care if other people like _433_ why bother?


Alternatively: All a person has to do is tell us once that they like _433_. Hey arpeggio, do you think _433_ is music? Yes. Is any further explanation necessary? Will those of you who think it isn't music start thinking it is music simply because of my opinion? If I spend a thousand words explaining why would that change anybody's mind? It seems to me that the only ones who would love to see a thousand word essay praising _433_ are the ones who already like it. Since I do not care if other people like _433_ why bother?

Maybe if I were more dogmatic I wouldn't be so interested in other people's opinions. But I _like_ reading conflicting opinions about topics that intrigue me and where I don't have a personal stake in the outcome. Granted, I don't like reading _empty_ opinions, but a thousand-word essay is probably not going to be empty.


----------



## Nereffid

isorhythm said:


> Totally agree - I don't think conversations about what is and isn't art, in any field, ever accomplish anything.


Depends what you mean by "accomplish". Does your definition of "accomplish" include "give Nereffid something to think about for a short while?"


----------



## Ingélou

Nereffid said:


> Depends what you mean by "accomplish". Does your definition of "accomplish" include "give Nereffid something to think about for a short while?"


Well, if it doesn't, I think it *should*!


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Well, million, I do enjoy a chuckle before breakfast. Keeps me from taking myself too seriously.
> 
> It takes no over-intellectualizing to see the little trick which is 4'33." Maybe it takes just a teeny bit more to explain why I think the trick is unsuccessful, but even that falls far short of taxing my gray matter. Returning to this thread after analyzing the psycho-mythology of _P__arsifal_ is a day at the beach.
> 
> Seems to me that the folks who take themselves really seriously are the ones who'd get all dressed up, go out to a concert, pay admission and parking, sit in solemn stillness watching a pianist do nothing onstage except turn the page twice and fiddle with the piano lid, and listen to their fellow attendees breathe and try not to belch or fart. Of course the solemnities would all be over in four and a half minutes, and then they could look forward to a nice concerto or something, followed by dinner at Luigi's.
> 
> Now veal parmesan and a bottle of wine are things we can all take seriously.


Now I think you're under-intellectualizing. (chuckle)


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> Millionrainbows, _au contraire_ on your _'au contraire'_- because _I'm_ disappointed. _;D_
> 
> To me, nothing's more unspeakably discourteous in a 'West-Texan-Target-and-Walmart-way' than forcing one's artistic tastes onto others- even when there may none to begin with.
> 
> Reason and persuasion are civilized. _Ex cathedra_ proclamations are not.


I'm not "forcing" anything on anyone. My philosophy is "live and let live." If there are people who wish to consume modern art, I have no problem with that; and I don't need Morely Safer to point anything out to me.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Tom Wolfe's essays on the culture of modernism are not so much appraisals of art as appraisals of its appraisers.


The net result is the same.



Woodduck said:


> I have no problem with abstract art or any other kind of art, and I'm not trying to invalidate it. It all has its place. It all means something.


Then why quote Tom Wolfe?



Woodduck said:


> But the question of what constitutes art also means something. An all-white canvas calling itself a "painting" or a few minutes of silence calling itself "music" legitimately raises that question.


That's part of art, questioning itself. Duchamp. Rauschenberg's white canvases. But you are not making an art statement; you are actually questioning whether such things are really art, or how valid they are as art, and that's presumptuous. It's already been established that these things are art.

"Is this art?" and "What is art?" are legitimate meta-inquiries within the scope of art, but questioning the validity of already-established art is merely criticism.



Woodduck said:


> Is "conceptual art" art? Is a concept in itself a work of art?


Yes. See Yoko Ono.



Woodduck said:


> If not, what has to be done with it before the product can be considered art? When is the expression or objectification of a concept art, and when is it something else?


These are legitimate concerns within art; but after-the fact questioning is more suspect, especially when it dares to defy history and established bodies of works by artists.



Woodduck said:


> If 4'33" were only a "suggestion," we'd either take the suggestion or not. No one would be discussing it, debating it, or finding humor in it.


Your point?



Woodduck said:


> The connecting line I've drawn between Cage's "suggestion" and the "suggestions" made by Clement Greenburg or Thomas Lawson to art lovers confronted with wall-sized drip-paintings and uniform fields of cobalt blue is not an imaginary line or an irrelevant one. What a thing is intended or claimed to "suggest" may be very different from what the thing actually communicates.


"What the thing actually communicates" is a sloppy way of looking at it.



Woodduck said:


> That difference may matter to you or it may not. I've merely "suggested" taking a look at it.


I've already made up my mind, like everyone else here.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not "forcing" anything on anyone. My philosophy is "live and let live." If there are people who wish to consume modern art, I have no problem with that; and I don't need Morely Safer to point anything out to me.


. . . or Clement Greenberg for that matter.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> And therein lie the rub: The 'deconstructors' of traditional art don't like having their modernist abstractions 'deconstructed.'


Modernists didn't "deconstruct traditional art." Art simply took on a new function, if it was to remain vital. We have photography, now; we don't need narrative paintings to depict historical events like Washington crossing the Delaware. Get with the modern age.



Woodduck said:


> Aesthetic criticism is no respecter of creeds or ideologies- if its good for 'tradition' then its equally good for 'innovation.'


That's a curiously antiquated view, the way you see "tradition vs. innovation." The fact is, it's a different animal now.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> In an early post there was a video of Cage discussing "sound talking". In that video Cage seems to differentiate between "sound talking" and "what we call music". To me it seems as though he believes they are 2 distinct things. Did he believe that? If so, what does that mean about 4'33"?


Cage is talking about the Western notion of music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> . . . or Clement Greenberg for that matter.


Clement Greenburg was more intimately involved with art than Morely Safer, who is just a journalist, like Andy Rooney.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

millionrainbows said:


> Clement Greenburg was more intimately involved with art than Morely Safer, who is just a journalist, like Andy Rooney.


Yes: Clement Greenberg was a clever charlatan, unlike Morley Safer who was a top journalist for_ Sixty Minutes_.


----------



## Albert7

If 4' 33" were turned into a ballet form, that would be awesome. I would love to see that. And not being sarcastic here.


----------



## Blancrocher

In case anyone is of interest, many of Clement Greenberg's writings can be found here:

http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/default.html

Arguably (though not necessarily) of greater relevance are the writings of John Cage:

https://books.google.hu/books?id=MU...QBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=john cage&f=false


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> millionraibows: Modernists didn't "deconstruct traditional art." Art simply took on a new function, if it was to remain vital. We have photography, now; we don't need narrative paintings to depict historical events like Washington crossing the Delaware. Get with the modern age.


The_ last_ thing any person of aesthetic discernment would want to do would be to consult a doctrinaire "Modernist" on the putative irrelevance of Leonardo, Vermeer, and Lord Leighton- just because Ansel Adams exists.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> The_ last_ thing any person of aesthetic discernment would want to do would be to consult a doctrinaire "Modernist" on the putative irrelevance of Leonardo, Vermeer, and Lord Leighton- just because Ansel Adams exists.


Modernism didn't "displace" tradition; that's a common error on the part of disoriented critics lost in the post-modernist age. Art is still art; and always will be. Its function changed, that's all.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

millionrainbows said:


> Modernism didn't "displace" tradition; that's a common error on the part of disoriented critics lost in the post-modernist age. Art is still art; and always will be. Its function changed, that's all.


If modern art _didn't_ displace tradition, then why did you infer _infra_ at post #934 that it_ did_?:



> millionrainbows: We have photography, now; we don't need narrative paintings to depict historical events like Washington crossing the Delaware. Get with the modern age.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> The net result is the same.
> 
> Then why quote Tom Wolfe?
> 
> That's part of art, questioning itself. Duchamp. Rauschenberg's white canvases. But you are not making an art statement; you are actually questioning whether such things are really art, or how valid they are as art, and that's presumptuous. *It's already been established that these things are art.*
> 
> "Is this art?" and "What is art?" are legitimate meta-inquiries within the scope of art, but questioning the validity of already-established art is merely criticism.
> 
> Yes. See Yoko Ono.
> 
> These are legitimate concerns within art; but *after-the fact questioning is more suspect, especially when it dares to defy history and established bodies of works by artists.*
> 
> Your point?
> 
> "What the thing actually communicates" is a sloppy way of looking at it.
> 
> *I've already made up my mind, like everyone else here.*


With these dismissive nonresponses you pointedly and bruquely avoid dealing with every single point in the post of mine you are ostensibly addressing. Surely you can see that that places an unfair burden on me to respond to you? I do realize, of course - because you've told me - that you, like "everyone else here," have made up your mind, and so must not want any discussion anyway. So I guess I needn't ask "anyone else" their opinion about anything. I can just ask you. 

For me, perhaps the most fascinating revelation of this discussion - and of life on this forum - is the complacent conservatism, together with a resultant defensiveness and cliquishness, of self-declared "modernists." In this post-post-modern era, when the inquisitive and free-thinking individual might consider all orthodoxies quaint relics and all received wisdom to be on the table, there remain articles of faith which, should we question them, are met with a dogmatic rigidity that I find positively medieval.

Obviously, some individuals - who do not self-identify as "we all" or "everyone else" - don't accept the edicts of the church of mid-20th-century modernism, or any other church. We just like to think things through for ourselves. Lucky for us, burning people at the stake is passe.


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> That's part of art, questioning itself. Duchamp. Rauschenberg's white canvases. But you are not making an art statement; you are actually questioning whether such things are really art, or how valid they are as art, and that's presumptuous. It's already been established that these things are art.


I understand that artists question art, and although I think it's fine for others to question art, I realize that we (non-artists) likely have not thought about art nearly as much as those whose life is creating art. That means artists may have useful insights that might benefit us. Unfortunately pointing out that the art world has already passed judgement on this issue doesn't help the rest of us to understand why. Now that doesn't mean that it's your job to attempt explanations, but most people I know want to understand why something is true - not simply that it is true.

I could be wrong, but I've always imagined that Cage would enjoy discussing the "why" of 4'33" with people who didn't view it as music. Unfortunately, some guy, who knew Cage somewhat, isn't here to give his view on how Cage might react to such discussions.



millionrainbows said:


> I've already made up my mind, like everyone else here.


I mentioned before that I used to view 4'33" as music. After reading some discussions and thinking a bit more, I changed my mind. The new thread "What Constitutes Music" pushed me to do some more reading and thinking. I still view music as requiring intentional sound, but I'm more open to the intention coming from the listener than solely from the composer and/or performer. I still am not convinced, but these discussions may have the ability to change minds or perhaps loosen one's convictions. Of course, another equally good outcome is for someone to seriously consider the arguments and find their convictions strengthened. Good discussions/arguments should have the opportunity for both.


----------



## arpeggio

There are many posts in this thread and I have been trying to follow it.

There is one question that I raised in the following post that I do not think has been answered: http://www.talkclassical.com/36315-why-433-disparaged-while-5.html#post812808

What is the bottom line if _433_ is not music? Does this mean that all discussions concerning _433_ should be prohibited from this forum?


----------



## Becca

Perhaps it is the background noise that results when you combine a waveform with it's inverse thereby canceling it out. Perhaps it is music's anti-particle and when the two come together they annihilate each other. Now I realize these are very physical science description and maybe they have no place in a philosophical discussion


----------



## Marschallin Blair

arpeggio said:


> There are many posts in this thread and I have been trying to follow it.
> 
> There is one question that I raised in the following post that I do not think has been answered: http://www.talkclassical.com/36315-why-433-disparaged-while-5.html#post812808
> 
> What is the bottom line if _433_ is not music? Does this mean that all discussions concerning _433_ should be prohibited from this forum?


No, it merely means that perhaps one should refrain from impetuously boring ones.


----------



## arpeggio

Marschallin Blair said:


> No, it merely means that perhaps one should refrain from impetuously boring ones.


Are you suggesting that posts that believe that _433_ is music are boring?


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> There are many posts in this thread and I have been trying to follow it.
> 
> There is one question that I raised in the following post that I do not think has been answered: http://www.talkclassical.com/36315-why-433-disparaged-while-5.html#post812808
> 
> What is the bottom line if _433_ is not music? Does this mean that all discussions concerning _433_ should be prohibited from this forum?


Yes, I think that as soon as it has been proved to the satisfaction of everyone that 4'33" is not music, discussion of it should be prohibited.

Until then, until a definition of music has been offered which is satisfactory to everyone, I think the entire forum should be prohibited.

This is the path to peace and happiness for all.


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> Yes, I think that as soon as it has been proved to the satisfaction of everyone that 4'33" is not music, discussion of it should be prohibited.
> 
> Until then, until a definition of music has been offered which is satisfactory to everyone, I think the entire forum should be prohibited.
> 
> This is the path to peace and happiness for all.


The postulate in Isaac Asimov's story, The Nine Billion Names of God, is that as soon as all 9x10^^9 names have been determined, then the universe will cease to exist. Likewise, as soon as a complete definition of music has been determined and accepted, music will no longer exist and TC will disappear.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

arpeggio said:


> Are you suggesting that posts that believe that _433_ is music are boring?


No, merely that a null set can never be anything but.


----------



## Woodduck

Becca said:


> The postulate in Isaac Asimov's story, The Nine Billion Names of God, is that as soon as all 9x10^^9 names have been determined, then the universe will cease to exist. Likewise, as soon as a complete definition of music has been determined and accepted, music will no longer exist and TC will disappear.


Should we expect the Rapture in our lifetimes, or die confident that the trumpet shall sound silently for 4'33" and the dead shall be raised incorruptible?


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> Should we expect the Rapture in our lifetimes, or die confident that the trumpet will sound silently for 4'33" and the dead be raised incorruptible?


I believe that the current scenario calls for the sudden development of a singularity which immediately explodes creating a new universe - at least that is the gist of what I have told by those who have visited The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.


----------



## Woodduck

Becca said:


> I believe that the current scenario calls for the sudden development of a singularity which immediately explodes creating a new universe - at least that is the gist of what I have told by those who have visited The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.


If that restaurant pipes in 4'33' on perpetual loop, I will eat nowhere else for as long as this universe lasts. I would at last have found background music conducive to civilized conversation and good digestion!


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> If modern art _didn't_ displace tradition, then why did you infer _infra_ at post #934 that it_ did_?:




I didn't.

I said that things like photography and film replaced the older narrative function of painting (Washington Crossing the Delaware, etc.), and photography pretty much replaced portraiture as well.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> With these dismissive nonresponses you pointedly and bruquely avoid dealing with every single point in the post of mine you are ostensibly addressing. Surely you can see that that places an unfair burden on me to respond to you? I do realize, of course - because you've told me - that you, like "everyone else here," have made up your mind, and so must not want any discussion anyway. So I guess I needn't ask "anyone else" their opinion about anything. I can just ask you.
> 
> For me, perhaps the most fascinating revelation of this discussion - and of life on this forum - is the complacent conservatism, together with a resultant defensiveness and cliquishness, of self-declared "modernists." In this post-post-modern era, when the inquisitive and free-thinking individual might consider all orthodoxies quaint relics and all received wisdom to be on the table, there remain articles of faith which, should we question them, are met with a dogmatic rigidity that I find positively medieval.
> 
> Obviously, some individuals - who do not self-identify as "we all" or "everyone else" - don't accept the edicts of the church of mid-20th-century modernism, or any other church. We just like to think things through for ourselves. Lucky for us, burning people at the stake is passe.


Don't blame it on modern art; blame it on photography and film. Painting is now a differently functioning medium, and part of that function is commentary on its own history, and questioning of its function. Yes, it gets complicated, you have to think about it, at least a little bit.


----------



## millionrainbows

> Originally Posted by *millionrainbows*:
> 
> Clement Greenburg was more intimately involved with art than Morely Safer, who is just a journalist, like Andy Rooney.






Marschallin Blair said:


> Yes: Clement Greenberg was a clever charlatan, unlike Morley Safer who was a top journalist for_ Sixty Minutes_.


All Clement Greenberg did was understand, and define, the new function of painting: to be "paint" and not depictive of narrative things, or records of historical events, like washington crossing the Delaware. This was the 1950s, and we have television news.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

millionrainbows said:


> I didn't.
> 
> I said that things like photography and film replaced the older narrative function of painting (Washington Crossing the Delaware, etc.), and photography pretty much replaced portraiture as well.


And by a not unwarranted extension of that logic: Do 'modern' electric guitars "replace" the "older narrative function" of 'acoustic' guitars- making them moribund and reactionary?

Does a 'modern' music software program replace the 'older narrative function' of the symphony orchestra or chamber ensemble?

Does 'modern' voice-modulation software replace the 'older narrative funciton' of Maria Callas and Joan Sutherland?

Is this 'fatuous' nonsense or just 'doctrinaire' nonsense?- or is it merely 'fashionable' nonsense? (not that 'I' consider it at all fashionable _;D_ )


----------



## Woodduck

Painting is now a differently functioning medium, and part of that function is commentary on its own history, and questioning of its function. Yes, it gets complicated, you have to think about it, at least a little bit.

Mere dogmatic orthodoxy from the Church of Modernism. Painting "functions" the way any artist wishes it to function, and representational painting, having survived abstract expressionism and pop art and op art, is alive and well, and always will be. As for photography, it largely replaced only certain _practical_ functions of portrait painting; it could not replace its _artistic_ function. The waltz may have "replaced" the minuet too, but only practically, not aesthetically. If any artist has a reason to paint a portrait or compose a minuet, that reason remains legitimate whether or not these forms of art are currently popular or "avant garde."

Any attempt to say what direction art "should" be taking is sheer presumption. "Contemporary" art is what artists are actually doing (and is not what they are not doing), and neither you nor Clement Greenberg has a say in the matter. Alas for Clement, "flatness" was not the redemption of the modern world.

This is not complicated. It requires very little thought, in fact.


----------



## Albert7

Surprisingly for all of the talk here about this piece, it remains rather difficult to find a recording on CD for it.

http://www.amazon.com/433-John-Cage/dp/B000025YYH/ref=tmm_acd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-2&qid=1427392720 is a rather good example where one can hear it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Painting is now a differently functioning medium, and part of that function is commentary on its own history, and questioning of its function. Yes, it gets complicated, you have to think about it, at least a little bit.
> 
> Mere dogmatic orthodoxy from the Church of Modernism. Painting "functions" the way any artist wishes it to function, and representational painting, having survived abstract expressionism and pop art and op art, is alive and well, and always will be. As for photography, it largely replaced only certain _practical_ functions of portrait painting; it could not replace its _artistic_ function. The waltz may have "replaced" the minuet too, but only practically, not aesthetically. If any artist has a reason to paint a portrait or compose a minuet, that reason remains legitimate whether or not these forms of art are currently popular or "avant garde."
> 
> Any attempt to say what direction art "should" be taking is sheer presumption. "Contemporary" art is what artists are actually doing (and is not what they are not doing), and neither you nor Clement Greenberg has a say in the matter. Alas for Clement, "flatness" was not the redemption of the modern world.
> This is not complicated. It requires very little thought, in fact.


Why aren't these self-appointed apparatchiks called out more often for their excessive use of farce?


----------



## Albert7

Marschallin Blair said:


> Why aren't these self-appointed apparatchiks called out more often for their excessive use of farce?


A winning sentence here if I could diagram that one perfectly...


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Albert7 said:


> A winning sentence here if I could diagram that one perfectly...


Dear me!- the Clement Greenbergs of the world and their catechisms of art manifestos!- Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . a Vision of the Self-Annointed_ always _gets a thigh-slapping laugh from me.


----------



## Albert7

Marschallin Blair said:


> Dear me!- the Clement Greenbergs of the world and their catechisms of art manifestos!- Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . a Vision of the Self-Annointed_ always _gets a thigh-slapping laugh from me.


LOL... I really like the colorful name dropping here. Keep up the good entertainment and laughter for me.


----------



## arpeggio

Woodduck said:


> Yes, I think that as soon as it has been proved to the satisfaction of everyone that 4'33" is not music, discussion of it should be prohibited.
> 
> Until then, until a definition of music has been offered which is satisfactory to everyone, I think the entire forum should be prohibited.
> 
> This is the path to peace and happiness for all.


Although this is meant to be humorous, I have had dealings with people who feel this way.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> Although this is meant to be humorous, I have had dealings with people who feel this way.


Do these people meet in secret compounds, smoke hammer and sickle cigars, and sing _The Internationale_ - or just move their mouths silently for four and a half minutes?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Do these people meet in secret compounds, smoke hammer and sickle cigars, and sing _The Internationale_ - or just move their mouths silently for four and a half minutes?












I'm not so certain of _that_, but I do know for a fact that these Cage-detractors don the official SPECTRE_ ring_.


----------



## arpeggio

Woodduck said:


> Do these people meet in secret compounds, smoke hammer and sickle cigars, and sing _The Internationale_ - or just move their mouths silently for four and a half minutes?


Woodduck,

Have you not read any of my posts where I have discussed being at meetings with board members of music organizations that I performed with where people actually said stuff like this?

Do I have to again mention the recent incident from a few months ago where members of a group that I played with were objecting to the Hindemith _Symphony in Bb_? How they were complaining that real people do not listen to music like that and it will drive people away.

How about the uproar that occurred with another group when we performed Gustav Holst's _Hammersmith_?

I recently performed _The Planets_. One of the members of the audience, who was unfamiliar with the work, said he really liked it even though it was atonal.

Holst? Atonal?

Then there is the story about the music of William Schuman being atonal in Macon, Georgia.

How many do you want?


----------



## Vesteralen

arpeggio said:


> I recently performed _The Planets_. One of the members of the audience, who was unfamiliar with the work, said he really liked it even though it was atonal.
> 
> Holst? Atonal?


I blush to admit that one of the first concerts I attended (way back in 1970 or so) found me telling my companion how I liked everything except "La Valse" because I didn't like atonal music.

Must be a common response from novices.


----------



## Bulldog

arpeggio said:


> Woodduck,
> 
> Have you not read any of my posts where I have discussed being at meetings with board members of music organizations that I performed with where people actually said stuff like this?


Speaking personally, I read every post of yours. However, that doesn't mean I remember all of them. Heck, I don't even remember most of my own postings.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> Woodduck,
> 
> Have you not read any of my posts where I have discussed being at meetings with board members of music organizations that I performed with where people actually said stuff like this?
> 
> Do I have to again mention the recent incident from a few months ago where members of a group that I played with were objecting to the Hindemith _Symphony in Bb_? How they were complaining that real people do not listen to music like that and it will drive people away.
> 
> How about the uproar that occurred with another group when we performed Gustav Holst's _Hammersmith_?
> 
> I recently performed _The Planets_. One of the members of the audience, who was unfamiliar with the work, said he really liked it even though it was atonal.
> 
> Holst? Atonal?
> 
> Then there is the story about the music of William Schuman being atonal in Macon, Georgia.
> 
> How many do you want?


Of course people say stuff like that. Haven't they always? Ignorance is very popular. Freedom, on the other hand, is very unpopular, being the chief threat to ignorance.

We mustn't give ignorance power over us - not any kind of power.

The best defense against ignorance is thought and speech, the first preferably preceding the second.

Meanwhile, a sense of humor helps enormously.


----------



## arpeggio

Woodduck said:


> The best defense against ignorance is thought and speech, the first preferably preceding the second.
> 
> Meanwhile, a sense of humor helps enormously.


Really. I will keep this in mind the next I am a member of a music group that crashes because there are board members who think that noisy contemporary stuff is not music.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> Really. I will keep this in mind the next I am a member of a music group that crashes because there are board members who think that noisy contemporary stuff is not music.


What's the alternative? Fascism? Theocracy? Pogroms? Prayer? Suicide? Whining and self-pity?

What's _your _ solution to the imperfection of the world?


----------



## arpeggio

Apparently you know the answer.


----------



## Ingélou

Sir Winston Churchill kept his spirits up with the mantra KBO - *Keep B*gg*ring On!* - with which acronym he finished every phone conversation. Maybe *this* is the answer?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Albert7 said:


> LOL... I really like the colorful name dropping here. Keep up the good entertainment and laughter for me.


Clement Greenberg is an _anti-luminary_, though.

- How's _that_ for one's hallucinogenic gibberings?


----------



## arpeggio

arpeggio said:


> Apparently you know the answer.


I want to apologize for the above remark. It is a bit snide.

I really do not know what the answer is. I wish I did. All I know is having a sense of humor about it does not work.

I have no idea whether or not _433_ is music. I have an opinion but I really do not know.

What I find interesting is all the people who are smarter than I am who think they know the answer and they are just as clueless as I am.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

arpeggio said:


> I want to apologize for the above remark. It is a bit snide.
> 
> I really do not know what the answer is. I wish I did. All I know is having a sense of humor about it does not work.
> 
> I have no idea whether or not _433_ is music. I have an opinion but I really do not know.
> 
> What I find interesting is all the people who are smarter than I am who think they know the answer and they are just as clueless as I am.


But if one self-consciously identifies oneself as 'clueless,' then how can one plausibly make a meta-statement that others are just as clueless as oneself?


----------



## ArtMusic

arpeggio said:


> ....
> What is the bottom line if _433_ is not music? Does this mean that all discussions concerning _433_ should be prohibited from this forum?


No, of course not. It is good to have discussions like this. It leads to more *honesty* about how we should perceive pieces.


----------



## Albert7

Woodduck said:


> What's the alternative? Fascism? Theocracy? Pogroms? Prayer? Suicide? Whining and self-pity?
> 
> What's _your _ solution to the imperfection of the world?


For me, easy peasy... it's my postmodern subversive humor that keeps me moving along in life


----------



## mmsbls

arpeggio said:


> Do I have to again mention the recent incident from a few months ago where members of a group that I played with were objecting to the Hindemith _Symphony in Bb_? How they were complaining that real people do not listen to music like that and it will drive people away.


I have never been privy to discussions that decide the programs for music groups. I was always under the impression that programmers/boards/music directors felt that the likely audience would shrink if they played much modern music or things "excessively modern" but that those people were much more open to those works. I remember _some guy_ mentioning that he thought the director/programmer of one group he regularly attended actually wished to program more modern works but felt the audience couldn't handle it. I did speak to a classical radio DJ who essentially said that - the audience won't go there.

Has your experience been that those responsible for programming works have actually hated or strongly disliked most modern music (even what we consider relative mild modern music)?


----------



## arpeggio

mmsbls said:


> I have never been privy to discussions that decide the programs for music groups. I was always under the impression that programmers/boards/music directors felt that the likely audience would shrink if they played much modern music or things "excessively modern" but that those people were much more open to those works. I remember _some guy_ mentioning that he thought the director/programmer of one group he regularly attended actually wished to program more modern works but felt the audience couldn't handle it. I did speak to a classical radio DJ who essentially said that - the audience won't go there.
> 
> Has your experience been that those responsible for programming works have actually hated or strongly disliked most modern music (even what we consider relative mild modern music)?


Yes I have involved with some groups where this has occurred.

Now my experiences have been limited to mostly amateur groups and a few professional in the United States. I have no idea how prevalent these situations are in Europe or the rest of the world.


----------



## Albert7

arpeggio said:


> Yes I have involved with some groups where this has occurred.
> 
> Now my experiences have been limited to mostly amateur groups and a few professional in the United States. I have no idea how prevalent these situations are in Europe or the rest of the world.


In Europe people are way more receptive to "modern" music than here in the US... honestly, even the Utah Symphony premieres and commissions are conservative sounding than one would be led to believe.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Albert7 said:


> For me, easy peasy... it's my postmodern subversive humor that keeps me moving along in life


I like it when the 'deconstructors' are 'deconstructed,' myself.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Albert7 said:


> For me, easy peasy... it's my postmodern subversive humor that keeps me moving along in life


Yes, assuredly: post-modernism is its own punchline. . . or rather, 'flat line.'


----------



## Taggart

arpeggio said:


> Yes I have involved with some groups where this has occurred.
> 
> Now my experiences have been limited to mostly amateur groups and a few professional in the United States. I have no idea how prevalent these situations are in Europe or the rest of the world.


Locally, not a problem. Norwich Festival has a wide mix. A special feature of the Festival's music programme is the series of concerts given by students from the Royal Academy of Music. The series provides a showcase not just for the finest emerging talent but also for an exhilaratingly eclectic programme of music that ranges across musical epochs, tastes and boundaries - Takemitsu, Bax,Shostakovich, Berg plus the usual suspects. We've got the Tallis Scholars doing a mixture of Tallis Sheppard and Pärt. The Aldeburgh Festival has a mixture of the Monteverdi choir, Andreas Scholl - also doing several masterclasses -and Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time, several sessions on Boulez, a new opera by Birtwistle, concerts with Ligeti, Benjamin, Birtwistle, Knussen and Haddad, Gamelan workshops. Something for every taste.


----------



## arpeggio

Marschallin Blair said:


> But if one self-consciously identifies oneself as 'clueless,' then how can one plausibly make a meta-statement that others are just as clueless as oneself?


Really. I am sure every one of us can come up with stories about individuals who are much smarter than we are who are totally clueless about certain issues.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

arpeggio said:


> Really. I am sure every one of us can come up with stories about individuals who are much smarter than we are who are totally clueless about certain issues.


But in so doing presupposes that we're not clueless to begin with- or am I 'blonde-missing' something myself? _;D_


----------



## violadude

Woodduck said:


> What's the alternative? Fascism? Theocracy? Pogroms? Prayer? Suicide? Whining and self-pity?
> 
> *What's your  solution to the imperfection of the world?*


Ignore the world, let's go to space.


----------



## Dim7

Space... emptiness... kinda reminds me of.........................................


----------



## Albert7

violadude said:


> Ignore the world, let's go to space.


I actually think that 2001: A Space Odyssey should have featured 4' 33" in the soundtrack to greater effect.


----------



## Giordano

violadude said:


> Ignore the world, let's go to space.


I'm game for space! It would be good to find a "soul mate" first, preferably someone like ...


----------



## Blake

violadude said:


> Ignore the world, let's go to space.


Yes, the egotism of thinking you can fix others.... Forget about it and fly. Teach freedom by being it. Oh, hah, I dig it.


----------



## Becca

Marschallin Blair said:


> But in so doing presupposes that we're not clueless to begin with- or am I 'blonde-missing' something myself? _;D_


It is a zero sum game - the delusion of knowledge often goes along with the perceived expertise in some narrow areas, particularly if those areas are more of a philosophical nature


----------



## Albert7

The visual equivalent of 4' 33"... so delicious to me:


----------



## Woodduck

Albert7 said:


> The visual equivalent of 4' 33"... so delicious to me:


If it's whipped cream, I understand the "delicious" part. Otherwise, chacun a son goo.

But the truest visual equivalent of 4'33" is an empty frame hung on a wall.


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> If it's whipped cream, I understand the "delicious" part. Otherwise, chacun a son goo.
> 
> But the truest visual equivalent of 4'33" is an empty frame hung on a wall.


I would say an empty frame hung from the ceiling in the middle of the room through which you watch other people looking at it.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> But the truest visual equivalent of 4'33" is an empty frame hung on a wall.


Glenn Gould thought like you.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Glenn Gould thought like you.


Ah yes. German silence. Unvergleichlich, nein?


----------



## Blake

I really think we loathe the idea of life being impersonal. Our species is but a cosmic sneeze. 

Which could be why a piece of art that has virtually no individual pronunciation can turn those sour who are looking for some kind of personal validation. "Relate to me and my personal world!." Well, maybe the rest of the natural existence isn't aware of ~your~ world. 

I don't know.... Call it "pseudo-intellectual" if you find it offending.


----------



## Woodduck

Becca said:


> I would say an empty frame hung from the ceiling in the middle of the room through which you watch other people looking at it.


Splendid. I have a title: "48 1/4 x 72 1/2 Inches." But in performance it may be of any size.


----------



## Woodduck

Blake said:


> I really think we loathe the idea of life being impersonal. Our species is but a cosmic sneeze.
> 
> Which could be why a piece of art that has virtually no individual pronunciation can turn those sour who are looking for some kind of personal validation. "Relate to me and my personal world!." *Well, maybe the rest of the natural existence isn't aware of ~your~ world. *
> 
> I don't know.... Call it "pseudo-intellectual" if you find it offending.


I would be happy to give the rest of natural existence my email address. I respond promptly and cheerfully to all silent inquiries.


----------



## Morimur

I think the visual equivalent of 4'33 would be Duchamp's Urinal.

Find something already in existence, re-contextualize it, and sign it.


----------



## Blake

Ahahahaha


...more words so this laugh can be posted.


----------



## Morimur

Giordano said:


> I'm game for space! It would be good to find a "soul mate" first, preferably someone like ...


Is she Nigerian?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Morimur said:


> Is she Nigerian?


That's a funny way to spell "beautiful Asian angel from heaven".


----------



## Giordano

Morimur said:


> Is she Nigerian?


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> And by a not unwarranted extension of that logic: Do 'modern' electric guitars "replace" the "older narrative function" of 'acoustic' guitars- making them moribund and reactionary?
> 
> Does a 'modern' music software program replace the 'older narrative function' of the symphony orchestra or chamber ensemble?
> 
> Does 'modern' voice-modulation software replace the 'older narrative funciton' of Maria Callas and Joan Sutherland?
> 
> Is this 'fatuous' nonsense or just 'doctrinaire' nonsense?- or is it merely 'fashionable' nonsense? (not that 'I' consider it at all fashionable _;D_ )


You seem stuck on the notion of "new replacing old," which is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that new mediums, other than painting, started replacing the old functions of painting, so its function changed. It is well-known that Picasso, Braque, and Cubism was a reaction to cinematography.


----------



## millionrainbows

Morimur said:


> I think the visual equivalent of 4'33 would be Duchamp's Urinal.
> 
> Find something already in existence, re-contextualize it, and sign it.


And now, Duchamp's Urinal has been re-contextualized.

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/how_brian_eno_managed_to_piss_in_marcel_duchamp

See how that works, boys and girls? Art comments on itself; it's as much idea as substance, in some cases.

Now, your assignment is to re-contextualize Brian Eno's recontextualization, by cleaning the toilet!


----------



## Woodduck

Morimur said:


> I think the visual equivalent of 4'33 would be Duchamp's Urinal.
> 
> Find something already in existence, re-contextualize it, and sign it.


I re-contextualized Duchamp's urinal as soon as I learned of it. It is now in the context of "things forgotten."

I call it Unconscious Art.

This aesthetic goes way beyond "flatness" - so take that, Morris Louis! The work also lasts for 0'00" - so take that, John Cage!

As a final touch, I did not sign the work before forgetting about it. I did not want Ego to interfere with the artistic experience.


----------



## Taggart

Please focus on content and not on your opinion of other members. Please be civil at all times. Some posts have been removed.


----------



## Marilyn

The visual equivalent of 4'33'' is Rauschenberg's White Painting, 1951.

John Cage's comment on it: 
" To Whom It May Concern:
The white paintings came
first; my silent piece
came later."

So, in a way, it wasn't even an original idea!


----------



## Ingélou

'Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear'd,
Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone...'

John Keats, 'Ode on a Grecian Urn', 1819


----------



## tortkis

Marilyn said:


> The visual equivalent of 4'33'' is Rauschenberg's White Painting, 1951.
> 
> John Cage's comment on it:
> " To Whom It May Concern:
> The white paintings came
> first; my silent piece
> came later."
> 
> So, in a way, it wasn't even an original idea!
> 
> View attachment 67433


Being inspired or feeling sympathy does not imply lack of originality.

Cage in 1961 wrote that "the white paintings were airports for the lights, shadows and particles." This interpretation was probably not the original intention of Rauschenberg, who "considered it essential that they be pristine" and "all of the works in the series have a history of being repainted and even refabricated from scratch, usually by friends or studio assistants." (Source: San Francisco Museum of Modern Art)


----------



## ArtMusic

Marilyn said:


> The visual equivalent of 4'33'' is Rauschenberg's White Painting, 1951.
> 
> John Cage's comment on it:
> " To Whom It May Concern:
> The white paintings came
> first; my silent piece
> came later."
> 
> So, in a way, it wasn't even an original idea!
> 
> View attachment 67433


I have seen many other canvas done on just one color. Blue is a common one, citing relaxation or ocean themes. Hardly what I call original nor compelling.

That's the point about 4'33" as well. It is hardly compelling even conceptually. I can sympathize with pieces of music composed under special/unique circumstances more even if the music does not engage me. Shostakovich Leningrad symphony is an example, completed only about *eleven years earlier* than 4'33", it offered compelling messages, irrespective of the musical material.


----------



## Marilyn

The good thing about Rauschenberg's white (or black) canvas, is that anyone is free to interpret them any way they like, regardless of what they represented for Rauschenberg himself. Personally, I prefer other works of his, such as the famous Bed









where you can actually see how talented and original he was. And this is actually my objection to Cage's work. If you isolate it from his philosophy, there's nothing special about it. But as I've said, that's just my opinion.


----------



## DeepR

Marilyn said:


> The good thing about Rauschenberg's white (or black) canvas, is that anyone is free to interpret them any way they like, regardless of what they represented for Rauschenberg himself. Personally, I prefer other works of his, such as the famous Bed
> 
> View attachment 67545
> 
> 
> where you can actually see how talented and original he was. And this is actually my objection to Cage's work. If you isolate it from his philosophy, there's nothing special about it. But as I've said, that's just my opinion.


Its philosophy is not that special either and 4'33" is nothing more than a gimmick to put forward that philosophy. I still like its philosophy, but it doesn't feel like some kind of deep revelation, nor does it appear to be very original. But hey, it was published, has a name attached to it and it has a place in history (albeit controversial) and that makes the piece beyond criticism to some.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> I re-contextualized Duchamp's urinal as soon as I learned of it. It is now in the context of "things forgotten."
> 
> I call it Unconscious Art.
> 
> This aesthetic goes way beyond "flatness" - so take that, Morris Louis! The work also lasts for 0'00" - so take that, John Cage!
> 
> As a final touch, I did not sign the work before forgetting about it. I did not want Ego to interfere with the artistic experience.


Duchamp has made a permanent mark on our culture. As long as there are art history courses or museums, people are going to be encountering his art. Forgetting it is impossible, even if someone actually wanted to.

The same goes for Cage. This discussion has gone on for decades without abating, apparently without any of the principles getting bored. It will be a long time before the name of Cage stops towering among twentieth century composers.

If you actually want to help bring that day about, ignore these discussions. Your every contribution is another little drop of cement securing Cage's place in the canon.

I'm guessing you can't do it. Cage wins, and wins, and wins.


----------



## arpeggio

I recently discovered a group that calls itself the Delian Sociaty. See: http://deliansociety.org/

I learned about them in another forum when one of their members showed up an started arguing with some of the members there about the value of contemporary music. I hope none of them show up here. They are really closed minded and make the anti-modernists here look like choir boys.

One thing I noticed about this gentleman's rant is that the Society is upset that classical music is not as fashionable as popular music. They have made atonal or any form of modernistic music a scapegoat for the lack of popularity of classical music. I reviewed some of the members who are composers.

"senza sordino" one of there members is Michael Conway. He is from British Columbia and he is actually pretty good. See: http://www.michaelconwaybaker.com/. Are you familiar with his music?

Most of the composers there are not very good and they have to blame somebody for their lack of acceptance.

I have learned that tonal music continued to flourish during the heyday of Webernish music like Barber and Hanson.

The status of classical music in our society, especially in the United States, when compared to county or rock, is more complicated than simply blaming Schoenberg or Cage. I know I would have trouble addressing this issue. There are members here who have done a much better job than I could to no avail with some of the members.

In another thread one of our more active members asserted that the last great symphonist was Shostakovich. I wonder what his problem is with the many outstanding post Shostakovich tonal composers like George Lloyd or Kalevi Aho or David Maslanka.


----------



## Couac Addict

arpeggio said:


> In another thread one of our more active members asserted that the last great symphonist was Shostakovich. I wonder what his problem is with the many outstanding post Shostakovich tonal composers like George Lloyd or Kalevi Aho or David Maslanka.


Someone recently told me that the last rock song to go #1 in the UK/US was about 15 years ago. The listening public have moved on.

Should contemporary composers be concerned about scoring works like Shosta's? His early works were a hundred years ago. I wonder how concerned Mozart was about sounding like Bach?

Whatever happened to forging ahead and breaking new ground?


----------



## pmsummer

4'33" is best appreciated from the stage.

Duchamp's 'Fountain' is best appreciated from about 12".



I am an admirer of both works, and their authors.


----------



## JohnnyRotten

That silent piece, ay? Well, it ain't for yer white van man, I can tell ya.


----------



## Kelt

If it's a concept, can someone explain what it is? Certainly it would have to be verbally demonstrable, such is the nature of "concepts".

I think it's arrogant and nihilistic, which it is. Do I need John Cage to demonstrate the value of silence to me? Seriously? That is the very height of arrogance.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> *Duchamp has made a permanent mark on our culture.* As long as there are art history courses or museums, people are going to be encountering his art. *Forgetting it is impossible*, even if someone actually wanted to.
> 
> The same goes for Cage. This discussion has gone on for decades without abating, apparently without any of the principles getting bored. It will be a long time before the name of Cage stops *towering** among twentieth century composers.*
> 
> *If you actually want to help bring that day about, ignore these discussions.* Your every contribution is another little drop of cement securing Cage's place in the canon.
> 
> I'm guessing you can't do it.* Cage wins, and wins, and wins.*


*
*
_What_ does Cage win, and win, and win? What's the prize? Is it valuable? Who else is in the competition? Who else would care to be?

Cage got the world's attention by performing a trick that no one had performed before. He timed it very well. He is famous/notorious. Is that the prize?

_Towering?_ We must be looking at different skylines. Either that or your estimate of twentieth-century music is much lower than mine.

Why would I want to bring any day about?

It is very easy to forget Duchamp. I never think of him, not even in rest rooms.

I'm going to forget him again right now.


----------



## Blancrocher

Woodduck said:


> It is very easy to forget Duchamp. I never think of him, not even in rest rooms.


It's hard for me to forget him, since I often see so much of his influence when I go to new art exhibits, though everyone's experience will differ of course. What surprises me about discussions of Duschamp is how seldom I see mention of what I personally think are his best works--the wonderful "Network of Stoppages" above all. Thumbnails don't show enough, but here it is:

http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79600

(This is just by the way--apologies for the digression.)


----------



## Polyphemus

Thanks Blancrocher had a look at the Duchamp picture. I have no appreciation of the plastic arts preferring pictures of steam locomotives in full steal (preferably G W R) thundering through the countryside or fully rigged ships in a seascape. Modern art leaves me cold.
However what prompts this reply is the "Gallery Label Text". This is pure genius, whomsoever derived this twaddle from the artwork presented has a big future. Surely Academy Awards galore await in abundance for science fiction scripts. I would be more explicit but Taggart and the other Mods would quickly assemble the firing squad and execution by penalty points would surely follow.
As I have confessed my appreciation of that sort of art? is zero so indubitably the fault is mine but good B S is nonetheless good B S and our friend who wrote the text is a master of the craft, which I reprint for you below.

"Gallery Text Label
Inventing Abstraction, 1910–1925
December 23, 2012–April 15, 2013
In 3 Standard Stoppages, Duchamp had explored the possibility of adjusting the metric standard through a random procedure. In this large canvas he complicated that idea, multiplying the curves of the fallen threads from 3 Standard Stoppages by reproducing each one three times and positioning them in a diagrammatic arrangement. He also made the work by painting over the images on a canvas he had already used, those images being a female figure and a schematic, quasi-mechanical drawing of his ongoing project The Large Glass. The visible and semivisible layers of Network of Stoppages seem to contrast three representational systems: traditional figuration, chance operations, and the diagram, which maps the world without picturing it."

Wow.
For those who cannot forgive ignorance, pity me. LOL.


----------



## pmsummer

Kelt said:


> If it's a concept, can someone explain what it is? Certainly it would have to be verbally demonstrable, such is the nature of "concepts".
> 
> I think it's arrogant and nihilistic, which it is. Do I need John Cage to demonstrate the value of silence to me? Seriously? That is the very height of arrogance.


4'33" isn't about silence at all. It is 'about' the ambient sounds and noise in a performance hall, which is why I commented it is best approached from the stage.


----------



## JohnnyRotten

Some of youse guys have got to be having a larf at our expense, or what? When I shell out some dosh for gear, I expect value for money, else it's a rip-off.


----------



## tortkis

I would love to pay for this concert. (4'33" was mistakenly listed as 4 pieces. :lol


----------



## JohnnyRotten

It was free, then? Why look a gift horse in the mouth?


----------



## Woodduck

Polyphemus said:


> Thanks Blancrocher had a look at the Duchamp picture. I have no appreciation of the plastic arts preferring pictures of steam locomotives in full steal (preferably G W R) thundering through the countryside or fully rigged ships in a seascape. Modern art leaves me cold.
> However what prompts this reply is the "Gallery Label Text". This is pure genius, whomsoever derived this twaddle from the artwork presented has a big future. Surely Academy Awards galore await in abundance for science fiction scripts. I would be more explicit but Taggart and the other Mods would quickly assemble the firing squad and execution by penalty points would surely follow.
> As I have confessed my appreciation of that sort of art? is zero so indubitably the fault is mine but good B S is nonetheless good B S and our friend who wrote the text is a master of the craft, which I reprint for you below.
> 
> *"Gallery Text Label
> Inventing Abstraction, 1910-1925
> December 23, 2012-April 15, 2013
> In 3 Standard Stoppages, Duchamp had explored the possibility of adjusting the metric standard through a random procedure. In this large canvas he complicated that idea, multiplying the curves of the fallen threads from 3 Standard Stoppages by reproducing each one three times and positioning them in a diagrammatic arrangement. He also made the work by painting over the images on a canvas he had already used, those images being a female figure and a schematic, quasi-mechanical drawing of his ongoing project The Large Glass. The visible and semivisible layers of Network of Stoppages seem to contrast three representational systems: traditional figuration, chance operations, and the diagram, which maps the world without picturing it."*
> 
> Wow.
> For those who cannot forgive ignorance, pity me. LOL.


Ha! I was just about to post that text myself when I spotted this post of yours. This is modern art criticism in all its glory. Don't know what the art's about? Here's an explanation you won't understand either, but at least it will keep you standing here long enough to make you feel you've accomplished something by attending the exhibition. Somehow even an incomprehensible idea seems more significant than no idea at all.


----------



## Polyphemus

Woodduck said:


> Ha! I was just about to post that text myself when I spotted this post of yours. This is modern art criticism in all its glory. Don't know what the art's about? Here's an explanation you won't understand either, but at least it will keep you standing here long enough to make you feel you've accomplished something by attending the exhibition. Somehow even an incomprehensible idea seems more significant than no idea at all.


Ya mean summat like 4' 33" or a pile a bricks at the Tate or was that the Tayto. Again the spectre of the Mods wrath prevents me from fully giving vent to my contempt for this 'kings new clothes' art.


----------



## Guest

tortkis said:


> I would love to pay for this concert. (4'33" was mistakenly listed as 4 pieces. :lol


What makes you think that was a mistake?


----------



## tortkis

Victor Redseal said:


> What makes you think that was a mistake?


Because 4'33" is a piece with 3 movements whose lengths are 30", 2'23" and 1'40".


----------



## Guest

I thought "pieces" refers to instruments as in a 5-piece band or a 17-piece orchestra. Maybe they were adding more instruments to 4'33" to spice it up a little.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Victor Redseal said:


> I thought "pieces" refers to instruments as in a 5-piece band or a 17-piece orchestra. Maybe they were adding more instruments to 4'33" to spice it up a little.


It also means music, either a single movement or a whole work.


----------



## Guest

But don't you think 4'33" needs more instruments? It sounds so sparse that I realized it needs a clarinet not doing anything.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Victor Redseal said:


> But don't you think 4'33" needs more instruments? It sounds so sparse that I realized it needs a clarinet not doing anything.


I believe that Cage specified the work as able to be performed by any instrument or group of instruments.


----------



## Ken Cohen

I'd not heard of John Cage or 4"33' until today. I read the article in Wikipedia. I'm not sure about the "greatness" of this 1952 conception, but its origin in the composer's mind (from a 1947 speech at Vassar College) is spot on with my own arrogant views of commercial pap music in general: "to compose a piece of uninterrupted silence and sell it to Muzak Co. It will be three or four-and-a-half minutes long—those being the standard lengths of "canned" music and its title will be Silent Prayer. It will open with a single idea which I will attempt to make as seductive as the color and shape and fragrance of a flower. The ending will approach imperceptibility"


----------



## Celloman

Ken Cohen said:


> I'd not heard of John Cage or 4"33' until today.


Congratulations on your discovery! Cage isn't everyone's cup of tea, so don't feel obligated to listen to him if you don't feel like it. We all have our favorites, as well as composers we aren't crazy about...I know I do.

Just a word of advice: Don't listen to a word anybody says here, they're all crazy! 
Welcome to Talk Classical!


----------



## Albert7

I still have experienced my share of 4' 33" lately as I take my walk on nature's path during some random morning. 4' 33" is a natural phenomenon to be experienced whenever you have the chance to escape from the bustle and hustle of urban life.


----------



## Woodduck

Albert7 said:


> I still have experienced my share of 4' 33" lately as I take my walk on nature's path during some random morning. 4' 33" is a natural phenomenon to be experienced whenever you have the chance to escape from the bustle and hustle of urban life.


Your post raises difficult questions. Does urban life have more bustle, or more hustle? Is the relationship between them polar, linear, or hierarchical? Are they to be escaped, embraced, or eliminated? Is 4'33" their antipode, or their justification and fulfillment? What would Roland Barthes do?


----------



## TradeMark

Albert7 said:


> The visual equivalent of 4' 33"... so delicious to me:


Am I the only one who is seeing birds in that picture?


----------



## WJM

4'33 doesn't exist. I mean, it's literally *nothing*.


----------



## Ingélou

TradeMark said:


> Albert7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The visual equivalent of 4' 33"... so delicious to me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who is seeing birds in that picture?
Click to expand...

Maybe so - on my initial viewing, it looked like a heap of artificial legs, but when I look again, it could be petals or brazil nuts. But not birds. Sorry! 

(Does that mean that if I go to a concert performance of 4'33" I should spend the time trying to decide if the guttural utterances of the old man in the corner are his declamation of the high points of Icelandic saga, or just a bronchial cough?)


----------



## Blancrocher

MoonlightSonata said:


> I believe that Cage specified the work as able to be performed by any instrument or group of instruments.


It's for this reason that 4'33'' has so many champions among helicopter-and-string-quartet ensembles. They have a very limited repertoire, I believe.


----------



## Rhombic

http://www.futilitycloset.com/2014/01/17/nothing-doing-7/


----------



## arpeggio

I appears that in this community the stature of _433_ is greater than concert band music.


----------



## mmsbls

In the new Top Recommended POst-1950 Works list 4'33" has been nominated and has garnered a reasonable number of votes. I'm woefully ignorant of concert band music, but I don't think any concert band work has been nominated. I'm really not sure why concert band gets so little interest.


----------



## millionrainbows

WJM said:


> 4'33 doesn't exist. I mean, it's literally *nothing*.


No, it's sounds that occur.


----------



## millionrainbows

Question: Could 4'33" be performed in outer space, in a totally airless, soundless environment? This sort of renders as irrelevant the idea of sound, or for that matter, silence (although 4'33" is not a 'silent' piece).

But for us to experience this in outer space, we would have to be wearing a space suit, with air in it. Still, we would not be able to hear anything outside of our suit, since there is no air to transmit sound.

Would the sound of our own breathing and heartbeat be the sounds? Would they be valid? What about our own...oh, never mind.


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> Question: Could 4'33" be performed in outer space, in a totally airless, soundless environment? This sort of renders as irrelevant the idea of sound, or for that matter, silence (although 4'33" is not a 'silent' piece).
> 
> But for us to experience this in outer space, we would have to be wearing a space suit, with air in it. Still, we would not be able to hear anything outside of our suit, since there is no air to transmit sound.
> 
> Would the sound of our own breathing and heartbeat be the sounds? Would they be valid? What about our own...oh, never mind.


My understanding is that Cage visited the anechoic chamber at Harvard in 1951 expecting to hear pure silence, but he heard some sounds instead. When he described them to the audio engineer, the engineer explained that he was hearing his nervous system (neurons associated with audio centers?) and his blood circulating near his ears. So even in space we'd hear those things as well as other sounds created inside our suits.


----------



## Albert7

millionrainbows said:


> No, it's sounds that occur.


Agree... a piece of pure nothingness can't exist physically in the human universe.


----------



## MagneticGhost

The recent mentions of silence in space reminded me of this little bit from Red Dwarf


----------



## arpeggio

mmsbls said:


> My understanding is that Cage visited the anechoic chamber at Harvard in 1951 expecting to hear pure silence, but he heard some sounds instead. When he described them to the audio engineer, the engineer explained that he was hearing his nervous system (neurons associated with audio centers?) and his blood circulating near his ears. So even in space we'd hear those things as well as other sounds created inside our suits.


The above is correct.


----------



## arpeggio

mmsbls said:


> I'm really not sure why concert band gets so little interest.


I know I have tried to generate more interest in concert band music.

The few band junkies that have shown up who know more than I do appear to lose interest and move on.


----------



## Guest

Johnny may question the very nature of music, but he has no hopes of getting more responses than the newest Maria Callas box set in this world!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I'm going to composed and perform my own version of 4'33", called 33'4" where I'll perform 4'33" backwards repeatedly for 33'4" precisely!

wish me luck...... might have a problem with timing towards the end thou.


----------



## Ken Cohen

Celloman said:


> Congratulations on your discovery! Cage isn't everyone's cup of tea, so don't feel obligated to listen to him if you don't feel like it. We all have our favorites, as well as composers we aren't crazy about...I know I do.
> 
> Just a word of advice: Don't listen to a word anybody says here, they're all crazy!
> Welcome to Talk Classical!


I've looked around for recorded performances of 4'33", expecting to find perhaps an out of print LP by Furtwangler/ Berlin Symphony on Seraphim if lucky, or the crackling RCA Red Seal piano version by Artur Rubinstein advertised on Amazon for $229.63, but all I get from Bing is silence (but Google has generic placeholder ads for it at the top of its listing).

If you listen to the RCA performance and hear only that label's famous signature snap-crackle-pop-hiss, do those sounds count?

Now that I know you're all crazy, I feel much more comfortable here knowing I'm the only 'normal' one.


----------



## Woodduck

Ken Cohen said:


> I've looked around for recorded performances of 4'33", expecting to find perhaps an out of print LP by Furtwangler/ Berlin Symphony on Seraphim if lucky, or the crackling RCA Red Seal piano version by Artur Rubinstein advertised on Amazon for $229.63, but all I get from Bing is silence (but Google has generic placeholder ads for it at the top of its listing).
> 
> If you listen to the RCA performance and hear only that label's famous signature snap-crackle-pop-hiss, do those sounds count?
> 
> *Now that I know you're all crazy, I feel much more comfortable here knowing I'm the only 'normal' one.*


Don't get too comfortable. I'm normal too. It gets me into no end of trouble with the dodecaphonists, acousticians, and postmodernists. I hope you're not one of those!


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> Don't get too comfortable. I'm normal too. It gets me into no end of trouble with the dodecaphonists, acousticians, and postmodernists. I hope you're not one of those!


I am so normal that I am becoming postnormal


----------



## Woodduck

Becca said:


> I am so normal that I am becoming postnormal


Is that the final stage before...?


----------



## Becca

You _don't_ want to know


----------



## Guest

4'33" is an atheist hymn to god.


----------



## millionrainbows

Victor Redseal said:


> 4'33" is an atheist hymn to god.


It's many things to many people, but that's the first time I've heard that one. You forgot to capitalize the "G."


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> You forgot to capitalize the "G."


No, I didn't.


----------



## WJM

millionrainbows said:


> No, it's sounds that occur.


Which have nothing to do with the "composition", that 4'33 is[n't].


----------



## Polyphemus

Ken Cohen said:


> I've looked around for recorded performances of 4'33", expecting to find perhaps an out of print LP by Furtwangler/ Berlin Symphony on Seraphim if lucky, or the crackling RCA Red Seal piano version by Artur Rubinstein advertised on Amazon for $229.63, but all I get from Bing is silence (but Google has generic placeholder ads for it at the top of its listing).
> 
> If you listen to the RCA performance and hear only that label's famous signature snap-crackle-pop-hiss, do those sounds count?
> 
> Now that I know you're all crazy, I feel much more comfortable here knowing I'm the only 'normal' one.


What a pity H M V did not issue a recording, the dog may have barked or at least scratched itself.


----------



## Guest

Others have already touched on it: all 4'33" is saying is that there is no such thing as silence. If you listen closely enough, there's always a sound to be heard.


----------



## ArtMusic

Victor Redseal said:


> Others have already touched on it: all 4'33" is saying is that there is no such thing as silence. If you listen closely enough, there's always a sound to be heard.


That assumes one is not physically deaf, obviously. I say this because only physically deaf people are in a position to say what "silence" really mean, which is why I find it abhorrent to have John Cage say silence is music, because if you ask any physically deaf person, I am almost sure they will find it very rude if it was suggested to them that the silence they know is "music". Physically deaf people would love to be able to listen to genuine music, and not be living in a world of silence. And I wonder if John Cage ever considered that.


----------



## Albert7

ArtMusic said:


> That assumes one is not physically deaf, obviously. I say this because only physically deaf people are in a position to say what "silence" really mean, which is why I find it abhorrent to have John Cage say silence is music, because if you ask any physically deaf person, I am almost sure they will find it very rude if it was suggested to them that the silence they know is "music". Physically deaf people would love to be able to listen to genuine music, and not be living in a world of silence. And I wonder if John Cage ever considered that.


I am sure that Cage thought of that and then some too.


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> That assumes one is not physically deaf, obviously. I say this because only physically deaf people are in a position to say what "silence" really mean, which is why I find it abhorrent to have John Cage say silence is music, because if you ask any physically deaf person, *I am almost sure they will find it very rude if it was suggested to them that the silence they know is "music".* Physically deaf people would love to be able to listen to genuine music, and not be living in a world of silence. And I wonder if John Cage ever considered that.


But Cage never did that.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> That assumes one is not physically deaf, obviously.


That also assumes that you know what a deaf person truly "hears".

And since when does pointing out that there is no real silence accept as an abstract concept the equivalent of saying that silence is music?


----------



## ArtMusic

Mahlerian said:


> But Cage never did that.


Sure, perhpas he never did that. But I wondered if he considered that (my points in post) at all. It's not really that smart to call silence music to physically deaf people.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

-nuked and withdrawn by the author-


----------



## Albert7

SeptimalTritone said:


> -nuked and withdrawn by the author-


----------



## pmsummer

arpeggio said:


> I appears that in this community the stature of _433_ is greater than concert band music.


This makes me smile.

It hurts.


----------



## Albert7

pmsummer said:


> This makes me smile.
> 
> It hurts.


pmsummer, Just wanted to complement you on your avatar. I know a Merlin Carpenter painting when I love and detect contemporary art. Good job with that avatar. It makes me proud of another TC'er's taste.


----------



## pmsummer

Albert7 said:


> pmsummer, Just wanted to complement you on your avatar. I know a Merlin Carpenter painting when I love and detect contemporary art. Good job with that avatar. It makes me proud of another TC'er's taste.












TO THE FORE!
_Percy Grainger's Great Symphonic Band Music_
*Percy Grainger*
Michigan State Symphonic Band
Keith Brion; director

Delos


----------



## Blake

Victor Redseal said:


> Others have already touched on it: all 4'33" is saying is that there is no such thing as silence. If you listen closely enough, there's always a sound to be heard.


It would make more sense to say that for anything to be heard there needs to be a background of silence. Sounds aren't infinite... they have their limits. So, what would be behind them?


----------



## pmsummer

4'33" is best thought of as a 'Performance Art', almost as a pre-Happening event.

I don't believe Cage would be interested in it being seen as a _performance of music_ (quite the contrary) in the academic sense. No more than Duchamp ever thought of "Fountain" as portrature. Both are (in my simple opinion) pins on a map.

However, whereas Duchamp was irritated by people's attachment to and discussion of 'Fountain', I believe a case can be made that Cage was delighted with the endless debate over 4'33".


----------



## Albert7

pmsummer said:


> 4'33" is best thought of as a 'Performance Art', almost as a pre-Happening event.
> 
> I don't believe Cage would be interested in it being seen as a _performance of music_ (quite the contrary) in the academic sense. No more than Duchamp ever thought of "Fountain" as portrature. Both are (in my simple opinion) pins on a map.
> 
> However, whereas Duchamp was irritated by people's attachment to and discussion of 'Fountain', I believe a case can be made that Cage was delighted with the endless debate over 4'33".


Bingo, you hit the nail on the head.

I still think that 4' 33" is most similar to looking a Robert Ryman painting. But that's just me.


----------



## science

I think, of course it's music. 

But I want my opinion to count. So of course it's not music.


----------



## SixFootScowl

4'33" doesn't really even deserve this thread. We are giving it far too much attention. For an near empty work (but for incidental noises), it sure has generated a lot of discussion.


----------



## AnotherSpin

My expensive high-end sound set reveals its difficult to word advantages over modest layman supermarket stereo combo to the full extend when I listen to one of the very few preferred versions of 4'33". Also, I do not hesitate to admit my favorite version of this piece is the one from Frank Zappa.


----------



## KenOC

Florestan said:


> 4'33" doesn't really even deserve this thread. We are giving it far too much attention. For an near empty work (but for incidental noises), it sure has generated a lot of discussion.


That's why I would only ever buy a studio performance. Can't abide audience noise!


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> That's why I would only ever buy a studio performance. Can't abide audience noise!


Exactly. Audiences can make some pretty rude noises without even trying.

But do they record studio performances of 4'33"? And as long as the conductor or pianist didn't indulge in bean & jalapeño burritos the night before, it ought to be a pretty quiet performance.


----------



## KenOC

Florestan said:


> But do they record studio performances of 4'33"?


Certainly. I have several such performances that I have recorded onto a single CD, that I play each night while going to sleep. Very effective.

It's a work that I find supports repeated listenings very well. If somebody is yak-yak-yakking, I just pop my CD into the player and...blessed relief!


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Certainly. I have several such performances that I have recorded onto a single CD, that I play each night while going to sleep. Very effective.
> 
> It's a work that I find supports repeated listenings very well. If somebody is yak-yak-yakking, I just pop my CD into the player and...blessed relief!


This one would work quite well:









Track listing:
1. John Cage's 4'33" (Realization of Silence: 01)
2. John Cage's 4'33" (Realization of Silence: 02)
3. John Cage's 4'33" (Realization of Silence: 03)
4. John Cage's 4'33" (Realization of Silence: 04)
5. John Cage's 4'33" (Realization of Silence: 05)
6. John Cage's 4'33" (Realization of Silence: 06)
7. John Cage's 4'33" (Realization of Silence: 07)
8. John Cage's 4'33" (Realization of Silence: 08)
9. John Cage's 4'33" (Realization of Silence: 09)

The single reviewer on Amazon ends his review with this pithy statement:


> But, one has to ask, why make this recording? Cage famously disliked recordings, and a recording of 4'33" is particularly redundant - one can listen to the work anywhere without having to pay for it!


The one commenter on that review says:


> ... I have to admire the chutzpah of whoever put together a CD -entirely- dedicated to 4'33" with any expectation of selling it. Reminds me of a vinyl album, a copy of which I own, titled "The Best of Marcel Marceau", which consists of 19 minutes of silence, followed by one minute of applause, on each side.


I think I might prefer the Marcel Marceau recording.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> It's a work that I find supports repeated listenings very well. If somebody is yak-yak-yakking, I just pop my CD into the player and...blessed relief!


Now _this_ is why I hang on here! A moment of revelation like this!

I never understood the value of 4'33". I thought it was phony, foolish, frivolous, a freakish fraud, a purposeless piece of puerile posturing, pompous and petty.

But now? The next time my neighbors, Bonnie and Clyde (yes, my neighbors are actually Bonnie and Clyde), decide to stand outside my apartment door at 11:00 PM and discuss her duodenal ulcer or his ruptured spleen, about neither of which I can bear to hear one more word, I am going to sit in front of my music system and put on the studio version of 4'33." And I swear, if this piece can make music out of Bonnie and Clyde's organ recital, I will retract every argument I have ever made about it except the argument that it is not music.

Oh wait...

I guess that's the only argument I ever made about it.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> I thought it was phony, foolish, frivolous, a freakish fraud, a purposeless piece of puerile posturing, pompous and petty.


Onomata... Onamoto... Never mind!


----------



## Woodduck

Pia. As in Lindstrom. Or Tassinari.

But really it's just alliter... Alliter...


----------



## KenOC

Oh yeah. What you said.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Oh yeah. What you said.


So agreeable. Is it the John Adams persona?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> So agreeable. Is it the John Adams persona?


John Adams is always agreeable. A problem. After all, was Beethoven agreeable?


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> John Adams is always agreeable. A problem. After all, was Beethoven agreeable?


His agreeableness is least agreeable when it's most minimal.


----------



## Dim7

All sounds can be used in music. That' the point that is made by John Cage in 4'33''. And I don't have any disagreement with that point. But since 4'33'' isn't really supposed to be enjoyed the same way other pieces of music are, but rather it is supposed to make that "point", why not just clearly state the point in words? Maybe that wouldn't be as effective and provoke as much discussion. But on the flipside, maybe contemporary art music would have just a little bit better reputation without 4'33'' - it is the go-to piece for anti-modernists when they want to prove that modern composers are a bunch of charlatans. 

If without 4'33'' people wouldn't have realized that any sounds can be music I'll accept it as "conceptually important" but otherwise it strikes me as a somewhat trollish way of saying something that's fairly obvious.


----------



## Nereffid

Florestan said:


> 4'33" doesn't really even deserve this thread. *We are giving it far too much attention.*


... says the poster who revived a thread that had been dead for 12 days!


----------



## Guest

It _is_ a shame to constantly harp on about this piece, ignoring as others have already pointed out that there is _much more_ to Cage's music than this brief 4'33" offering. It's the same situation with that *Beethoven*, everyone keeps banging on about that 'Victory Symphony' (you know, the one that has that morse code dot-dot-dot DASH for "V") or that other piece for piano that they keep using for selling fancy chocolate or retirement insurance plans on the TV, forgetting that he too wrote a lot of other good stuff. Apparently.


----------



## AnotherSpin

KenOC said:


> That's why I would only ever buy a studio performance. Can't abide audience noise!


 You may want to up-convert FLAC lossless file of 4'33" into DSD format for maximum quality listening experience available today.


----------



## Polyphemus

AnotherSpin said:


> You may want to up-convert FLAC lossless file of 4'33" into DSD format for maximum quality listening experience available today.


LSD now there's a thought I don't know about ambient noise but peripheral visionary experiences would (or so I have been told) definitely come into play. Medical reports also suggest that those experiencing a 'bad trip' would provide plenty of 'ambient noise'.
Perhaps someone on T C experienced in the use of Ouija boards could consult with Timothoy Leary on this matter.

"Turn on, tune in, drop out"


----------



## Skilmarilion

I think it's been nearly 3 months since I last posted in this thread.

Whilst the debate on whether this piece is music or not will seem to always endure, something was in fact achieved in this thread, when we learnt that 4'33" is *not even conceptually significant or original*, because of the below:

(forgive me, I don't remember who first posted this in this thread, and there was at least one other example of a work exploring a similar concept which pre-dates 4'33")

btw, we're talking 55 years before Cage "wrote" 4'33", which is kind of like a piece being written using the 12-tone technique in the 1860's. :tiphat:


----------



## AnotherSpin

Zappa never performed Allais, this fact alone disqualifies the latter as a composer.


----------



## violadude

TradeMark said:


> Am I the only one who is seeing birds in that picture?


I see a sprawling orgy of demons...but I'm sorta messed up so don't mind me.


----------



## Guest

Blake said:


> It would make more sense to say that for anything to be heard there needs to be a background of silence.


It would? I'll tell that to everyone at work tomorrow.



> Sounds aren't infinite... they have their limits. So, what would be behind them?


Sounds don't have to be infinite. The point is that we have no control over the situation. Cage even went into a sound-proofed chamber to hear complete silence and ending up hearing his own blood rushing through his veins similar to the sound of a train in the distance. You can't get away from it. It's like meditation where some phony guru tells you to sit quietly and still your mind. You can't still your mind--not even for a second, a nano-second. The only way you ever could is to become unaware of anything at all, not even the passage of time. You achieve that state during dreamless sleep but I wouldn't call that meditation, I would it call it dreamless sleep. The truth is, you're not responsible for your thoughts. If you were, then stop having them. You can't. They're always there. You are responsible for how you choose to act on them but not just for having them. We all have them but act on them differently.

Religious and cultic leaders have always known this. They tell you to stop having lustful thoughts or stop desiring things, stop committing adultery in your heart. Sure--when I'm dead. Otherwise it ain't happening. But dopes buy into that and when they inevitably fail, they feel worthless and guilty and are then ripe to be exploited. If they only knew that they have no control over that. No one does. You will lust and desire your way to your grave however far into the future that is. Just accept it and keep it in perspective (i.e. don't take it so serious) and you'll be reasonably happy. That's why religious zealots are idiots. Only an idiot thinks he can control his thoughts and his wants and then worries himself to death when he can't and thinks he can remedy the situation (i.e. save his everlasting butt a.k.a. "doing the lord's work") by trying to keep the rest of us from lusting and wanting. Something he can't even do for himself.

So, no, sounds are not infinite. In fact, it's just a brick wall. You hit it and that's it. You can go no further except in abstract conception (i.e. I can imagine complete silence but I will never experience it). So, at best, silence is just a relative thing. Perhaps a grand symphony is silence compared to some other state.


----------



## Mahlerian

Skilmarilion said:


> I think it's been nearly 3 months since I last posted in this thread.
> 
> Whilst the debate on whether this piece is music or not will seem to always endure, something was in fact achieved in this thread, when we learnt that 4'33" is *not even conceptually significant or original*, because of the below:
> 
> (forgive me, I don't remember who first posted this in this thread, and there was at least one other example of a work exploring a similar concept which pre-dates 4'33")
> 
> btw, we're talking 55 years before Cage "wrote" 4'33", which is kind of like a piece being written using the 12-tone technique in the 1860's. :tiphat:


Except that the conception is not the same at all. It's far more akin to those near-tone rows you can find in Mozart, Beethoven, and Liszt.

No work before 4'33" was said to be made up of the sounds occurring around the performance, which is its most important point. This and the other works you're thinking of are simply intended to be silent.

If you want to say that's not music, fine, but don't say the conception itself is the same.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Mahlerian said:


> Except that the conception is not the same at all. It's far more akin to those near-tone rows you can find in Mozart, Beethoven, and Liszt.
> 
> No work before 4'33" was said to be made up of the sounds occurring around the performance, which is its most important point. This and the other works you're thinking of are simply intended to be silent.
> 
> If you want to say that's not music, fine, but don't say the conception itself is the same.


Well I agree it isn't exactly the same, but I see it as merely an extension of a concept which was considered and realised evidently before Cage was even born.

Effectively, I think of it as Cage transporting a piece such as Allais' into the concert hall, allowing outside sounds to become part of the work.

In theory, if you set up 4'33" for a recording in a studio, as you would with any other piece, you are more or less going to get silence, which is more or less Allais' funeral march. And the reverse applies, if you were to "perform" the Allais in a concert hall, you are more than likely going to experience outside sounds that become part of the performance.

My point was that the debate often seems to leave the concept as untouchable, while only considering whether 4'33" is music or not. It seems to me at least that the concept, too, is on pretty shaky ground ...


----------



## isorhythm

4'33" needs to be understood as commenting on Western performance traditions in some way, as players are supposed to be present on a stage with instruments, and are supposed to do something to mark the divisions between movements.

In fact it cannot be performed outside of a Western concert tradition.

I don't find any of this interesting, personally.


----------



## arpeggio

Observation.

In other threads I have discussed how my various musician friends that I perform with react to different composers and works.

For example in this forum there are many members who have a low regard for Shostakovich. Yet the vast majority of musicians that I know have a high regard for him. Many years ago I had the opportunity to perform his _Fifth Symphony_. There were musicians who showed up just to have the opportunity to perform it.

I play with two volunteer concert bands and two volunteer symphony orchestras. You mention Cage to the members of the bands and you will receive a very negative response. But one does not find an animas against Cage with the orchestral musicians. Why are orchestral musicians more tolerant of Cage as opposed to band musicians? I do not have the foggiest idea why.


----------



## Guest

arpeggio said:


> Observation. [...] You mention Cage to the members of the bands and you will receive a very negative response. But one does not find an animas against Cage with the orchestral musicians. Why are orchestral musicians more tolerant of Cage as opposed to band musicians? I do not have the foggiest idea why.


Dear Arpeggio, you will have to forgive me for the response I am about to give you. I think it has something to do with aural faculty, i.e. band players are nearly deaf with little or no musical imagination; string and woodwind players on the other hand have much more refined ears, possess higher levels of musicianship and (in terms of Marschallian Blair's barbie-blond criteria) are generally much more good looking and successful. May I also add that in my experience those with the worst "musical ear" tend to be singers, who seem to have the most appalling grasp of harmonic 4-part writing. I rest my case.


----------



## ArtMusic

Dim7 said:


> All sounds can be used in music. That' the point that is made by John Cage in 4'33''. And I don't have any disagreement with that point. But since 4'33'' isn't really supposed to be enjoyed the same way other pieces of music are, but rather it is supposed to make that "point", why not just clearly state the point in words? Maybe that wouldn't be as effective and provoke as much discussion. But on the flipside, maybe contemporary art music would have just a little bit better reputation without 4'33'' - it is the go-to piece for anti-modernists when they want to prove that modern composers are a bunch of charlatans.
> 
> If without 4'33'' people wouldn't have realized that any sounds can be music I'll accept it as "conceptually important" but *otherwise it strikes me as a somewhat trollish way of saying something that's fairly obvious.*


Agree entirely, your final sentence says it all.


----------



## Blake

Victor Redseal said:


> It would? I'll tell that to everyone at work tomorrow.
> 
> Sounds don't have to be infinite. The point is that we have no control over the situation. Cage even went into a sound-proofed chamber to hear complete silence and ending up hearing his own blood rushing through his veins similar to the sound of a train in the distance. You can't get away from it. It's like meditation where some phony guru tells you to sit quietly and still your mind. You can't still your mind--not even for a second, a nano-second. The only way you ever could is to become unaware of anything at all, not even the passage of time. You achieve that state during dreamless sleep but I wouldn't call that meditation, I would it call it dreamless sleep. The truth is, you're not responsible for your thoughts. If you were, then stop having them. You can't. They're always there. You are responsible for how you choose to act on them but not just for having them. We all have them but act on them differently.
> 
> Religious and cultic leaders have always known this. They tell you to stop having lustful thoughts or stop desiring things, stop committing adultery in your heart. Sure--when I'm dead. Otherwise it ain't happening. But dopes buy into that and when they inevitably fail, they feel worthless and guilty and are then ripe to be exploited. If they only knew that they have no control over that. No one does. You will lust and desire your way to your grave however far into the future that is. Just accept it and keep it in perspective (i.e. don't take it so serious) and you'll be reasonably happy. That's why religious zealots are idiots. Only an idiot thinks he can control his thoughts and his wants and then worries himself to death when he can't and thinks he can remedy the situation (i.e. save his everlasting butt a.k.a. "doing the lord's work") by trying to keep the rest of us from lusting and wanting. Something he can't even do for himself.
> 
> So, no, sounds are not infinite. In fact, it's just a brick wall. You hit it and that's it. You can go no further except in abstract conception (i.e. I can imagine complete silence but I will never experience it). So, at best, silence is just a relative thing. Perhaps a grand symphony is silence compared to some other state.


I agree with a lot of what you've said. To look towards the manifest world of constant noise and flux for some kind of experience of "silence" seems completely futile. That wasn't what I was saying. How is a person to experience silence? The very individual who would experience it is noise itself, haha.

... which is probably what you were saying in a nutshell.

Although, at the edge of all perception there does seem to be this encompassing void. As everything is finite, nothing happens beyond a point... not even you or me. That's what I would consider true silence, but again, who's to experience it?


----------



## Dim7

ArtMusic said:


> Agree entirely, your final sentence says it all.


Well if you consider the point obvious I hope that means you have no problem accepting that water can be used as a musical instrument


----------



## Guest

No way to prove this, of course, but I'd venture to guess that not one person who calls the idea of 4'33" simple and obvious would have ever in a million years have come up with the idea themselves.

Now that it's been done, everyone and their armchairs thinks that it's bloody obvious.

The wheel, bloody obvious.

E=mc2, bloody obvious.

And just by the way, it is intended to be listened to like any other piece of music. That's the point. That the sounds that a composer does not intend can give musical pleasure to a listener. Not, I hasten to add, that every listener will like them--since someone is bound to rush in with that non sequitur--just that the possibility is there. Not something anyone had given any thought to before Cage.


----------



## Guest

They laughed when I said this thread could get to a 1000.

Well, I did anyway.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

dogen said:


> They laughed when I said this thread could get to a 1000.


well, they're not laughing now


----------



## Guest

Headphone Hermit said:


> well, they're not laughing now


That's right, and I thought I was going out on a limb since I said it at post 563


----------



## ArtMusic

Dim7 said:


> Well if you consider the point obvious I hope that means you have no problem accepting that water can be used as a musical instrument


Of course water can be used as an instrument, anything can. But usage of water as a musical instrumental will certainly fall short of musical expression from standard melody instruments of the orchestra. And going back to 4'33", I could indeed perform 4'33" using a bowl of water as the instrument. That would be a very innovating way of interpreting 4'33".


----------



## Guest

"For any instrument or group of instruments and lasting any length of time."


----------



## ArtMusic

some guy said:


> "For any instrument or group of instruments and lasting any length of time."


Was that for 4'33" instrumentation?


----------



## violadude

ArtMusic said:


> Was that for 4'33" instrumentation?


Nope, they're the instructions to "In C" by Terry Riley.

Minimalist, very diatonic. Pure and simple 

Edit: Come to think of it, why would a piece titled "*4 Minutes and thirty-three seconds*" be "for any length of time", anyway?


----------



## Skilmarilion

some guy said:


> No way to prove this, of course, but I'd venture to guess that not one person who calls the idea of 4'33" simple and obvious would have ever in a million years have come up with the idea themselves.


Well, in theory people could have come up with a similar idea before Cage, except that i) they didn't think that it would be music and so wouldn't even attempt to pass it off as such; ii) how could someone who is not a composer get such an idea 'out there'?

A lot of this conceptual stuff could have been thought of by a hell of a lot of other people, if they weren't deluded in believing that you must have some grand artistic ability to proclaim yourself an _*artist*_.


----------



## Dim7

some guy said:


> No way to prove this, of course, but I'd venture to guess that not one person who calls the idea of 4'33" simple and obvious would have ever in a million years have come up with the idea themselves.
> 
> Now that it's been done, everyone and their armchairs thinks that it's bloody obvious.
> 
> The wheel, bloody obvious.
> 
> E=mc2, bloody obvious.
> 
> And just by the way, it is intended to be listened to like any other piece of music. That's the point. That the sounds that a composer does not intend can give musical pleasure to a listener. Not, I hasten to add, that every listener will like them--since someone is bound to rush in with that non sequitur--just that the possibility is there. *Not something anyone had given any thought to before Cage.*


I question the part I bolded. I'm pretty sure that before Cage people have enjoyed sounds of nature etc., and that before Cage people have accidentally hit a note they didn't intend on a piano and found musical pleasure in the wrong note, possibly more pleasure than they would have found in the right note. You may not believe me, but I have found sounds around me not intended by any composer "cool" before hearing anything about Cage.

Even setting aside how obvious the point is - I admit it is not completely obvious to everyone - why not simply clearly say in words "Hey, have you ever thought about how sounds not intended to be musical can be kinda cool?" rather than make it a confusing "piece" that has made Cage a "charlatan" in many people's minds? I admit that it would have never occurred to me to make that point the way Cage did.


----------



## ArtMusic

some guy said:


> ....Not something anyone had given any thought to before Cage.


That's because composers wanted to create music, not the negation of it with silence, which was what Cage did with 4'33". Unfortunately for Cage though, it has come at his posterity's expense for example with over seventy pages of thread discussion of the piece but nothing of near equal length in discussion on his other musical works. The irony is Cage seems best remembered for 4'33" and not much else musically speaking.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> That's because composers wanted to create music, not the negation of it with silence, which was what Cage did with 4'33". Unfortunately for Cage though, it has come at his posterity's expense for example with over seventy pages of thread discussion of the piece but nothing of near equal length in discussion on his other musical works. The irony is Cage seems best remembered for 4'33" and not much else musically speaking.


That might be so, Art. So, what have _you_ listened to by Cage other than the piece under scrutiny, here?


----------



## Guest

I've always enjoyed this string quartet by Cage:


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Was that for 4'33" instrumentation?


Yes.

It's right there on the printed score, the Peters' version, anyway.


----------



## Guest

Skilmarilion said:


> Well, in theory people could have come up with a similar idea before Cage, except that i) they didn't think that it would be music and so wouldn't even attempt to pass it off as such; ii) how could someone who is not a composer get such an idea 'out there'?


I knew I would not have to wait long for this particular classic bit of misdirection.

I don't like X, and this is why: A.

But A is no reason to dislike X.

B. B is why I dislike X.

Shift positions all you like. And I, for my part, will note them--or not--depending on how I feel at the time.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> That's because composers wanted to create music, not the negation of it with silence, which was what Cage did with 4'33". Unfortunately for Cage though, it has come at his posterity's expense for example with over seventy pages of thread discussion of the piece but nothing of near equal length in discussion on his other musical works. The irony is Cage seems best remembered for 4'33" and not much else musically speaking.


Over seventy pages that you have pretty obviously not read or understood.

4'33" is not the negation of anything.

And "silence" as a physical reality does not exist except in very specific circumstances. Before writing this piece, Cage had redefined "silence" as not "the absence of sound," which is very rare, but as the sounds that are not under the direct control of the composer. Perform 4'33" near a factory or an artillery range, and it will be a very noisy piece indeed. Did you not catch the dozens of times that that very point has been made on this very thread?


----------



## ArtMusic

some guy said:


> Over seventy pages that you have pretty obviously not read or understood.
> 
> 4'33" is not the negation of anything.
> 
> And "silence" as a physical reality does not exist except in very specific circumstances. Before writing this piece, Cage had redefined "silence" as not "the absence of sound," which is very rare, but as the sounds that are not under the direct control of the composer. Perform 4'33" near a factory or an artillery range, and it will be a very noisy piece indeed. Did you not catch the dozens of times that that very point has been made on this very thread?


In my opinion, 4'33" is indeed the negation of conscious musical composition. There is nothing directly under the control of Cage and performers when someone (anyone) perform it. It is *also* the negation of musical performance of everything that was refined by man for thousands of years.


----------



## Dim7

Rather than being a negation of anything, I find 4'33'' excessively maximalist... it embraces everything.


----------



## ArtMusic

Dim7 said:


> Rather than being a negation of anything, I find 4'33'' excessively maximalist... it embraces everything.


How so?

//////


----------



## Guest

Wow. 76 pages, many of which explain, in excruciating detail, and multiple times, "how so."

And you really, seriously can ask, now, after all of that, "how so"?

Wow.


----------



## ArtMusic

some guy said:


> Wow. 76 pages, many of which explain, in excruciating detail, and multiple times, "how so."
> 
> And you really, seriously can ask, now, after all of that, "how so"?
> 
> Wow.


I really doubt it. The discussion, and as statistical evidence, more than enough point to the piece as being infamous, as a negation of what all composers and musicians do and have done for thousands of years.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> I really doubt it. The discussion, and as statistical evidence, *more than enough point to the piece as being infamous, as a negation of what all composers and musicians do and have done for thousands of years*.


What, so Cage was a genius for "doing different"? Nah, Art, come on !!!!


----------



## ArtMusic

TalkingHead said:


> What, so Cage was a genius for "doing different"? Nah, Art, come on !!!!


I don't understand your post about Cage being a genius.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> I don't understand your post about Cage being a genius.


Me neither. But you know, Art, Cage is _never_ going to go away. He'll be haunting the music history books for centuries to come. Imagine: centuries !!


----------



## ArtMusic

TalkingHead said:


> Me neither. But you know, Art, Cage is _never_ going to go away. He'll be haunting the music history books for centuries to come. Imagine: centuries !!


I agree with that. But that's not my concern. It's the quality of recognition during the centuries to come that is of greater concern. 76 pages of it is giving sufficient indication.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> I agree with that. But that's not my concern. It's the quality of recognition during the centuries to come that is of greater concern. 76 pages of it is giving sufficient indication.


Opinion seems to be pretty divided, Art, wouldn't you say? The jury's out, and there will be no verdict in our lifetime! In the meantime, pull up a chair, take off your boots and have a listen:


----------



## ArtMusic

TalkingHead said:


> Opinion seems to be pretty divided, Art, wouldn't you say? The jury's out, and there will be no verdict in our lifetime! In the meantime, pull up a chair, take off your boots and have a listen:


Quodlibet is a much, much better piece than 4'33".


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Quodlibet is a much, much better piece than 4'33".


Yes, I find it more engaging, more interesting, I won't deny it. That said, I still think 4'33" is a provocative and highly stimulating idea and I'm grateful to Cage for it.


----------



## ArtMusic

TalkingHead said:


> Yes, I find it more engaging, more interesting, I won't deny it. That said, I still think 4'33" is a provocative and highly stimulating idea and I'm grateful to Cage for it.


I see. I find 4'33" provocative, yes but I don't find it highly stimulating idea nor am I grateful to Cage for it. I think his musical talents should have been more concentrated on pieces like Quo.


----------



## SimonNZ




----------



## Ingélou

SimonNZ said:


>


Brilliant, Simon! 
A great metaphor for the whole thread & the inveterate posters on both sides of the question.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

SimonNZ said:


>


Well, that just about sums up this entire thread then.


----------



## Guest

The _whole _thread? I think not. Before a dead horse can be flogged, it has to be killed first.


----------



## Ingélou

I think the problem was that the OP presented the horse as if it were Pegasus. So it started off dead, in a manner of speaking.


----------



## DeepR

4'33" is good because it exists. 4'33" exists so it is good. I know it's ridiculous, but there's nothing you can do about it. Every negative opinion on 4'33" is easily invalidated. The nature of the piece takes it beyond criticism and we're just going to have to live with it. /thread


----------



## Guest

DeepR said:


> Every negative opinion on 4'33" is easily invalidated.


The nature of validation and invalidation cannot be so easily swept aside.


----------



## Guest

Ingélou said:


> I think the problem was that the OP presented the horse as if it were Pegasus. So it started off dead, in a manner of speaking.


Hmmm...I disagreed fairly early on with the premise of the OP, but that didn't prevent some worthy posting on the merits and demerits of the piece in question. Only those who've seen it all before too often (in many other threads) might want to talk about dead horses. For those arriving to the dispute for the first time, it might have provided some invaluable insights...

...just not for 77 pages!


----------



## mmsbls

MacLeod said:


> Hmmm...I disagreed fairly early on with the premise of the OP, but that didn't prevent some worthy posting on the merits and demerits of the piece in question. Only those who've seen it all before too often (in many other threads) might want to talk about dead horses. For those arriving to the dispute for the first time, it might have provided some invaluable insights...
> 
> ...just not for 77 pages!


I gave this post a like, but I would have given it 5 likes if I could. It's true that there were plenty of posts that I felt did not add anything to the discussion; however, there were some interesting and well written arguments both pro and con. 4'33" is a provocative work that causes many to think about it's thesis. Further, a work like 4'33" is bound to be misunderstood by many. This thread contains many clear descriptions of what 4'33" is and what it is not so that those without this knowledge could learn.

Expecting a "perfect" thread on the internet simply sets one up for a letdown. Controversial threads will often contain posts which veer from the thread topic, are confrontational (in a bad way), push the Terms of Service, or contain misunderstandings and errors. But if there is enough "meat" in the thread to cause one to think, I think it's a success. I felt similarly about the longer "What is the Point of Atonal Music" thread.


----------



## Albert7

KenOC said:


> John Adams is always agreeable. A problem. After all, was Beethoven agreeable?


Okay, John Luther Adams gives his thumbs up on this referral.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Remember, of course, that my favorite argument in favor of 4'33" is that it's not much different from many of the pieces of musique concrete done in the 50s-70s. It's very similar in mood in spirit. Getting hung up on "there's no music it's all silence" misses the point.

I think this argument got lost in the large number of pages.


----------



## Woodduck

It appears that flogging a dead horse enables one to plow the same field numerous times.

This could revolutionize agriculture.


----------



## isorhythm

ArtMusic said:


> I see. I find 4'33" provocative, yes but I don't find it highly stimulating idea nor am I grateful to Cage for it. I think his musical talents should have been more concentrated on pieces like Quo.


The pieces actually share a basic idea, which is to remove the ego of the composer from the music. Cage composed his quartet (of which Quodlibet is a movement) using a process that didn't give him very much choice about how it sounds.

It's all informed by his Buddhism and his belief that the purpose of music is "to sober and quiet the mind, thus making it susceptible to divine influences."


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> The pieces actually share a basic idea, which is to *remove the ego of the composer from the music. *Cage composed his quartet (of which Quodlibet is a movement) using a process that didn't give him very much choice about how it sounds.
> 
> It's all informed by his Buddhism and his belief that the purpose of music is "to sober and quiet the mind, thus making it susceptible to divine influences."


Ego cannot be removed from any consciously chosen action. Ego is affirmed in the very effort of denying it. The Buddhist, or any seeker of wisdom, runs smack up against this paradox, and ego will cease to be a problem for him only when he realizes that he is centered in something larger than ego, which then stops trying self-consciously to prove itself and simply assumes its legitimate place and function in his life. Wisdom is not self-loss, but self-transcendence.

The act of eliminating ego from music by not choosing how it sounds - or not making any sounds - is a game which has nothing to do with either the pursuit or attainment of wisdom. Or, for that matter, musical composition.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Ego cannot be removed from any consciously chosen action. Ego is affirmed in the very effort of denying it. The Buddhist, or any seeker of wisdom, runs smack up against this paradox, and ego will cease to be a problem for him only when he realizes that he is centered in something larger than ego, which then stops trying self-consciously to prove itself and simply assumes its legitimate place and function in his life. Wisdom is not self-loss, but self-transcendence.
> 
> The act of eliminating ego from music by not choosing how it sounds - or not making any sounds - is a game which has nothing to do with either the pursuit or attainment of wisdom. Or, for that matter, musical composition.


Yes, but Boulez and Cage did not realize this yet, and that's what makes their art so fascinating!


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> It appears that flogging a dead horse enables one to plow the same field numerous times.
> 
> This could revolutionize agriculture.


...or result in an abundance of horse manure!


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, but Boulez and Cage did not realize this yet, and that's what makes their art so fascinating!


That's an interesting observation, million. It's a perspective which ought to reign in our impulse to make pretentious pronouncements. Not that anything will ever do that, of course.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Ego cannot be removed from any consciously chosen action. Ego is affirmed in the very effort of denying it. The Buddhist, or any seeker of wisdom, runs smack up against this paradox, and ego will cease to be a problem for him only when he realizes that he is centered in something larger than ego, which then stops trying self-consciously to prove itself and simply assumes its legitimate place and function in his life. Wisdom is not self-loss, but self-transcendence.
> 
> The act of eliminating ego from music *by not choosing how it sounds* - or not making any sounds - is a game which has nothing to do with either the pursuit or attainment of wisdom. Or, for that matter, musical composition.


Does that apply to Bach's _Die Kunst der Fuge_? Not specifying the instrumentation _very much_ affects how a work _sounds_. I have no idea of the role of Bach's ego in that, of course. In one _my_ student compositions (how dare I mention Bach and my own lame efforts in the same sentence!) I chose purposely to include a passage lasting a minute or so that deployed 'pre-composed' fragments (or 'modules', if one prefers) that I scored to be played randomly by the orchestra. For me it was not a game and had _everything_ to do with composition. I found it fun to relinquish compositional 'authority' over how the notes I had composed behaved. For a short moment, in any case.


----------



## isorhythm

The composer's ego can certainly be more or less present in music. By the late 19th century, it was _very_ present. Some 20th century composers wanted to get away from that.

I agree, though, that the composer's ego can't actually be eliminated from a creative work. The Western classical "composer" model isn't compatible with that. More communal ways of making music might be.


----------



## Ilarion

millionrainbows said:


> Why do members here frequently disparage and invalidate *John Cage's 4'33",* _which is essentially a sacred statement,_ while Western/Christian forms of sacred music seem to get much more respect, and have their own forum?
> 
> Surely this implies that these *Western* forms of sacred music deserve a special degree of respect, while *4'33"* seems to be "open game" for disparaging posts, threads, and comments.


With utmost respect and humility to the originator of this thread: Sir, do you have a dog in this fight? Are you John Cage in person? What, praytell, is the reason for your animus vis a vi other works which generate alot of "traction" towards them?
Help me understand, ok? Full disclosure: I am no fan of Cage's output - As a music historian, I view him and his output as a subject of dispassionate research.

Respectfully yours...


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Ilarion said:


> With utmost respect and humility to the originator of this thread: Sir, do you have a dog in this fight? Are you John Cage in person? What, praytell, is the reason for your animus vis a vi other works which generate alot of "traction" towards them?
> Help me understand, ok? Full disclosure: I am no fan of Cage's output - As a music historian, I view him and his output as a subject of dispassionate research.
> 
> Respectfully yours...


The truth is that we really do love Cage's 4'33" and Cage's music in general.

I suggest starting with the prepared piano concerto:






It's a beautiful work.


----------



## Ilarion

SeptimalTritone said:


> The truth is that we really do love Cage's 4'33" and Cage's music in general.
> 
> I suggest starting with the prepared piano concerto:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a beautiful work.


Now I'm confused...SeptimalTritone and millionrainbows...Are you guys, perchance, related or just have the same interest in Cage? Ahhh yes, my question answered itself - a common interest in Cage. A long time ago I had noticed heated exchanges on Magle International Music Forum betwixt a member named "someguy" and some others whose forum names I have forgotten. It was about contemporary music or something like that. "Someguy" really had a passion for contemporary music and he succinctly argued his case. Many years ago I was also passionately argumentative about certain composers and their works...Nowadays, I don't invest myself personally, ergo, have an emotional attachment in any composers person or output. Insofar as contemporary music is concerned, what criteria are used to delineate the discussion? If the piece was composed on the 11th of May 2015 or the 20th or 21st century, if it is serial atonality or melodic melismas like Rachmaninov, or Messiaen or Frank Ferko or Michael Tork? Methinks some of the "great battles" fought out on music forums betwixt members is caused by misunderstandings about what defines contemporary music. If one listens to certain music and is smitten by it then, by golly, Go for It! Maybe someone else might not share the same feelings about the choices made. But please, let not the like or dislike for the choice conscribe human discourse.

Respectfully yours...


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Well Ilarion I hope you find your way in the music you do decide to listen to, whether it be Cage or not. Have fun man!

And BTW some guy is on this forum too, and is our greatest supporter of contemporary music


----------



## Ilarion

SeptimalTritone said:


> Well Ilarion I hope you find your way in the music you do decide to listen to, whether it be Cage or not. Have fun man!
> 
> And BTW some guy is on this forum too, and is our greatest supporter of contemporary music


I am 53 summers old and began performing music when I was 4. It began with Bach and it is still developing...Like an Eternal Timeline. BTW, I got to know this fellow in Germany:






Ps: Cage's Suite for Toy Piano does have a sweet charm to it...:tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

Ilarion said:


> With utmost respect and humility to the originator of this thread: Sir, do you have a dog in this fight? Are you John Cage in person? What, praytell, is the reason for your animus vis a vi other works which generate alot of "traction" towards them?
> Help me understand, ok? Full disclosure: I am no fan of Cage's output - As a music historian, I view him and his output as a subject of dispassionate research.
> 
> Respectfully yours...


The reason I think Cage might be so universally disliked or discounted, ignored, is because of the things he represents, which are perceived to be 'un-American' to many, and are, indeed, at odds with much of American tradition.

Cage embodies the 'individual' maverick artist in music, which is more common in art than it is in music. Beethoven might be an exception, but he was part of the tradition, whereas Cage is a real departure.

The form of Buddhism Cage subscribed to was Zen, which is an 'individual' form compared to other doctrinaire forms such as Nichiren.

These doctrinaire, socially-oriented forms of religion are congruent with the aims of society and socialization; whwereas Zen is a more cloistered form.

The purpose of most 'above-ground' religions, besides their ostensible purpose of obtaining spiritual awareness, is that of social control and adherence to common social strictures, within the social fabric itself. Many times this social function becomes the overriding purpose for its existence.

In this sense, the kind artist which Cage embodied is viewed, at best, with grudging tolerance or downright suspicion.

Cage came from the 1950s, a time when hysteria and fear ruled. There was the threat of hydrogen bombs and Communists behind every door.

Now, in the present, new fears are added: terrorism, mass shootings, and the new fear of 'sociopaths' and 'crazy people' behind every door. Dr. Phil McGraw is now throwing the term 'sociopath' around freely, applying it to anyone who is not fully 'normal.'

All in all, I'd say it's a bad time to be John Cage.


----------



## breakup

4'33" is disparaged because it is an insult to everyone who appreciates any kind of real music. It's an insult to the listener, the performers, and the conductor, any conductor or performer who participates willingly deserves whatever negative reaction they get. And the listener who deliberately goes to a concert with this included deserves the experience, a totally negative one.


----------



## mmsbls

breakup said:


> 4'33" is disparaged because it is an insult to everyone who appreciates any kind of real music. It's an insult to the listener, the performers, and the conductor, any conductor or performer who participates willingly deserves whatever negative reaction they get. And the listener who deliberately goes to a concert with this included deserves the experience, a totally negative one.


I can easily understand why someone would not enjoy 4'33" or not consider it music of any kind. But I don't really understand why the work is an insult to those who appreciate music. The work has a purpose in showing people that what they normally consider background noise (unwanted sounds that, if anything, intrudes on our listening experience) can be thought of in a positive sense as interesting sound (maybe even music to some).

Generally I hate the crickets in my backyard because they make noise that is loud and interferes with my life. I wish that noise were completely gone. Still, I'm sure that I could decide to go outside and just listen to them. Listen to the variation, the rhythm, the timbre, and I'm pretty sure I could enjoy that experience for some period of time. Similarly, growing up in New York City, I found much of the traffic noise a complete bother. Again, if I sat outside and focused on the noise, it would be fascinating (at least for awhile).

Cage's general idea may not be an enjoyable musical experience or even a musical experience, but his idea is (or was) new and insightful. I don't see it as music, but I certainly don't view it as an insult.


----------



## arpeggio

breakup said:


> 4'33" is disparaged because it is an insult to everyone who appreciates any kind of real music. It's an insult to the listener, the performers, and the conductor, any conductor or performer who participates willingly deserves whatever negative reaction they get. And the listener who deliberately goes to a concert with this included deserves the experience, a totally negative one.


Wow! Do you honestly believe you are the first one who has stated the above here. We have been reading observations like this for years. You have just alienated a large body of members of TC for what? There are a few members who are jumping up with joy because of a new ally. They are still a minority.

FYI there is another thread that is creating kind of post-1950 hall of fame.

See: http://www.talkclassical.com/37569-tc-top-recommended-post.html

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mwxYu-3S5IsulilS4eSpuX0p97lQbRwBMeshONRfoGA/edit?pli=1

_433_ and many other works which you probably do not approve of are on that list.

Welcome to TC. You are going to have to realize that most of the members here have very diverse tastes and are open minded and tolerant. Except for SPEOE's who think if they do not like something it is not any good. You do not have to like _433_. Many of us do not. But we do not try to provoke the members who do.

One of my problems with people who have hostile observations concerning contemporary music is based on my experiences working with various community orchestras: http://www.talkclassical.com/31317-rant-horrible-music-composers-9.html#post639571

I love your "real music" remark. I play with a community concert band. A few years ago we performed a piece by Hindemith. It was interesting listening to some of our more conservative members complaining that is was not "real music" and no one would like it. It ended up being the most popular work on the program. So much for no one wanted to hear "unreal" music.


----------



## arpeggio

mmsbls said:


> I can easily understand why someone would not enjoy 4'33" or not consider it music of any kind. But I don't really understand why the work is an insult to those who appreciate music. The work has a purpose in showing people that what they normally consider background noise (unwanted sounds that, if anything, intrudes on our listening experience) can be thought of in a positive sense as interesting sound (maybe even music to some).
> 
> Generally I hate the crickets in my backyard because they make noise that is loud and interferes with my life. I wish that noise were completely gone. Still, I'm sure that I could decide to go outside and just listen to them. Listen to the variation, the rhythm, the timbre, and I'm pretty sure I could enjoy that experience for some period of time. Similarly, growing up in New York City, I found much of the traffic noise a complete bother. Again, if I sat outside and focused on the noise, it would be fascinating (at least for awhile).
> 
> Cage's general idea may not be an enjoyable musical experience or even a musical experience, but his idea is (or was) new and insightful. I don't see it as music, but I certainly don't view it as an insult.


As usual your response was much better than mine.


----------



## breakup

mmsbls said:


> I can easily understand why someone would not enjoy 4'33" or not consider it music of any kind. But I don't really understand why the work is an insult to those who appreciate music. The work has a purpose in showing people that what they normally consider background noise (unwanted sounds that, if anything, intrudes on our listening experience) can be thought of in a positive sense as interesting sound (maybe even music to some).


Cage's work is insulting because it is *not music* masquerading as music. It's a religious exercise and should be treated as such and preformed in the appropriate religious setting, not in a concert hall. If your stated purpose is correct, it fails, because in a hall there is little background noise to be aware of, that would be better experienced in the woods for the sounds of nature, or in the city where the traffic noise would be evident. Take his music there, you don't even need the conductor or the performers, their time would be better spent actually performing real music.


----------



## breakup

My only real qualification for real music is musical instruments making some kind of sound, when they do not, it's not music. If the concert goers want a religious experience they can go on a retreat, and have at it. I'm content to have my religious experiences where I am, I really don't have to go anywhere.


----------



## mmsbls

breakup said:


> Cage's work is insulting because it is *not music* masquerading as music. It's a religious exercise and should be treated as such and preformed in the appropriate religious setting, not in a concert hall. If your stated purpose is correct, it fails, because in a hall there is little background noise to be aware of, that would be better experienced in the woods for the sounds of nature, or in the city where the traffic noise would be evident. Take his music there, you don't even need the conductor or the performers, their time would be better spent actually performing real music.


Perhaps an outdoor performance would interest more people. Cage did intend it as a performance, and most performances are inside. There certainly is "background noise" in the hall so the performance does allow people to focus on those sounds.

You do not consider 4'33" to be music, and neither do I. I understand what Cage intended (at least most of what he intended), and I view it, in some sense, as an attempt to open up the definition of music. His work convinced some that non-intended sounds can be music. He did not convince me, but he made me think more about what exactly is music. I like people who make me think.

You say 4'33" masquerades as music. But that would mean that Cage knew it was not music and tried to trick everyone. Yet he honestly believed it to be music. So maybe he failed (according to you) in his honest attempt, but I'm still unsure where the insult lies.


----------



## Morimur

Music can be whatever one wishes. Nature is a good source of music — I do love listening to the sound of crickets whilst enshrouded in complete darkness. The sound of traffic? Not so much. I hate large cities.


----------



## breakup

Morimur said:


> Music can be whatever one wishes. Nature is a good source of music - I do love listening to the sound of crickets whilst enshrouded in complete darkness. The sound of traffic? Not so much. I hate large cities.


I live in the woods, and the sounds of nature are everywhere. My one daughter lives in Brooklyn and we occasionally visit her, while I wouldn't want to live there, I still hear the sounds of the city as the sounds of life and living. FYI, I don't believe the sounds of crickets are the dominant sounds in the woods.


----------



## arpeggio

I am concerned that I may violate the TOS but I have to get something off of my chest. I will try not to be disparaging. I will go ahead now and apologize to the moderators if I cross the line.

Some the above remarks remind me of some of the disputes that I have had with the board members of the some of the groups that I played with. Check out the link in my post 1107.

OK. Ken and breakup you are correct. _433_ is not music and should never be performed.

Where do we draw the line?

Ken, from previous posts I know that you admire the Holst _Hammersmith_. One of your posts concerning it: http://www.talkclassical.com/22354-concert-band-thread.html?highlight=hammersmith#post382019. (Unfortunately the link to the YouTube video of the performance is lost. It is easy to find a good performance on You Tube)

I had the opportunity to perform the work about fifteen years ago. The results were very mixed. Some of the band members hated it. They did not considerate it "real music". Sadly we had a very mixed reaction from the audience as well. Most of them despised it. There were some who loved it. I learned that arguments like the _Rite_ premier broke out between members of the audience.

Disgruntle audience member, "I hate the music. When is it going to end?"

Response, "Please keep quite. I am trying to listen to it."

Ken, if we take your aesthetics to their logical conclusions, we should never perform or discuss _Hammersmith_ because there was an audience who though it was not "real music".

Another piece that I performed that had a very negative reaction from the audience, Carolyn Bremer's _Early Light_: 



. Check it out. It is a fantasy on the "Star Bangle Banner". I thought is was "real music". Most of the audience hated it!!! 

I get very doubtful when I run into someone who gets on soapbox and proclaims to the world that they just happen to know what "real music" is.

Ken and breakup, I am positive that there is music out there that you admire that many would not consider "real music".


----------



## breakup

arpeggio said:


> I am concerned that I may violate the TOS but I have to get something off of my chest. I will try not to be disparaging. I will go ahead now and apologize to the moderators if I cross the line.
> 
> Some the above remarks remind me of some of the disputes that I have had with the board members of the some of the groups that I play with. Check out the link in my post 1107.
> 
> OK. Ken and breakup you are correct. _433_ is not music and should never be performed.
> 
> Where do we draw the line?
> 
> Ken, from previous posts I know that you admire the Holst _Hammersmith_. One of your posts concerning it: http://www.talkclassical.com/22354-concert-band-thread.html?highlight=hammersmith#post382019. (Unfortunately the link to the YouTube video of the performance is lost. It is easy to find a good performance on You Tube)
> 
> I had the opportunity to perform the work about fifteen years ago. The results were very mixed. Some of the band members hated it. They did not considerate it "real music". Sadly we had a very mixed reaction from the audience as well. Most of them despised it. There were some who loved it. I learned that arguments like the _Rite_ premier broke out between members of the audience.
> 
> Disgruntle audience member, "I hate the music. When is it going to end?"
> 
> Response, "Please keep quite. I am trying to listen to it."
> 
> Ken, if we take your aesthetics to their logical conclusions, we should never perform or discuss _Hammersmith_ because there was an audience who though it was not "real music".
> 
> Another piece that I performed that had a very negative reaction from the audience, Carolyn Bremer's _Early Light_:
> 
> 
> 
> . Check it out. It is a fantasy on the "Star Bangle Banner". I thought is was "real music". Most of the audience hated it!!!
> 
> I get very doubtful when I run into someone who gets on soapbox and proclaims to the world that they just happen to know what "real music" is.
> 
> Ken and breakup, I am positive that there is music out there that you admire that many would not consider "real music".


When I was in college, I was in the orchestra, the trumpet section. One of the pieces we performed was Bolero, which I understand was written by Ravel as an orchestra exercise and not as a concert piece. So in this case the composer didn't consider the piece as music to be performed, but as something for an orchestra to use to learn how to play. I believe that now it is one of Ravel's most popular pieces, I wonder what Ravel would think of that situation.


----------



## KenOC

Bolero was written as a ballet, commissioned by dancer Ida Rubinstein. It was certainly intended for public performance. Ravel later jokingly disparaged it, but I suspect he was actually quite proud of it and pleased at its popular success.


----------



## breakup

KenOC said:


> Bolero was written as a ballet, commissioned by dancer Ida Rubinstein. It was certainly intended for public performance. Ravel later jokingly disparaged it, but I suspect he was actually quite proud of it and pleased at its popular success.


When I played it, the popular story was that it was written as an exercise, I'm sure later research has changed that perception, and corrected what may or may not have been the truth of the situation. You may believe what you like, I know what the piece sounds like.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> 4'33" [...] is an insult [etc]


No, it isn't...

("The rest is silence")


----------



## Guest

Regarding the OP:

Did Cage say that 4’33” was a “sacred statement”?

(I know that he was interested in Zen Buddhism, but was this presumably in terms of its philosophy; I do not think that he was a practicing Buddhist.)


----------



## Guest

Thanks arpeggio, for keeping up the counter-arguments.

They will not, and I know you already know this, have any effect on anyone who hates _4'33"._

They do, however, provide some sense of comfort to those who do not.

So here's maybe some comfort for you:

To breakup and Ken, I have loved music since I was a small child. I have performed in many ensembles and have attended thousands of concerts. I run an online music magazine and have met dozens of composers and performers in the process of running that thing. While I took English degrees, I was always to be found in the music departments of the colleges and universities I attended, so much so that many colleagues thought, and continue to think even now, thirty to forty years later, that I was a music major.

I am, in short, a music lover. Cage's 4'33" does not insult me in any way. It does not slap me in the face or upset me in any way. I think it is an important piece because it focusses attention on things that are usually ignored; it validates things the were formerly thought to be invalid. It is also important because it is a practical demonstration for composers of how to attend to sound itself rather than how to use sound in order to express oneself.

It's odd that you two should feel so personally insulted by this piece. I'm going to guess that Cage did not know either of you. As well, perhaps you were not aware that he did nothing about his idea for this piece for an entire decade, fearing exactly these kinds of responses, and concluding that they would completely drown any of the piece's actual values. He was right about that, but finally decided to do it, anyway, after seeing and not being at all insulted by some of Rauschenberg's White paintings.

Well, it's too bad you two feel insulted, but please don't include me, a music lover, in your screeds. Cage's piece does not insult every music lover. Quite the contrary.


----------



## Nereffid

KenOC said:


> Bolero was written as a ballet, commissioned by dancer Ida Rubinstein. It was certainly intended for public performance. Ravel later jokingly disparaged it, but I suspect he was actually quite proud of it and pleased at its popular success.


If I may continue this thread derailment...
From Gerald Larner's biography of Ravel:


> Although Ravel apparently had no initial objection to Ida Rubinstein's concept of the ballet... he was not at all sure about it when he actually saw it: 'very successful presentation, but picturesque, which it shouldn't have been.' What he missed was the factory, the industrial element which Roland-Manuel had perceived in the score and which the composer had probably not been consciously aware of as he worked on it. Five years later he was to declare that 'my Boléro owes its inception to a factory' and that he 'would like to stage it with a vast industrial works in the background.' He knew exactly which factory too. 'There's the Boléro factory!' he said to his brother more than once as they were driving through the industrial suburb of Le Vésinet on the road between Paris and Montfort.
> ... Though inspired by a professional emergency and though economical with creative effort to the point of parsimony, Boléro is absolutely fundamental Ravel. Only L'Heure espagnole represents as vividly the two sides of a musical personality formed, as the composer said, by 'the clicking and roaring of my father's machines' and 'the Spanish folk songs sung to me by my mother'.


----------



## breakup

some guy said:


> To breakup and Ken, I have loved music since I was a small child. I have performed in many ensembles and have attended thousands of concerts. I run an online music magazine and have met dozens of composers and performers in the process of running that thing. While I took English degrees, I was always to be found in the music departments of the colleges and universities I attended, so much so that many colleagues thought, and continue to think even now, thirty to forty years later, that I was a music major.
> 
> I am, in short, a music lover. Cage's 4'33" does not insult me in any way. It does not slap me in the face or upset me in any way. I think it is an important piece because it focusses attention on things that are usually ignored; it validates things the were formerly thought to be invalid. It is also important because it is a practical demonstration for composers of how to attend to sound itself rather than how to use sound in order to express oneself.
> 
> It's odd that you two should feel so personally insulted by this piece. I'm going to guess that Cage did not know either of you. As well, perhaps you were not aware that he did nothing about his idea for this piece for an entire decade, fearing exactly these kinds of responses, and concluding that they would completely drown any of the piece's actual values. He was right about that, but finally decided to do it, anyway, after seeing and not being at all insulted by some of Rauschenberg's White paintings.
> 
> Well, it's too bad you two feel insulted, but please don't include me, a music lover, in your screeds. Cage's piece does not insult every music lover. Quite the contrary.


It is my understanding that 4'33" is intended as a religious exercise and as such should be performed in the appropriate venue, but a concert hall is not appropriate. That is not to say that religious music should not be performed in concert, but that if music is to be performed then it should actually be music. FYI, I do not ignore the things (background noise) that many people complain about in a live concert, to me they are part of the ambience of the hall, if the music without the background noise is desired, then a studio recording would be the way to go. That you are not insulted or offended by this piece is OK, that is your opinion, I just don't share that opinion.

However I strongly believe that Art is not Accidental, but is a deliberate act of creativity by the artist. I do not accept that a person randomly throwing paint at a canvas is creating art. As soon as you remove the element of control from the process, you have lost the element of art.

If Cage's intention was to introduce listeners to a Zen Buddhist concept, there are much more effective means to do so. Unfortunately Zen has become popular with certain elements of society who actually have no understanding of Zen, but are expressing a PC version that has nothing to do with real Zen, and I believe Cage has fallen into that trap.

I would also consider myself a music lover, and classical music is my preferred genre. I often tell people that musically I prefer the oldies, but they are usually surprised when I state exactly which oldies I mean.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think it would be good therapy for everyone here to listen to 4'33" three times a day. Try it, and I'm sure you'll see a change.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> It is my understanding that 4'33" is intended as a religious exercise and as such should be performed in the appropriate venue, but a concert hall is not appropriate. That is not to say that religious music should not be performed in concert, but that if music is to be performed then it should actually be music. FYI, I do not ignore the things (background noise) that many people complain about in a live concert, to me they are part of the ambience of the hall, if the music without the background noise is desired, then a studio recording would be the way to go. That you are not insulted or offended by this piece is OK, that is your opinion, I just don't share that opinion.
> 
> However I strongly believe that Art is not Accidental, but is a deliberate act of creativity by the artist. I do not accept that a person randomly throwing paint at a canvas is creating art. As soon as you remove the element of control from the process, you have lost the element of art.
> 
> If Cage's intention was to introduce listeners to a Zen Buddhist concept, there are much more effective means to do so. Unfortunately Zen has become popular with certain elements of society who actually have no understanding of Zen, but are expressing a PC version that has nothing to do with real Zen, and I believe Cage has fallen into that trap.
> 
> I would also consider myself a music lover, and classical music is my preferred genre. I often tell people that musically I prefer the oldies, but they are usually surprised when I state exactly which oldies I mean.


On what do you base your understanding that it is intended as a religious work? Quote? Link? Source?


----------



## breakup

dogen said:


> On what do you base your understanding that it is intended as a religious work? Quote? Link? Source?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″

from the article,

"It was also a reflection of the influence of Zen Buddhism, which Cage studied since the late 1940s."


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″
> 
> from the article,
> 
> "It was also a reflection of the influence of Zen Buddhism, which Cage studied since the late 1940s."


Ok thanks. This confirms to me, ZB inspired his thinking behind the work, but personally I'm not aware he intended it as a " religious work." Studying is different than being a practitioner, which he had declared he was not, in effect. Others may disagree!


----------



## breakup

This is Zen Buddhism, or at least Cage's attempt to communicate it to others.

http://rosewhitemusic.com/piano/writings/silence-taught-john-cage/

from the article,

"The problem, however, is that Cage's understanding of silence could never be communicated directly through a piece of music of any kind, either with sounds or without them. He may have written 4′ 33″ to put the silent time structure on display, to make the origin of his music clear, but the best it can be is a pointer to this place, easily mistaken as the silence itself. I believe that Cage recognized this problem himself, as he downplayed the importance of 4′ 33″ as a work of music after its creation. It did not appear on the programs that he and Tudor put on in the 1950s, and while his first collection of essays and lectures may have been titled Silence, 4′ 33″ is not mentioned by name anywhere in its 276 pages.24 In interviews, even while affirming his devotion to silence, he gives little weight to 4′ 33″ itself. For example, he told Richard Kostelanetz, that "I wrote that piece [4′ 33″] in 1952. This is now 1966. I don't need that piece today."25"

Unfortunately Zen can't be described in words, and the concepts of Zen cannot be expressed by a silent orchestra, or other musician. With a performance of 4'33" the presence of the conductor and orchestra would be a distraction that would spoil any understanding of Zen. There is story of a Zen master explaining to a student, that when confronted with a finger pointing to the Moon, the intention is for the student to look at the Moon, not the finger pointing at the Moon. Likewise a performance of 4'33" would distract members of the audience from any real understanding of Zen Buddhism.


----------



## Guest

Interesting article. Very little of Zen Buddhism in it, and strangely silent (!) on a major--I would say the major--idea underlying the piece, that of intention. Pritchett, whom I thought was more reliable than this essay demonstrates, does mention the making/accepting dichotomy, but that brief mention comes in a context that emphasizes the idea of silence as quietness, which is not quite how Cage came to understand silence.

Of the numerous things he wrote about silence as unintentional sounds there is no mention in this article at all. But that's exactly what underlies _4'33",_ the idea of intentionality. In Western music up to that point, the sounds one heard in a piece were intended by a composer. Cage however had been noticing for a long time, that no matter how carefully he would measure and cut pieces of tape (for _Fontana Mix_ and _Williams Mix_), there would be error. Even more to the point, he had been noticing that no matter how carefully he measured, a bolt on the D string of one piano would sound different on the D string of another piano. And there's a comment, in _Silence,_ I'm pretty sure, about all the unintended sounds that occur in every performance of every piece of music, no matter how carefully the intended sounds are presented, no matter how carefully those sounds are isolated from other sounds.

These experiences led Cage to accept and then encourage the sounds that were outside his control. That's what _4'33_" is all about, letting go of control, which is maybe why Pritchett--I'm really bummed, by the way; I really did think he was more reliable--found so few references with the actual word "silence" in them. And what's more, the two most important experiences behind _4'33",_ the visit to an anechoic chamber and the encounter with Rauschenberg's white paintings, are not mentioned at all. Not even hinted at. Yet for Cage these were central to his thinking as he constructed _4'33"._

Anyway, there's really no conflict between noise and silence in Cage's thought. Silence, as he determined to his own satisfaction, was not the absence of sound but the presence of sounds that he was not intending. Quietness is something quite other. He explained--I recall this as being in _Silence_ as well--that it could very well be very loud and abrasive sounds that could do the work of quieting the mind. My youngest son had a practical experience of this on a trip we took once to San Diego, two hours from where we lived. I put on some Merzbow, you know, to help me stay awake driving. My son, however, sank into the sounds and went to sleep. When he woke up later, he said "Merzbow's really soothing, isn't it, Dad?"

Yes, son. Yes it is.


----------



## breakup

millionrainbows said:


> I think it would be good therapy for everyone here to listen to 4'33" three times a day. Try it, and I'm sure you'll see a change.


You may take my turn for me, let me know how it turns out.


----------



## pmsummer

Listen to it?

Shoot, I _perform_ it several times a day (although I do modify the performance timing, +/-).


----------



## breakup

pmsummer said:


> Listen to it?
> 
> Shoot, I _perform_ it several times a day (although I do modify the performance timing, +/-).


I'm not sure I would count a nap, but you do as you like. (I assume you don't snore during a performance?)


----------



## Ilarion

millionrainbows said:


> The reason I think Cage might be so universally disliked or discounted, ignored, is because of the things he represents, which are perceived to be 'un-American' to many, and are, indeed, at odds with much of American tradition.
> 
> Cage embodies the 'individual' maverick artist in music, which is more common in art than it is in music. Beethoven might be an exception, but he was part of the tradition, whereas Cage is a real departure.
> 
> The form of Buddhism Cage subscribed to was Zen, which is an 'individual' form compared to other doctrinaire forms such as Nichiren.
> 
> These doctrinaire, socially-oriented forms of religion are congruent with the aims of society and socialization; whwereas Zen is a more cloistered form.
> 
> The purpose of most 'above-ground' religions, besides their ostensible purpose of obtaining spiritual awareness, is that of social control and adherence to common social strictures, within the social fabric itself. Many times this social function becomes the overriding purpose for its existence.
> 
> In this sense, the kind artist which Cage embodied is viewed, at best, with grudging tolerance or downright suspicion.
> 
> Cage came from the 1950s, a time when hysteria and fear ruled. There was the threat of hydrogen bombs and Communists behind every door.
> 
> Now, in the present, new fears are added: terrorism, mass shootings, and the new fear of 'sociopaths' and 'crazy people' behind every door. Dr. Phil McGraw is now throwing the term 'sociopath' around freely, applying it to anyone who is not fully 'normal.'
> 
> All in all, I'd say it's a bad time to be John Cage.


Hey millionrainbows,

Trillions of thanx to you for your interesting comment to my query. Now, after having "digested" this thread my interpretation is: Cage is misunderstood by many. Again, I will repeat an earlier statement I made: I am no fan of Cage but being a music historian, he remains a subject of dispassionate research - pure and simple - no intent to offend, demean, or ridicule other readers feelings.

Respectfully submitted...


----------



## millionrainbows

Ilarion said:


> Hey millionrainbows,
> 
> Trillions of thanx to you for your interesting comment to my query. Now, after having "digested" this thread my interpretation is: Cage is misunderstood by many. Again, I will repeat an earlier statement I made: I am no fan of Cage but being a music historian, he remains a subject of dispassionate research - pure and simple - no intent to offend, demean, or ridicule other readers feelings.
> 
> Respectfully submitted...


Thanks to you as well; my response reveals as much about my ever-developing attitude to American life as it is 'about' Cage. It's just an excuse for me to express my opinions.

There are times when I really need the spaciousness and emptiness of Cage's music. I am a 'fan' for that reason, and for the precedent he set for artists. It's as if his presence alone was enough, and the sounds he made while he was here.


----------



## breakup

millionrainbows said:


> There are times when I really need the *spaciousness and emptiness of Cage's music*. I am a 'fan' for that reason, and for the precedent he set for artists. It's as if his presence alone was enough, and the sounds he made while he was here.


 I would say that there are better venues for spaciousness and emptiness than Cage. I really don't see a concert hall as the right place to contemplate the deeper nature of reality. I certainly don't need to watch an orchestra, or single musician doing nothing, to connect with my sense of spirituality. Therefore i don't need Cage to lead me to a realization of enlightenment.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> I really don't see a concert hall as the right place to contemplate the deeper nature of reality.


Really? Are you entirely sure about this?


----------



## DeepR

breakup said:


> I would say that there are better venues for spaciousness and emptiness than Cage. I really don't see a concert hall as the right place to contemplate the deeper nature of reality. I certainly don't need to watch an orchestra, or single musician doing nothing, to connect with my sense of spirituality. Therefore i don't need Cage to lead me to a realization of enlightenment.


Indeed, go out in nature on a clear summer night, lie down, watch the stars and listen to the ambient sounds. Surely a much more rewarding experience of silence by any meaning of the word.


----------



## breakup

some guy said:


> Really? Are you entirely sure about this?


Yes, the concert hall and the musicians would be too much of a distraction, anticipating what might happen, or might not happen, along with the other audience members, who might not all appreciate the significance of the event. If I am to experience silence, (according to Cage, the ambient noise) I think there are better places to do so. Of course you could argue that those unsophisticated audience members, are the point, or source of the ambient noise that you are to experience. Personally, I don't see how being annoyed, is going to enhance my spiritual experience, I would suggest that it would inhibit it.


----------



## breakup

DeepR said:


> Indeed, go out in nature on a clear summer night, lie down, watch the stars and listen to the ambient sounds. Surely a much more rewarding experience of silence by any meaning of the word.


I would suggest that you take some precautions against mosquitoes, unless you see them as part of the experience.


----------



## Guest

breakup,

I was asking about the specific thing I quoted, "I really don't see a concert hall as the right place to contemplate the deeper nature of reality," regardless of whether it were a Cage piece being offered or not. I just know that there are quite a lot people who feel that great art, of whatever variety, does indeed present the deeper nature of reality for our contemplation. I certainly would not think that if I start contemplating the deeper nature of reality while Beethoven's ninth is playing that I'm making a mistake or that Beethoven's ninth shouldn't be performed in a concert hall because it might make people like myself think about deeper things.

That's why I asked, because I was pretty sure that you did not really mean that.

And, it's true, in this response to my query, you do address quite other things:



breakup said:


> Yes, the concert hall and the musicians would be too much of a distraction


Could this not be true for any piece? That is, if the music of Berlioz' _Requiem_ is pulling me out of myself and giving me a vision of a world far beyond anything I could experience outside of that _Requiem,_ then might not noticing that the principal cellist is chewing gum rather spoil that spiritual experience for me?



breakup said:


> If I am to experience silence, (according to Cage, the ambient noise) I think there are better places to do so. Of course you could argue that those unsophisticated audience members, are the point, or source of the ambient noise that you are to experience. Personally, I don't see how being annoyed, is going to enhance my spiritual experience, I would suggest that it would inhibit it.


Well, the point of _4'33"_ is to present all sounds as valid and worth attending to, not just the sounds that Cage likes or just the sounds that breakup likes. A real spiritual experience is not about giving you what you want but about asking you, inviting you, to transcend your likes and dislikes. The presence of things that annoy you, in that context, is exactly right, the perfect thing for a genuine spiritual experience.

The inevitable subtext of music like the Beethoven and the Berlioz both is that a composer can offer you your spiritual experience ready-made. The explicit message of the Cage is that you are responsible for your own spiritual experience; he's not creating an experience for you, he has created a situation in which you can make, or not make, a spiritual experience for yourself. And a concert hall is no more or less appropriate for that exercise than any other place.

By the way, you all do know that the first performance of this was not in an ordinary concert hall, right? In was in Maverick Hall in Woodstock, which is open to the outdoors.

And Cage's comment about the first audience could easily have made a nice post to this very thread, though I doubt it would have fared any better than any other post:

"They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn't know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began pattering the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out."


----------



## pmsummer

"They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn’t know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began pattering the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out." 

This.


----------



## isorhythm

I am very much opposed to the attitude that leads people to say 4'33" is a "fraud," "the emperor has no clothes," and so on. This attitude is bad for music and bad for critical thought in general.

Nonetheless, you have to accept that some people will understand 4'33" perfectly well and still won't find it important or interesting.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> "They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn't know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began pattering the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out."


There has been some discussion about whether the intent of the work should be explained before listeners hear 4'33". I have always felt that a brief explanation would be especially beneficial. Without it, too many people will "miss the point". Even here after quite a few detailed explanations, many appear to miss the point (although it's hard to know if they read those explanations). I actually don't fault anyone for misunderstanding given the unusual nature of the work.

some guy, do you know if Cage thought an explanation would be helpful?


----------



## Guest

Well, he did do a lot of explaining about it, in books and interviews and such. So he did think that explaining was helpful. Enough so that I would think no one nowadays would need an explanation right before the piece is performed. 

However, for over two hundred years, audiences have been given programs, and all sorts of things have been explained in them, even for extremely well-known things like Beethoven's fifth. Explanations of everything are part and parcel of the concert experience. (Pre-concert talks are almost as well-attended as the concerts themselves, no matter how familiar the music being played is.)

Another odd thing about the first performance, it was part of a new music series, and was attended by new music aficionados.


----------



## starthrower

Maybe too much thinking is the problem? The point of the piece is to take just the allotted time to do nothing but listen. But right off the thinking plague takes over. "This is boring." "Is this some kind of joke." And maybe a lot of folks need visuals. They want to see an artist bobbing their head, grimacing in ecstasy, etc...

Maybe 4'33 should be performed as an overture at concerts? And those still in their seats after the allotted time can enjoy the rest of the program minus the fidget contingency.


----------



## Proms Fanatic

Richard Dawkins (the well known biologist and musicologist) had a couple of tweets about 4'33:

"John Cage - 4'33" 

What pretentious ******** (I’d rather be dismissed as philistine than a gullible fool)."

"Yes, I understand the point of silence. But musician claimed it could only be performed by an expert musician. That Emperor is naked."


----------



## breakup

Proms Fanatic said:


> Richard Dawkins (the well known biologist and musicologist) had a couple of tweets about 4'33:
> 
> "John Cage - 4'33"
> 
> What pretentious ******** (I'd rather be dismissed as philistine than a gullible fool)."
> 
> "Yes, I understand the point of silence. But musician claimed it could only be performed by an expert musician. That Emperor is naked."


Here I would agree with Dawkins, to perform this piece you don't need musicians, instruments, a conductor, or a concert hall. The same effect could be achieved by intentionally observing 4'33" of silence in any setting and this is why I posted that the musicians, etc. would be a distraction, they simply are not needed.

Even Cage felt that the piece had lost it's importance,

-In interviews, even while affirming his devotion to silence, he gives little weight to 4′ 33″ itself. For example, he told Richard Kostelanetz, that "I wrote that piece [4′ 33″] in 1952. This is now 1966. I don't need that piece today."-

From this article,

http://rosewhitemusic.com/piano/writings/silence-taught-john-cage/


----------



## breakup

starthrower said:


> Maybe too much thinking is the problem? The point of the piece is to take just the allotted time to do nothing but listen. But right off the thinking plague takes over. "This is boring." "Is this some kind of joke." And maybe a lot of folks need visuals. They want to see an artist bobbing their head, grimacing in ecstasy, etc...
> 
> *Maybe 4'33 should be performed as an overture at concerts*? And those still in their seats after the allotted time can enjoy the rest of the program minus the fidget contingency.


More appropriately, it should be performed after the concert is over, and everyone has gone home.


----------



## Guest

Proms Fanatic said:


> Richard Dawkins (the well known biologist and musicologist) had a couple of tweets about 4'33:
> 
> "John Cage - 4'33"
> 
> What pretentious ******** (I'd rather be dismissed as philistine than a gullible fool)."
> 
> "Yes, I understand the point of silence. But musician claimed it could only be performed by an expert musician. That Emperor is naked."


Personally I wish he'd stuck with doing science, rather than being a one-man Loose Women gob*****. FGM? Rape? Keep it to yourself, Dick.


----------



## breakup

dogen said:


> On what do you base your understanding that it is intended as a religious work? Quote? Link? Source?


It didn't occur to me before, but this question is posted on the religious music forum.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> It didn't occur to me before, but this question is posted on the religious music forum.


Indeed, and I've had nothing offered to show 4'33" was intended as a "sacred" work. Cage was interested in Indian philosophy and Zen Buddhism, but he was not a practising Buddhist and seems to have been mostly concerned with the writer DT Suzuki, a man who became more interested in Pure Land rather than Zen.


----------



## DeepR

Ahhh, whatever. Fortunately I am still able to focus on and enjoy ambient sounds and find spiritual comfort in silence without thinking about 4'33", or John Cage, or worse, listening to a performance of it.


----------



## breakup

some guy said:


> breakup,
> 
> I was asking about the specific thing I quoted, "I really don't see a concert hall as the right place to contemplate the deeper nature of reality," regardless of whether it were a Cage piece being offered or not. *I just know that there are quite a lot people who feel that great art, of whatever variety, does indeed present the deeper nature of reality for our contemplation.* I certainly would not think that if I start contemplating the deeper nature of reality while Beethoven's ninth is playing that I'm making a mistake or that Beethoven's ninth shouldn't be performed in a concert hall because it might make people like myself think about deeper things.
> 
> That's why I asked, because I was pretty sure that you did not really mean that.


Let me try to address just this one point, and I suppose my reaction is that I do not see 4'33" as art, especially not great art. So in that light it, in my opinion, does not need a special setting for it's performance. Art, of any genre, can be experienced on many levels from a shallow feeling of joy to the deeper contemplation of the nature of reality, and both are valid and can be meaningful to the person enjoying the art. I will amend my comment in that I do think the concert hall is appropriate for the contemplation of the deeper meaning of reality, it was 4'33" that prompted that particular post, in regard to that piece only. I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear on that point.


----------



## breakup

dogen said:


> Indeed, and I've had nothing offered to show 4'33" was intended as a "sacred" work. Cage was interested in Indian philosophy and Zen Buddhism, but he was not a practising Buddhist and seems to have been mostly concerned with the writer DT Suzuki, a man who became more interested in Pure Land rather than Zen.


I would suggest that Buddhism, Zen in particular, can be practiced on many levels. You don't need to be a monk in a monastery to be a zen Buddhist. I would consider myself a Zen Lutheran, but I'm careful who I would admit that to, because very few people understand what zen is all about, including some who claim to be Buddhists. I would also say the same about Christians, or any other religion, but Zen and Lutheran Christianity are what I am most familiar with, and a little bit of Islam and Hinduism.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> I would suggest that Buddhism, Zen in particular, can be practiced on many levels. You don't need to be a monk in a monastery to be a zen Buddhist. I would consider myself a Zen Lutheran, but I'm careful who I would admit that to, because very few people understand what zen is all about, including some who claim to be Buddhists. I would also say the same about Christians, or any other religion, but Zen and Lutheran Christianity are what I am most familiar with, and a little bit of Islam and Hinduism.


Well I've only done a little searching on Cage and I don't see he was a practising Buddhist. Zen, as you may know means meditation; it is a tradition that places central importance on it, hence the name Zen Buddhism. Cage said explicitly he did not meditate. A Zen Buddhist practises meditation (zazen). If you don't, whatever you may be, you're not a Zen Buddhist.
I've not found anything to say 4'33" was a religious work and perhaps nothing has been presented to support any such claim because such support does not exist.


----------



## Wood

breakup said:


> If Cage's intention was to introduce listeners to a Zen Buddhist concept, there are much more effective means to do so. Unfortunately Zen has become popular with certain elements of society who actually have no understanding of Zen, but are expressing a PC version that has nothing to do with real Zen, and I believe Cage has fallen into that trap.


I have a few queries relating to this paragraph:

1. Why do you think 4'33 was an intention of Cage to introduce a Zen Buddhist concept? What was that concept?

2. What are the key characteristics of a politically correct version of Zen?

3. How do these characteristics relate to 4'33?


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> I do think the concert hall is appropriate for the contemplation of the deeper meaning of reality, it was 4'33" that prompted that particular post, in regard to that piece only. I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear on that point.


Fair enough. I was sure that that was the case, hence my incredulity. I couldn't imagine you thinking that the concert hall was generally inappropriate for deep meanings. Good to know it's not so!:tiphat:


----------



## breakup

Wood said:


> I have a few queries relating to this paragraph:
> 
> 1. Why do you think 4'33 was an intention of Cage to introduce a Zen Buddhist concept? What was that concept?


It is my understanding that Cage wanted to force people to experience the "silence" of the concert hall which in reality was all the ambient noises that most people tried to block out during a performance of music. This concept is very Zen in nature, and Cage's exposure to Zen Buddhism would correlate with this nicely. As far as your other questions, I'm really not interested in expounding further, you may take my comments or leave them.


----------



## pmsummer

Proms Fanatic said:


> Richard Dawkins (the well known biologist and musicologist) had a couple of tweets about 4'33:
> 
> "John Cage - 4'33"
> 
> What pretentious ******** (I'd rather be dismissed as philistine than a gullible fool)."
> 
> "Yes, I understand the point of silence. But musician claimed it could only be performed by an expert musician. That Emperor is naked."


Confirms my opinion of the man and his faculties of discernment.

;-)


----------



## arpeggio

breakup said:


> Let me try to address just this one point, and I suppose my reaction is that I do not see 4'33" as art, especially not great art. So in that light it, in my opinion, does not need a special setting for it's performance. Art, of any genre, can be experienced on many levels from a shallow feeling of joy to the deeper contemplation of the nature of reality, and both are valid and can be meaningful to the person enjoying the art. I will amend my comment in that I do think the concert hall is appropriate for the contemplation of the deeper meaning of reality, it was 4'33" that prompted that particular post, in regard to that piece only. I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear on that point.


Like I have stated before, you are not introducing anything new to the discussion.

In over two years I only know of one member who thought is was music who changed her mind as a result of this debate.

There are many of us who do not think it is music. So what?

I do not understand what the harm is if some think _433_ it is music.


----------



## KenOC

pmsummer said:


> Confirms my opinion of the man and his faculties of discernment.


A cleverly neutral statement that can be taken two ways. Well played! :lol:


----------



## tortkis

breakup said:


> Here I would agree with Dawkins, to perform this piece you don't need musicians, instruments, a conductor, or a concert hall. The same effect could be achieved by intentionally observing 4'33" of silence in any setting and this is why I posted that the musicians, etc. would be a distraction, they simply are not needed.
> 
> Even Cage felt that the piece had lost it's importance,
> 
> -In interviews, even while affirming his devotion to silence, he gives little weight to 4′ 33″ itself. For example, he told Richard Kostelanetz, that "I wrote that piece [4′ 33″] in 1952. This is now 1966. I don't need that piece today."-
> 
> From this article,
> 
> http://rosewhitemusic.com/piano/writings/silence-taught-john-cage/


He didn't say that the piece was no longer important. Right after that comment, the article quotes an interview with Cage by Duckworth:

_"JC: Well, I use it constantly in my life experience. No day goes by without my making use of that piece in my life and in my work. I listen to it every day. Yes I do.

WD: Can you give me an example?

JC: I don't sit down to do it; I turn my attention toward it. I realize that it's going on continuously. So, more and more, my attention, as now, is on it. More than anything else, it's the source of my enjoyment of life."_

4'33" was Cage's favorite piece, and _"for the rest of his life, Cage talked about 4'33" as his most important work, the one returned to again and again as the basis for his other new works."_ (Gann, _No Such Thing As Silence_)


----------



## nikola

nathanb said:


> If people think I go around listening to 4'33" in my headphones, they'd be wrong (Here I'm talking about the empty audio tracks on Cage albums). An ideal setting of 4'33" is in a rain forest or something anyway (oh hello, entire genre of field recordings!), but I wouldn't say no to a concert hall setting either. I think this misconception might be what drives a lot of the disparaging comments.
> 
> Of course the strength of 4'33" is in its concept. The fact that people can't let it go is, if anything, only a testament to the strength of that concept.


Good description. I actually like 4:33. 
I even remember that when Ennio Morricone was doing music for 'Once Upon a Time in the West' that whatever kind of music they put in the begining of the movie, nothing fit at all. So, he was inspired by John Cage's work and used the surrounding sounds as soundtrack. And it worked: 




There is so many bad music in the world and 4:33 is something like escaping from all that. We can all have our own 4:33, but we just have to know how to listen to it. I don't understand why some people find that piece offensive. To me it's offensive that there is so much awful and still so much praised music out there.

I'd rather listen to the 'silence' than to something bad and annoying... 80% of the music is to me bad and annoying and that music is what I found offensive. Listening to the rain or silence in an empty room is sometimes much better experience than listening to some artificial sounds.


----------



## nightscape

nikola said:


> Listening to the rain or silence in an empty room is sometimes much better experience than listening to some artificial sounds.


Right, but we don't need Cage, and have never needed him, to show us the beauty of nature and its ambient sounds. Reducing it to an idea like 4'33" is to make a mockery of it and trivialize the experience. I don't believe Cage was consciously trying profit from people's curiosity like one of those old west grifters with a traveling medicine show, but he put the focus on himself rather than letting your mind travel the soundscape on its own.

So it's like you sitting in that empty room with the rain gently tapping on the window and the ground outside and all you can think of is John Cage.


----------



## breakup

nightscape said:


> Right, but we don't need Cage, and have never needed him, to show us the beauty of nature and its ambient sounds. Reducing it to an idea like 4'33" is to make a mockery of it and trivialize the experience. I don't believe Cage was consciously trying profit from people's curiosity like one of those old west grifters with a traveling medicine show, but he put the focus on himself rather than letting your mind travel the soundscape on its own.
> 
> *So it's like you sitting in that empty room with the rain gently tapping on the window and the ground outside and all you can think of is John Cage.*


Right, and I should have added Cage to the list of potential distractions.


----------



## Wood

breakup said:


> It is my understanding that Cage wanted to force people to experience the "silence" of the concert hall which in reality was all the ambient noises that most people tried to block out during a performance of music. This concept is very Zen in nature, and Cage's exposure to Zen Buddhism would correlate with this nicely. As far as your other questions, I'm really not interested in expounding further, you may take my comments or leave them.


I know little of Zen Buddhism, but I'm not aware that it involves listening to ambient sounds. Do you have a link which explains this in more detail. I'd be interested.

Re Q2 & Q3, please don't take umbrage. You've taken the trouble to make some points, and I would like to understand what you mean by them.


----------



## ArtMusic

The controversy will never die away. Whenever someone comes across 4'33" for the first time, many will think it is not music, while others will think it is. The same discussion will go on and on making the piece infamous in reality. Unfortunately that does more harm than good for the piece itself. The comparison I would like to make it that other forgotten pieces have also been re-discovered in the last fifty years, nothing to do with contemporary music, such as forgotten concertos by long forgotten Baroque composers etc. Many of such pieces have enjoyed a stable foothold in the repertoire since their discovery. The point is, if a piece really is about to have any meaning to listeners without controversy as pure music to sit down and listen to, it will speak for itself. Nevermind whether it will do so in one hundred years or whenever, but here and now.


----------



## Wood

nightscape said:


> Right, but we don't need Cage, and have never needed him, to show us the beauty of nature and its ambient sounds. Reducing it to an idea like 4'33" is to make a mockery of it and trivialize the experience. I don't believe Cage was consciously trying profit from people's curiosity like one of those old west grifters with a traveling medicine show, but he put the focus on himself rather than letting your mind travel the soundscape on its own.
> 
> So it's like you sitting in that empty room with the rain gently tapping on the window and the ground outside and all you can think of is John Cage.


4'33" isn't about Cage showing us the beauty of nature, or indeed the beauty of anything in particular.

I never think of Cage when I can hear it raining, or indeed when I've been absorbed by all manner of sounds when I'm out and about.

The haters obsession with Cage & his apparently insulting behaviour towards us is rather bizarre. It would be an interesting whole new thread to discuss why so many can take one short work from a composer with a large oeuvre and extrapolate it into personal insult and general outrage. :lol:


----------



## breakup

Wood said:


> I know little of Zen Buddhism, but I'm not aware that it involves listening to ambient sounds. Do you have a link which explains this in more detail. I'd be interested.
> 
> Re Q2 & Q3, please don't take umbrage. You've taken the trouble to make some points, and I would like to understand what you mean by them.


Most of my study of Zen was many years ago, and I no longer have the source material in my possession, so there is no way for me to look up the source of my impressions of zen. As I said I studied it many years ago and now am left with general impressions of what Zen is but no specifics. One of my strongest impressions is that of being aware of your surroundings in a way that does not attempt to shut them out, but to accept them with an awareness that they are there. It is much the same in meditation, the goal is not to shut out all thoughts, but to be aware of them but not let them take over your meditation. Too many times I have read the advice to try and block out extraneous thoughts in an effort to quiet the mind. If your meditation involves effort or trying hard, your not doing it right. Meditation should, in the end, be effortless and the mind is quieted by not trying to not think. Enlightenment does not come from trying hard to achieve it, but by letting go of everything that prevents you from being enlightened. As far as Q2. qnd Q3. I believe they have been answered in this post, PC Zen would involve trying hard, and that would be required to sit through 4'33". If I seemed a bit hostile, I apologize, but too many times I have encountered other posters on forums who were not really interested in dialogue, but in starting a fight.


----------



## Woodduck

Wood said:


> 4'33" isn't about Cage showing us the beauty of nature, or indeed the beauty of anything in particular.
> 
> I never think of Cage when I can hear it raining, or indeed when I've been absorbed by all manner of sounds when I'm out and about.
> 
> *The haters obsession with Cage & his apparently insulting behaviour towards us is rather bizarre. It would be an interesting whole new thread to discuss why so many can take one short work from a composer with a large oeuvre and extrapolate it into personal insult and general outrage. *:lol:


I wonder. Just _who_ is obsessed with Cage, or with 4'33"? I know that I'm not - in fact, since I don't find Cage's music very interesting, I rarely give them a thought until a question like "Why is 4'33" disparaged?" is raised. I know I've never felt anything like hatred for Cage or his work either. Perhaps a few people have hostile feelings. But "so many"? Do you have grounds for that impression?

I made my contribution to this thread some time back, and my concern was to consider the nature of music and to explain why I think 4'33" is something other than music. People who take philosophical ideas and questions seriously can get excited about them, and it probably seems normal to anyone who does so that people have strong beliefs in this matter and will express them strongly. Other people (I gather, not being one of them myself) are probably not too concerned about how things are thought about or defined, and they probably don't see what all the fuss is about and may just find it all annoying.

Cage, like a lot of avant garde artists of his time, definitely poses a challenge to concepts of what art is and what it is for. However anyone comes down on the questions raised, I think they're good questions and maybe even worth getting a little hot under the collar about. I rarely take any of it as an indication of obsession or hostility, and if some of it is, that's just human nature. I know I had a heck of a good time thinking through my conception of what music is and is not, and throwing in a few 4'33" jokes along the way (they're so easy to invent :devil.


----------



## Albert7

Okay I finally bought 4' 33" from ITunes and one should be proud of that.


----------



## Morimur

4'33 is sure interesting when the performance takes place in a filthy McDonald's inner city bathroom.


----------



## sharik

mmsbls said:


> But I don't really understand why the work is an insult to those who appreciate music.


because it contains no music as such.



mmsbls said:


> Cage's general idea may not be an enjoyable musical experience or even a musical experience, but his idea is (or was) new and insightful.


not new, before him there had been Kazimir Malevitch in painting -


----------



## Guest

Yeah, redefining the purpose of the piece in order to have something that can be attacked is a species of strawman.

I'm always surprised at how well that always seems to work. There's always someone ready to accept the strawman as real.

Anyway, for ArtMusic, the controversy probably will die away eventually. I think the internet has provided a forum (in a manner of speaking) for perpetuating all sorts of goofy things, things that would die away pretty quickly without this service.

Plus, there's always the very strong and very old generalized sense of antagonism towards the new, a sense that stays the same even though what's "new" keeps constantly changing--no one any more thinks that Tchaikovsky's violin concerto stinks to the ear or that it is experiencing the tortures of hell to have to sit through it, but there's always something (supposedly) stinky to complain about, always something that will seem like torture to someone. I think we forget (or worse, deny) that generalized sense at our peril. Forgetting (denying) how old that sense is is also perilous. I understand why we do it--makes complaining about whatever we're complaining about always seem the fault of the thing not of our perceptions (which are, by definition, unquestionably perfect, of course).

But _4'33"_ will take its place on the 'why did anyone have so much trouble accepting this?' list along with all the other things that caused consternation at first. Eventually. But as long as the sense persists, there will always be something else to take its place on the 'why is this kind of insulting crap allowed to exist?' list.

I always thing of the opera _Carmen_ at times like these. That's the one, you'll recall, that when it was new, had no tunes at all. Not even one. Incredible that that tune fest should have had no tunes at all. But I assure you, it was so.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I wonder. Just _who_ is obsessed with Cage, or with 4'33"? I know that I'm not


Ah. Well this did make me grin, I have to confess. All those posts you made to this thread. And continue to make. All evidence of not being obsessed with Cage or with _4'33"._



Woodduck said:


> _n fact, since I don't find Cage's music very interesting, I rarely give them a thought until a question like "Why is 4'33" disparaged?" is raised._


_And then, everyone get out of the way! More thoughts about Cage's music (or "music") than you can shake a stick at.



Woodduck said:



I know I've never felt anything like hatred for Cage or his work either. Perhaps a few people have hostile feelings. But "so many"? Do you have grounds for that impression?

Click to expand...

Um. Seriously? Perhaps a few?

Indeed.



Woodduck said:



people have strong beliefs in this matter and will express them strongly.

Click to expand...

Plausible deniability. It is a thing. Well, I for one did indeed interpret the "strong expressions" against the piece as hatred. Yes, I did.



Woodduck said:



Cage, like a lot of avant garde artists of his time, definitely poses a challenge to concepts of what art is and what it is for.

Click to expand...

Of any time, I would say. That Wagner fellow even spent several years challenging some concepts of music with lectures and essays before ever even writing a note of the new stuff.

Well, I was not convinced by the whole "just kidding folks; nothing to see here" approach to the situation. The moderation practice of deleting things, however, does make "nothing to see here" colorable, unfortunately. So there's some hostility. A moderator deletes it. Then there's the claim that there's been no hostility. There's at least no more evidence of it. Just the fallable memories of a few cranks who like Cage.

Oh well._


----------



## sharik

some guy said:


> Plus, there's always the very strong and very old generalized sense of antagonism towards the new


its 70 years on the piece has been 'composed' (omg) hardly new... moreover the New today is a subject of politics just as much as the Old used to be in the days when men were men; so this very fact negates the notion of New as any advantage over the notion of Old.


----------



## sharik

some guy said:


> That Wagner fellow even spent several years challenging some concepts of music with lectures and essays before ever even writing a note of the new stuff.


okay, lets compare the results shown by the both - where's Wagner and where's Cage... thats the point: the former was indeed new, while the latter only pretended to be so.


----------



## ArtMusic

*Sixty years is a long time*, that is from 1952 (4'33" composed) to today. It's like the time between Bach's great Brandenburg Concertos (1721) to Mozart's great opera Idomeneo (1781) or to Verdi's great opera Nabucco (1841). So it is pretty much decided today sixty years later the controversy with 4'33" has proven itself unequivocally as just that, controversy, in all sixty years of its existence. Here and now.


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> its 70 years on the piece has been 'composed' (omg) hardly new... moreover the New today is a subject of politics just as much as the Old used to be in the days when men were men; so this very fact negates the notion of New as any advantage over the notion of Old.


sharik, you remind me of something I glossed over, rather, which is that as the generalized sense of antagonism has grown over the centuries, the number of "old" things that continue to excite that sense grows as well. Just look at Schoenberg.

By the way, Cage's piece is 63 years old. Since I too am 63, I resemble that remark about "hardly new"!


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> in the days when men were men


I fear asking; but what are they now?


----------



## isorhythm

sharik said:


> not new, before him there had been Kazimir Malevitch in painting -


4'33" was directly inspired by Rauschenberg's blank canvases. Cage said so.


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> Ah. Well this did make me grin, I have to confess. All those posts you made to this thread. And continue to make. All evidence of not being obsessed with Cage or with _4'33"._
> 
> And then, everyone get out of the way! More thoughts about Cage's music (or "music") than you can shake a stick at.
> 
> Um. Seriously? Perhaps a few?
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Plausible deniability. It is a thing. Well, I for one did indeed interpret the "strong expressions" against the piece as hatred. Yes, I did.
> 
> Of any time, I would say. That Wagner fellow even spent several years challenging some concepts of music with lectures and essays before ever even writing a note of the new stuff.
> 
> Well, I was not convinced by the whole "just kidding folks; nothing to see here" approach to the situation. The moderation practice of deleting things, however, does make "nothing to see here" colorable, unfortunately. So there's some hostility. A moderator deletes it. Then there's the claim that there's been no hostility. There's at least no more evidence of it. Just the fallable memories of a few cranks who like Cage.
> 
> Oh well.


When I say that I'm not obsessed with 4'33," that I don't "hate" John Cage or his music (and his non-music), and that I took an interest in the subject because the philosophical ideas which are raised by and around it interest me, it is quite inappropriate for you to tell me and others here that you think I am not being truthful about my interests and motives.

You are not a psychologist, and other members are not here to be psychoanalyzed.

Believe anything you want in the privacy of your own mind, but don't be making public denials of other people's veracity.


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> Yeah, redefining the purpose of the piece in order to have something that can be attacked is a species of strawman.
> 
> I'm always surprised at how well that always seems to work. There's always someone ready to accept the strawman as real.
> 
> Anyway, for ArtMusic, the controversy probably will die away eventually. I think the internet has provided a forum (in a manner of speaking) for perpetuating all sorts of goofy things, things that would die away pretty quickly without this service.
> 
> Plus, there's always the very strong and very old generalized sense of antagonism towards the new, a sense that stays the same even though what's "new" keeps constantly changing--*no one any more thinks that Tchaikovsky's violin concerto stinks to the ear or that it is experiencing the tortures of hell to have to sit through it*, but there's always something (supposedly) stinky to complain about, always something that will seem like torture to someone. I think we forget (or worse, deny) that generalized sense at our peril. Forgetting (denying) how old that sense is is also perilous. I understand why we do it--makes complaining about whatever we're complaining about always seem the fault of the thing not of our perceptions (which are, by definition, unquestionably perfect, of course).
> 
> But _4'33"_ will take its place on the 'why did anyone have so much trouble accepting this?' list along with all the other things that caused consternation at first. Eventually. But as long as the sense persists, there will always be something else to take its place on the 'why is this kind of insulting crap allowed to exist?' list.
> 
> *I always thing of the opera Carmen at times like these. That's the one, you'll recall, that when it was new, had no tunes at all. Not even one. Incredible that that tune fest should have had no tunes at all. But I assure you, it was so.*


You must know that the comment about Tchaikovsky's violin concerto "stinking in the ear" came from Eduard Hanslick, the dogmatically conservative critic who also opposed the music of Wagner and virtually any other music that didn't conform to his rigidly classical ideals. There's no reason whatsoever to think that such a view of the work was widely shared (although, frankly, I find the development section of the first movement poor in its pile-up of sequences and the cadenza quite unattractive!).

As for _Carmen_, its premiere run was not very successful; some critics (as usual) were hard on it, and the public was lukewarm. Many things might account for unsuccessful premieres (especially, God knows, in 19th-century France!), but within a decade _Carmen_ had become one of the most popular of all operas.

To relate the performance history of either of these popular and celebrated works to 4'33" takes quite a flight of imagination.
You might want to search for more relevant examples of a "resistance to the new."


----------



## isorhythm

The "resistance to the new" starting around the turn of the 20th century has been of an entirely different order than it was before. All serious musicians and thinkers on music have grappled with this - look up Charles Rosen's lecture on "The Challenges of Modernist Music" for a good recent example.

It's a complex phenomenon that warrants discussion. Neither "composers abandoned audiences" nor "audiences got more conservative and/or dumber" is an adequate response.

However, no interesting or useful discussion on the subject can take place if we begin by denying the facts, and insisting that audiences' resistance to new music in the last hundred years is no different than some listeners' initial resistance to Mozart, Beethoven or Tchaikovsky.


----------



## sharik

isorhythm said:


> 4'33" was directly inspired by Rauschenberg's blank canvases.


who in his turn was influenced by Malevitch, and Cage could not fail to know this. The Black Square, as a manifesto, has put an end to new art as such.


----------



## millionrainbows

breakup said:


> I would say that there are better venues for spaciousness and emptiness than Cage. I really don't see a concert hall as the right place to contemplate the deeper nature of reality. I certainly don't need to watch an orchestra, or single musician doing nothing, to connect with my sense of spirituality. Therefore i don't need Cage to lead me to a realization of enlightenment.


But, ostensibly, that's the purpose of 'art' as we now know it: for 'sublime contemplation.'

But if that's the way you feel, we could have 'the master' intercede, like in a zen monastery. We could arrange to have the pianist get up, come to your seat, and slap you with a plank of wood. This is to dispel all 'negative thinking' and get you into a receptive, humbled mood.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> But, ostensibly, that's the purpose of 'art' as we now know it: for 'sublime contemplation.'
> 
> But if that's the way you feel, we could have 'the master' intercede, like in a zen monastery. We could arrange to have the pianist get up, come to your seat, and slap you with a plank of wood. This is to dispel all 'negative thinking' and get you into a receptive, humbled mood.


You're too late, million. "Happenings" are passe. Or are they old enough to be revived? Neo-happenings? Retro-happenings?

I'm so out of touch.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> But, ostensibly, that's the purpose of 'art' as we now know it: for 'sublime contemplation.'


Well, it's certainly nice to hear again the purpose of art! BTW happenings may be out of style, but I'm scheduled for a be-in tomorrow.


----------



## Albert7

Also there is the fact that 4' 33" is now a commodity. Remember, I just purchased it for a buck last night. Thus it exists and is a consumer product ready for some lovin'... Mac-lovin!


----------



## Woodduck

Albert7 said:


> Also there is the fact that 4' 33" is now a commodity. Remember, I just purchased it for a buck last night. Thus it exists and is a consumer product ready for some lovin'... Mac-lovin!


Does a buck get you refills - I mean, encores?


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> You must know that the comment about Tchaikovsky's violin concerto "stinking in the ear" came from Eduard Hanslick, the dogmatically conservative critic who also opposed the music of Wagner and virtually any other music that didn't conform to his rigidly classical ideals. There's no reason whatsoever to think that such a view of the work was widely shared (although, frankly, I find the development section of the first movement poor in its pile-up of sequences and the cadenza quite unattractive!).


I believe Hanslick spoke well of some of Wagner's early work (Flying Dutchman?). And an essay of his on Tristan and Isolde focused primarily on the libretto, which he thought sucked, was filled with cliche symbolism (the night and the day and the dark and the light and …), and needed an editor. I don't remember if he ever got to the music.

Hi Sharik,
Malevich was pretty much derivative, wasn't he? The Knife Grinder is wonderful though. And a few others.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> And an essay of his on Tristan and Isolde focused primarily on the libretto, which he thought sucked, was filled with cliche symbolism (the night and the day and the dark and the light and …), and needed an editor. I don't remember if he ever got to the music.


I don't know about that essay, but I've seen him quoted as saying the prelude reminded him of "the old Italian painting of a martyr whose intestines are slowly unwound from his body on a reel."


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> I believe Hanslick spoke well of some of Wagner's early work (Flying Dutchman?). And an essay of his on Tristan and Isolde focused primarily on the libretto, which he thought sucked, was filled with cliche symbolism (the night and the day and the dark and the light and …), and needed an editor. I don't remember if he ever got to the music.
> 
> Hi Sharik,
> Malevich was pretty much derivative, wasn't he? The Knife Grinder is wonderful though. And a few others.


Hanslick did write some pleasant, though not entirely positive, things about Wagner's early works, for which Wagner actually thanked him. He didn't approve of Wagner's dramatic theories, however, and he disapproved of what he considered Wagner's abandonment of musical form in favor of emotional expression. His remarks on _Tristan_:

"A more anti-vocal, unsingable style could hardly be found anywhere": "intolerably tedious"; "a hopeless poetic impotence"; "we must protest most emphatically against accepting this assassination of sense and language, this stuttering and stammering, these bombastic, artificial monologues and dialogues, void of all natural sentiment, as a poetic work of art"; "the simplest song of Mendelssohm appeals more to the heart and soul than ten Wagner operas a la Tristan und isolde." And of the prelude: 'It reminds me of the old Italian painting of a martyr whose intestines are being slowly unwound."

Even by the time he got around to hearing _Parsifal_ in 1882, the best he could do was:

"If we regard it as a festive, magic opera; if we ignore, as we often must in any case, its logical and psychological impossibilities and its false religious- philosophical pretensions, we can find in it moments of artistic stimulation and brilliant effectiveness."

Hanslick remained, aesthetically, a classicist, who opposed what he saw as the Romantic trend of viewing musical form not as self-sufficient but as a vehicle of emotional expression. I know he wrote a famous tract on the subject - claiming, I gather, that music cannot express emotion and shouldn't try to - but I've never read it. From other quotes I've seen on various composers (Brahms was his man, but he was hard on Bruckner) I get the feeling that he found the entire 19th century after Beethoven (and even a lot of Beethoven) to be, more or less, a mistake.


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> The "resistance to the new" starting around the turn of the 20th century has been of an entirely different order than it was before.


The resistance to the new that had one of its periodic peaks around 1900 (others in 1840 and 1860, approximately) was not only of the same order, all the expressions of it were and continue to be the same as well. Because none of it is about the music, not really.

Furthermore, that peak of disgust in 1900 happened before any of the modernist music that supposedly started all of this had even been written. And, what's more, how many people would have had a chance to hear any of this music to be repelled by it even after it was written. Decent recording technology was some time in the future as well. So it would have had to be live concerts. Out of all the millions of people in the world, how many are able, even now, to fit into one hall for any single concert?



isorhythm said:


> It's a complex phenomenon that warrants discussion. Neither "composers abandoned audiences" nor "audiences got more conservative and/or dumber" is an adequate response.


Well, let us also try to present the content of those inadequate responses accurately then. "Audiences got more conservative and/or dumber" is a woefully inadequate presentation of the phenomenon I've been talking about anyway.



isorhythm said:


> However, no interesting or useful discussion on the subject can take place if we begin by denying the facts, and insisting that audiences' resistance to new music in the last hundred years is no different than some listeners' initial resistance to Mozart, Beethoven or Tchaikovsky.


Agreed about the facts. So let's make sure that the facts are correct. And I'd start with the subtle shift in this sentence from "audiences" in the last hundred years to "some listeners" in the years before that. And the addition of "initial" modifying the second appearance of the word "resistance." That kind of linguistic sleight-of-hand will not serve the purpose of getting the facts right.

Here's a simple presentation of two prominent views of the relationship between listeners and new music, just to remind us what we're up against if we want to have a fact-based discussion:

View #1: While certain pieces before 1900 were disliked at first, they became very popular in a short time. After 1900, that all changed. Music after 1900 could never become and never will become popular with general audiences.

View #2: While it existed before 1800, resistance to new music became a steady and steadily increasing thing* after that time, not tied to any particular piece or style but a generalized sense of resistance to anything new. There was counter-resistance to it throughout the century, but by 1900, it was pretty much established as the norm.

I would agree that there are differences between the twentieth century and the nineteenth. In the nineteenth, battles were fought. The war was over by 1900. After 1900, there were still battles, of course, but the war was won. The dominant idea by then, that old is better than new, had replaced the previous idea, that new is better than old.

*Concert programming shows that the ratio of new music to old in concerts shifted from 90/10 in the 1780s to 10/90 by the 1870s. That's the trend. Even in 1840,** there were people who would avoid a concert if it had any living composers on it. The three big peaks of the 19th century are not tied to any particularly awful pieces or any particular artistic trend. They just sort of happened.

**Memory. This may have been 1860. 1842 or 43 was when a critic wrote that audiences must keep up with new music, otherwise they'll be suspicious even of what's considered to be the best. [source is William Weber, _The Great Transformation of Musical Taste._]


----------



## Nereffid

some guy said:


> The three big peaks of the 19th century are not tied to any particularly awful pieces or any particular artistic trend. *They just sort of happened.*


:lol:
Where's Sid when you need him?


----------



## sharik

EdwardBast said:


> Malevich was pretty much derivative, wasn't he?


derivative from whom? Malevitch was born in the 19th century long before them all - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich - he is the only artist in history of mankind who indeed created something new without being influenced by anyone else. Cage and other Western smarties came lately to pose as new, but this was only publicity, yet another advertising campaign.


----------



## sharik

*Kazimir Malevitch* - _White on White (1918)_










Cage, what Cage?

wonder how people tend to forget what the internet is for and instead choose to stay ignorant.


----------



## sharik

some guy said:


> The resistance to the new that had one of its periodic peaks around 1900


that's the point... by the moment Cage arrived, he wasn't new already, more like outdated.

avantgarde did have its moment of fame but this was soon over and the world has returned to traditionalism.

the beginning of 20th century was nothing but a temporary glitch to mankind; time to forget it.


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> the beginning of 20th century was nothing but a temporary glitch to mankind; time to forget it.


How can you demonstrate it was a glitch?

Why should it be forgotten?

How would this universal amnesia be brought about?


----------



## sharik

dogen said:


> How can you demonstrate it was a glitch?


because it looks, sounds and feels like one.



dogen said:


> Why should it be forgotten?


not that it should be forgotten but rather ascribed less importance.



dogen said:


> How would this universal amnesia be brought about?


with the mass media; how did they manage to forget or ignore the real pioneers of art for example?.. should do the same about the copycats.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> I don't know about that essay, but I've seen him quoted as saying the prelude reminded him of "the old Italian painting of a martyr whose intestines are slowly unwound from his body on a reel."


Oh yes! I've heard that. Might be the same essay! Say what you will about Hanslick, the man could turn a phrase.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> Even by the time he got around to hearing _Parsifal_ in 1882, the best he could do was:
> 
> "If we regard it as a festive, magic opera; if we ignore, as we often must in any case, its logical and psychological impossibilities and its false religious- philosophical pretensions, we can find in it moments of artistic stimulation and brilliant effectiveness."


So it sounds like he really liked it then 



Woodduck said:


> Hanslick remained, aesthetically, a classicist, who opposed what he saw as the Romantic trend of viewing musical form not as self-sufficient but as a vehicle of emotional expression. I know he wrote a famous tract on the subject - claiming, I gather, that music cannot express emotion and shouldn't try to - but I've never read it. From other quotes I've seen on various composers (Brahms was his man, but he was hard on Bruckner) I get the feeling that he found the entire 19th century after Beethoven (and even a lot of Beethoven) to be, more or less, a mistake.


_On the Musically Beautiful_. He didn't deny the expressiveness of music and certainly did not argue that it _shouldn't_ express emotion. His main thesis was that emotions are not the _subjects_ of music - that its subjects are purely musical ideas. He did argue that music _couldn't_ express some emotions, those defined by intellectual content. (Hope, for example, requires looking to the future with the idea in mind that it will in some way be better than the present.) I don't think he specifically denied that it could express basic affective states like happiness and sadness.


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> derivative from whom? Malevitch was born in the 19th century long before them all - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich - he is the only artist in history of mankind who indeed created something new without being influenced by anyone else. Cage and other Western smarties came lately to pose as new, but this was only publicity, yet another advertising campaign.


I have a book of Malevich's art in my library. His figurative work in the 1910s ("Peasant Woman with Buckets," "Chiropodist at the Baths") looks a lot like Picaso of five years earlier, doesn't it? And he didn't invent cubism, although I really like his cubist paintings, especially The Grinder. You could be right about the white and black squares. I don't really care for the suprematist paintings. "Western smarties?"


----------



## isorhythm

some guy, we're not going to be able to have a conversation about this because you clearly believe that what I said was an attack on post-1900 music in some way. Until you let go of that belief completely, there is no hope, so I'm not going to try anymore.


----------



## mmsbls

sharik said:


> not new, before him there had been Kazimir Malevitch in painting -


To me the Malevitch paintings, _Black Square_ and _White on White_, are distinctly different from Cage's 4'33". Malevitch intended every part of his paintings and painted everything that we see. His paintings were created just as other paintings, but there is vastly less "content". One might say that the black canvas is background, but it is exactly as Malevitch intended and always the same.

Cage set the stage for us to hear a work but he had essentially nothing to do with the sounds we hear. He did not intend any particular sound. He simply intended that we hear what normally is what we call background sound. Personally, I believe Cage's work breaks significantly further from established art than Malevitch's works.

Perhaps the closest one could get to Cage in painting is not a "blank" canvas but rather no canvas at all - a frame that has nothing inside setup so the viewer would see true background (e.g. a corner in a stairwell, the legs and feet of pedestrians crossing a street, or some other "scene" that we see but do not look at). I don't know if any artist ever "created" such a painting.


----------



## sharik

EdwardBast said:


> His figurative work in the 1910s ("Peasant Woman with Buckets," "Chiropodist at the Baths") looks a lot like Picaso of five years earlier, doesn't it?


that might be, however, i meant his Suprematist works in the first place - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprematism


----------



## sharik

mmsbls said:


> Perhaps the closest one could get to Cage in painting is not a "blank" canvas but rather no canvas at all


there is 'canvas' to Cage: the stage, the audience, the timing and the statement.


----------



## tortkis

mmsbls said:


> To me the Malevitch paintings, _Black Square_ and _White on White_, are distinctly different from Cage's 4'33". Malevitch intended every part of his paintings and painted everything that we see. His paintings were created just as other paintings, but there is vastly less "content". One might say that the black canvas is background, but it is exactly as Malevitch intended and always the same.
> 
> Cage set the stage for us to hear a work but he had essentially nothing to do with the sounds we hear. He did not intend any particular sound. He simply intended that we hear what normally is what we call background sound. Personally, I believe Cage's work breaks significantly further from established art than Malevitch's works.
> 
> Perhaps the closest one could get to Cage in painting is not a "blank" canvas but rather no canvas at all - a frame that has nothing inside setup so the viewer would see true background (e.g. a corner in a stairwell, the legs and feet of pedestrians crossing a street, or some other "scene" that we see but do not look at). I don't know if any artist ever "created" such a painting.


Probably that is more adequate analogy, but Cage interpreted Rauschenberg's White Paintings as "airports for the lights, shadows, and particles." This was not Rauschenberg's intention (he regarded the White Paintings as religious works.) Although Cage acknowledged Rauschenberg's works as precedents ("The white paintings came first; my silent piece came later"), I think it should be called creative influence rather than "copycat."


----------



## mmsbls

sharik said:


> there is 'canvas' to Cage: the stage, the audience, the timing and the statement.


It's not the canvas that I see as different between Cage's 4'33" and Malevitch's paintings. Malevitch intended every part of his painting. He was the creator of all the visual part of the paintings. Cage set the stage but did not produce or create any of the sounds.


----------



## tortkis

sharik said:


> because it looks, sounds and feels like one.
> 
> not that it should be forgotten but rather ascribed less importance.
> 
> with the mass media; how did they manage to forget or ignore the real pioneers of art for example?.. should do the same about the copycats.


Alphonse Allais exhibited his monochrome painting "Première communion de jeunes filles chlorotiques par un temps de neige" in 1883. Should we forget Malevich?


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> some guy, we're not going to be able to have a conversation about this because you clearly believe that what I said was an attack on post-1900 music in some way. Until you let go of that belief completely, there is no hope, so I'm not going to try anymore.


I'm not seein' it, iso. I went back and looked. There's nothing in post #1256 that I can see that would support your conclusion that I "clearly believe" that you were attacking post-1900 music in some way. What was it in that post that led you to that conclusion?

In the meantime, I'll just say that what I intended to do was address the points you made, lining them up with the historical record to see how closely the two matched. The only thing I can think of that did anything else was me noticing the verbal sleight of hand with "some listeners" replacing "audiences" and the addition of "intial" to modify one instance of "resistance" in your post but not the other one. But that doesn't add up to "I believe that you're attacking post-1900 music." It only adds up to "I believe that those strategies are not 'playing fair'."


----------



## isorhythm

some guy said:


> In the meantime, I'll just say that what I intended to do was address the points you made, lining them up with the historical record to see how closely the two matched. The only thing I can think of that did anything else was me noticing the verbal sleight of hand with "some listeners" replacing "audiences" and the addition of "intial" to modify one instance of "resistance" in your post but not the other one. But that doesn't add up to "I believe that you're attacking post-1900 music." It only adds up to "I believe that those strategies are not 'playing fair'."


This wasn't a sleight of hand, but a perfectly direct statement of my position. In the 19th century, "initial resistance by some listeners" is an accurate description. In the 20th century, on the other hand, it is more accurate to speak of the continuous, unyielding resistance of the vast majority of the audience. You need only look at the 2015-2016 season of any major orchestra to see that this is so.


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> This wasn't a sleight of hand, but a perfectly direct statement of my position. In the 19th century, "initial resistance by some listeners" is an accurate description. In the 20th century, on the other hand, it is more accurate to speak of the continuous, unyielding resistance of the vast majority of the audience. You need only look at the 2015-2016 season of any major orchestra to see that this is so.


The Boston Symphony's 2015-2016 Season

Is there anything particularly extreme or shocking about any of the music chosen? No.

But there's sure a good deal of 20th/21st century music: Kanchieli, Chin, Hartmann, Henze, Abrahamsen, Berg, Bartok, and lots of Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Dutilleux.


----------



## millionrainbows

Music is so tied to the church, and to social tradition and ceremony, and as accompaniment to drama, that "art" ways of thinking about it are fairly recent, in the history of things, and still seem to befuddle many.


----------



## Nereffid

We have always been at peace with Eastasia.


----------



## isorhythm

Mahlerian said:


> The Boston Symphony's 2015-2016 Season
> 
> Is there anything particularly extreme or shocking about any of the music chosen? No.
> 
> But there's sure a good deal of 20th/21st century music: Kanchieli, Chin, Hartmann, Henze, Abrahamsen, Berg, Bartok, and lots of Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Dutilleux.


If you can look at that season and see anything other than overwhelming, stultifying conservatism, you are a much more "glass half full" kinda guy than me.

Huge swaths of what you and I both probably consider core repertoire of the last hundred years are virtually never performed. I think we should be able to talk about this.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Music is so tied to the church, and to social tradition and ceremony


I'm not sure I agree with this. Music may well be _used _in all these contexts, but I don't believe that "music is tied" to anything.


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> If you can look at that season and see anything other than overwhelming, stultifying conservatism, you are a much more "glass half full" kinda guy than me.
> 
> Huge swaths of what you and I both probably consider core repertoire of the last hundred years is virtually never performed. I think we should be able to talk about this.


Yes, on one level I agree with you.

I think orchestras are conservative institutions, and they aren't helped by music directors who tend to shy away from music perceived as difficult, no matter its quality.

If I had my way, Stravinsky's Threni would be performed far more often. We'd have a broader range of early music and recent music introduced onto concert programs. American music of the 20th century including Copland, but not limited to him or especially to his most popular few pieces, would appear frequently.

The orchestra would know Schoenberg's works like they do Beethoven and Strauss, and communicate them with such visceral power and human warmth as to win audiences over. It would take a lot of rehearsal time, but it would be worth it.

But I can't deny that the programming here is actually far more interesting than it was before Nelsons took over. Far less conservative, too. For those few years, it was nearly all warhorses, all the time. The only contemporary music played was commissions that had already been in the works before Levine left. And despite that, there was no sense of coherence to the seasons at all. If you look at many other American orchestras, you'll see much the same thing as we did before the new director stepped in.

You said that orchestra programming proves that audiences haven't accepted the changes in 20th century music. I'm showing that you can find a lot of those changes represented; not all of them, not the majority of them, but a good number. As for the rest, how can we say they've rejected them if the music is almost never played to begin with? We wouldn't imagine that audiences have rejected things they haven't heard (of course, this in fact does happen all the time).


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> The Boston Symphony's 2015-2016 Season
> 
> Is there anything particularly extreme or shocking about any of the music chosen? No.
> 
> But there's sure a good deal of 20th/21st century music: Kanchieli, Chin, Hartmann, Henze, Abrahamsen, Berg, Bartok, and lots of Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Dutilleux.


I almost wish I still lived in Boston. What a great season. Elektra! Lots of Shostakovich! Bartok!


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I agree with this. Music may well be _used _in all these contexts, but I don't believe that "music is tied" to anything.


Semantics, "music is tied" to the church extensively. The church uses music to draw the crowds. The church expresses its glorification of religion by employing composers. Certainly as far as numerous composers of the past were concerned, every note were written in the name of religion, as per for example Bach's music sheets in Latin. So "tied" to the church or call it "used" or whatever if you prefer. The point is the indispensability during say the Baroque and Classical periods especially.


----------



## Taggart

millionrainbows said:


> Music is so tied to the church, and to social tradition and ceremony, and as accompaniment to drama, that "art" ways of thinking about it are fairly recent, in the history of things, and still seem to befuddle many.





MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I agree with this. Music may well be _used _in all these contexts, but I don't believe that "music is tied" to anything.


We're just listening to Josquin's_ Missa Pange lingua_. Most Catholics of my generation would be well aware of at least the last two verses of the _Pange lingua_ - sung as the Benediction hymn _Tantum ergo sacramentum_. Equally, they would be totally familiar with the texts being sung. This means they don't always see it as "art" or if they do, they have a much deeper understanding of what Josquin is doing because of their knowledge and experience of plain chant, Latin, the underlying tune and the use of music in liturgy. If music is not "tied" to anything, it has no connection to anything and simply becomes a pleasant noise. If it is grounded in day to day life, then it becomes more resonant.


----------



## Albert7

Taggart said:


> We're just listening to Josquin's_ Missa Pange lingua_. Most Catholics of my generation would be well aware of at least the last two verses of the _Pange lingua_ - sung as the Benediction hymn _Tantum ergo sacramentum_. Equally, they would be totally familiar with the texts being sung. This means they don't always see it as "art" or if they do, they have a much deeper understanding of what Josquin is doing because of their knowledge and experience of plain chant, Latin, the underlying tune and the use of music in liturgy. If music is not "tied" to anything, it has no connection to anything and simply becomes a pleasant noise. If it is grounded in day to day life, then it becomes more resonant.


Indeed. Similar to the Catholics here, Cage's piece is pretty central to my Buddhist beliefs.


----------



## PierreN

Nereffid said:


> We have always been at peace with Eastasia.


And the price of chocolate will soon be lowered yet again.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I agree with this.* Music* may well be _used _in all these contexts, but I don't believe that "*music* is tied" to anything.


I think* classical *music is, in its origins, tied to religion and drama, and this is still true today of "classical" music (Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Terry Riley). All art, as we see it now, is about sublime contemplation, or a form of religious or spiritual worship or activity.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Semantics, "music is tied" to the church extensively. The church uses music to draw the crowds. The church expresses its glorification of religion by employing composers. Certainly as far as numerous composers of the past were concerned, every note were written in the name of religion, as per for example Bach's music sheets in Latin. So "tied" to the church or call it "used" or whatever if you prefer. The point is the indispensability during say the Baroque and Classical periods especially.


It may be semantics to you, but it's obvious that what "tied" means to the three who've responded to me have slightly different ideas.

Does Million mean that _all _music is inextricably connected to the church? Or simply that much (Western?) music was, historically, connected to, derived from, contemplative of the various religious organisations and expressly theistic beliefs that predominated? The latter, I can accept, but that's not what Million actually said.



Taggart said:


> If music is not "tied" to anything, it has no connection to anything and simply becomes a pleasant noise. If it is grounded in day to day life, then it becomes more resonant.


Nothing wrong with a 'pleasant noise'. As you'll see from my reply to ArtMusic, I'm querying what was meant by 'tied'. I don't doubt that much music was, and still is grounded in all kinds of contexts - I already acknowledged that.



millionrainbows said:


> I think* classical *music is, in its origins, tied to religion and drama, and this is still true today of "classical" music (Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Terry Riley). All art, as we see it now, is about sublime contemplation, or a form of religious or spiritual worship or activity.


Ah, now you're making yourself clear - the origins of music, yes, and perhaps classical more than other forms. But then you move to claims about 'all art' that I can't accept. Not all art is sublime contemplation.


----------



## pmsummer

"I have nothing to say, and I am saying it, and that is poetry."

--John Cage


Pretty much says it all.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Music is so tied to the church, and to social tradition and ceremony, and as accompaniment to drama, that "art" ways of thinking about it are fairly recent, in the history of things, and still seem to befuddle many.


The status of what music is travels with what people identify with. Our tribal nature is increasingly decreasing... so more and more are looking at music for what it is - lovely sounds.

Of course, those with holes in their bellies will want to tie it to something. But as time has shown, it doesn't make it a fact.


----------



## Guest

pmsummer said:


> "I have nothing to say, and I am saying it, and that is poetry."
> 
> --John Cage
> 
> Pretty much says it all.


If only this were all of the quote....


----------



## breakup

[QUOTE = pmsummer;] 
"*I have nothing to say.*"
--John Cage
Pretty much says it all.[/QUOTE]



some guy said:


> If only this were all of the quote....


That is all that is needed.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Ah, now you're making yourself clear - the origins of music, yes, and perhaps classical more than other forms. But then you move to claims about 'all art' that I can't accept. Not all art is sublime contemplation.


Art is closely tied to religion, and always has been. I think that the general purpose of art is for sublime contemplation. Otherwise, it has no utilitarian function.

Of course, it gets tricky (and McLeod always wants neat answers). Anything can be turned into a commodity. Now we have to start talking about criteria and intent and context.


----------



## millionrainbows

Taggart said:


> We're just listening to Josquin's_ Missa Pange lingua_. Most Catholics of my generation would be well aware of at least the last two verses of the _Pange lingua_ - sung as the Benediction hymn _Tantum ergo sacramentum_. Equally, they would be totally familiar with the texts being sung. This means they don't always see it as "art" or if they do, they have a much deeper understanding of what Josquin is doing because of their knowledge and experience of plain chant, Latin, the underlying tune and the use of music in liturgy. If music is not "tied" to anything, it has no connection to anything and simply becomes a pleasant noise. If it is grounded in day to day life, then it becomes more resonant.


As a Brit, I can see why you would say this. You see music's meaning (resonance) as primarily social, reflecting the social collective. If it does not have a 'social identity' then it becomes irrelevant.

What is the correct answer? John Cage would describe his music as 'just sounds,' not necessarily even pleasant. He did not seek to really 'extend' or 'be a part of' the western tradition, except in a very tenuous way.

Some music reflects its social connectedness and tradition; some does not. I think we should give 'pleasant noises' another chance.


----------



## Skilmarilion

millionrainbows said:


> As a Brit, I can see why you would say this...


Yes, because all 60 million of us think exactly the same way about music, among other things.


----------



## Guest

Skilmarilion said:


> Yes, because all 60 million of us think exactly the same way about music, among other things.


Yes, I agree with you, as I do with all your posts; exactly.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I think that the general purpose of art is for sublime contemplation. Otherwise, it has no utilitarian function.


I don't think it is. It's for whatever purpose the artist puts it to.



millionrainbows said:


> As a Brit, I can see why you would say this. You see music's meaning (resonance) as primarily social, reflecting the social collective. If it does not have a 'social identity' then it becomes irrelevant.


Tsk, your grammar goes awry here - you're not a Brit, are you?

I had no idea that we Brits see music as primarily social - where do you get your idea about Brits from, Million?


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> I had no idea that we Brits see music as primarily social - where do you get your idea about Brits from, Million?


You might like to do some reading. http://imslp.org/wiki/A_General_History_of_Music_(Burney,_Charles)

Read about the author too.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> You might like to do some reading. http://imslp.org/wiki/A_General_History_of_Music_(Burney,_Charles)
> 
> Read about the author too.


Eh/ What has this to do with British attitudes to music?


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> Eh/ What has this to do with British attitudes to music?


Only if one reads and thus forms an opinion afterwards. Pure and simple. I did.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Only if one reads and thus forms an opinion afterwards. Pure and simple. I did.


You read a book written in 1789 and from it gleaned information about the British attitudes to music?


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> You read a book written in 1789 and from it gleaned information about the British attitudes to music?


I sometimes think that a hallucinogenic gas is being secretly pumped into my home. There really is no other explanation.


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> I sometimes think that a hallucinogenic gas is being secretly pumped into my home. There really is no other explanation.


Alternatively...


----------



## millionrainbows

"The Brits" have been around for a long time, in the same general area. Therefore, they have a richer social tradition than Amercans. Just a generalization. You know, stuff that's older than 200 years.


----------



## millionrainbows

dogen said:


> I sometimes think that a hallucinogenic gas is being secretly pumped into my home. There really is no other explanation.


It's happened before.


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> You read a book written in 1789 and from it gleaned information about the British attitudes to music?


Yes, easier to judge those who have read wisely.

It's a fascinating account on classical music.


----------



## breakup

MacLeod said:


> You read a book written in 1789 and from it gleaned information about the British attitudes to music?


From what I saw the book was published in 1935 and referred to works from 1789 onward. I don't think there was much recorded music in 1789.


----------



## breakup

dogen said:


> I sometimes think that a hallucinogenic gas is being secretly pumped into my home. There really is no other explanation.


 Not just your house, it seems.


----------



## SimonNZ

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, easier to judge those who have read wisely.
> 
> It's a fascinating account on classical music.


I'm curious...you've said repeatedly you don't like reading long posts and will often read only the first few sentences (which your sometimes confusing replies seem to bear out, even on the threads you start and are asking for feedback), so...are we now to believe that you happily read whole books of music history and carefully digest their contents?


----------



## ArtMusic

SimonNZ said:


> I'm curious...you've said repeatedly you don't like reading long posts and will often read only the first few sentences (which your sometimes confusing replies seem to bear out, even on the threads you start and are asking for feedback), *so...are we now to believe that you happily read whole books of music history and carefully digest their contents?*


Yes, please (but only if you wish to). Dr Charles Burney was perhaps the first ever or one of the very first musicologist in the modern sense of the word.


----------



## SimonNZ

Lets assume that's true for a moment....so what then is the problem then with reading more than a sentence or two of replies in your own poll threads? Why do you say you dont want to and will not read, say, three whole paragraphs?


----------



## ArtMusic

Reading whole books for serious studying versus reading internal posts/threads for broad/general/fun discussions with friends are two very separate and different things to me. Pure and simple.

*Getting back to topic*, this book on religious classical music is worth a read, and one may then contrast with why religious music needs sounds, not silence (4'33"), for religious contemplation.

"Classical Music For Church Service"

http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mus...937&sr=1-2&keywords=Classical+religious+music


----------



## SimonNZ

Perhaps you could give us a precis of the author's position? Or of the ideas from it that you thought were particularly relevant to this discussion?


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Reading whole books for serious studying versus reading internal posts/threads for broad/general/fun discussions with friends are two very separate and different things to me. Pure and simple.
> 
> *Getting back to topic*, this book on religious classical music is worth a read, and one may then contrast with why religious music needs sounds, not silence (4'33"), for religious contemplation.
> 
> "Classical Music For Church Service"
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mus...937&sr=1-2&keywords=Classical+religious+music


It isn't a book 'on religious classical music'. It is a book of scores for music suitable for playing in church.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> From what I saw the book was published in 1935 and referred to works from 1789 onward. I don't think there was much recorded music in 1789.


Then you need to check this out more carefully...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Burney



> In 1776 appeared the first volume (in quarto) of his long-projected _History of Music. In 1782 Burney published his second volume; and in 1789 the third and fourth. _





millionrainbows said:


> "The Brits" have been around for a long time, in the same general area. Therefore, they have a richer social tradition than Amercans. Just a generalization. You know, stuff that's older than 200 years.


Yes, well if I started spouting all I know about Yanks from what I've gleaned from TV and Hollywood...


----------



## SimonNZ

MacLeod said:


> It isn't a book 'on religious classical music'. It is a book of scores for music suitable for playing in church.


Busted!............


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> It's happened before.


And now, it seems, whilst I slept a team of surgeons performed a lobotomy on me.

Or perhaps I should just start using the Ignore feature?


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> It isn't a book 'on religious classical music'. It is a book of scores for music suitable for playing in church.


Exactly, and why the church need the harmonics as evident in the book and other discussions in it.


----------



## isorhythm

ArtMusic said:


> Exactly, and why the church need the harmonics as evident in the book and other discussions in it.


These discussions will go better for you if you admit mistakes quickly and openly and move on. Doubling down on your mistake is just not going to work.


----------



## pmsummer




----------



## mmsbls

Let's keep the discussion focused on musical topics and not political ones. Also please don't make comments about other members unless they are positive.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Let's keep the discussion focused on musical topics and not political ones. Also please don't make comments about other members unless they are positive.


I agree. How can I now ask Million to back up his last allegation about my attitudes towards women and blacks (about which I have posted absolutely nothing) without wandering off topic?


----------



## Krummhorn

MacLeod said:


> I agree. How can I now ask Million to back up his last allegation about my attitudes towards women and blacks (about which I have posted absolutely nothing) without wandering off topic?


Send a PM ... or create your own Social Group.


----------



## breakup

mmsbls said:


> Let's keep the discussion focused on musical topics and not political ones. Also please don't make comments about other members unless they are positive.


In a round about, backdoor way, these comments are about music, it is widely believed that among Brits only the upper crust can create anything really good because good stuff is created by the aristocracy and a commoner can only produce meaningless drivel for the masses, because it's meaningless drivel produced by a commoner for the masses. The controversy about the authorship of Shakespeare is a case in point, many of the aristocracy contend that Shakespeare couldn't have written the plays and poetry because he was a commoner, so it must have been written by an aristocrat and published under a false name.


----------



## isorhythm

This is easily the weirdest thread on this site, in multiple ways.


----------



## breakup

isorhythm said:


> This is easily the weirdest thread on this site, in multiple ways.


You haven't been on many other forums, have you?


----------



## Guest

Krummhorn said:


> Send a PM ... or create your own Social Group.


At the moderators' invitation, I have created a social group to discuss my attitudes to women and blacks. Feel free to pop over and join in.

http://www.talkclassical.com/groups/macleod-s-attitudes.html


----------



## Headphone Hermit

breakup said:


> From what I saw the book was published in 1935 and referred to works from 1789 onward. I don't think there was much recorded music in 1789.


Charles Burney (the author of the book) died in 1814. The book can be published at any date after it was written, but I know of no authors who have been able to write after they died


----------



## Taggart

Closed for repairs.


----------



## mmsbls

Several posts that discussed political topics or included personal comments were deleted. In addition some posts that responded to those deleted posts were also deleted. I have re-opened the thread.


----------



## breakup

mmsbls said:


> Several posts that discussed political topics or included personal comments were deleted. In addition some posts that responded to those deleted posts were also deleted. I have re-opened the thread.


Sometimes I miss a good flame war, it really lets you know about the true nature of some members.


----------



## breakup

Just in case, where do I find the ignore function, or is there one on my control panel.


----------



## Dim7

breakup said:


> Just in case, where do I find the ignore function, or is there one on my control panel.


Go to the profile page of the user you want to ignore. Under the profile picture, there's various links, one of them "Add to Ignore List".


----------



## pmsummer

There's an app for that.

http://www.icareifyoulisten.com/2014/04/app-review-john-cages-4-33-app-for-ios/


----------



## tortkis

^ It's a good app. I occasionally use it and always realize how little I have been hearing the surrounding sounds.


----------



## Zlatorog

4'33" is 100% concept. It is a statement, or maybe a question, about the nature of music. But that doesn't make it music, in my opinion. It's all art and no craft.


----------



## Marilyn

This thread has a life of its own!


----------



## JD Reyes

Music is a combination of sound AND silence. Silence with no sound is just silence. 4'33" is no different from any other four minute and thirty three second period of silence. It requires no performer, no voice, no instrumentation – not even the ability to hear! – in order to be "heard". It is playing right now. Whenever you think of it, it's currently playing. It's playing over the top of every other piece of music or song you hear. 4'33" is a philosophical statement or rhetorical question, but it is not music.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

JD Reyes said:


> Music is a combination of sound AND silence. Silence with no sound is just silence. 4'33" is no different from any other four minute and thirty three second period of silence. It requires no performer, no voice, no instrumentation - not even the ability to hear! - in order to be "heard". It is playing right now. Whenever you think of it, it's currently playing. It's playing over the top of every other piece of music or song you hear. 4'33" is a philosophical statement or rhetorical question, but it is not music.


Normally when I enjoy 4'33" I pay most of my attention to the sounds of the crowd, or other ambient sounds. The small levels of crowd energy like coughing, shuffling, etc. give a nice tense stillness that can't be experienced in other sorts of mediums. In fact Cage himself emphasized these ambient sounds as really the main focus of 4'33".

Perhaps the next time you listen to 4'33" you could think of the sounds of the crowd?


----------



## Woodduck

Zlatorog said:


> 4'33" is 100% concept. It is a statement, or maybe a question, about the nature of music. But that doesn't make it music, in my opinion. It's all art and no craft.


No craft, to be sure. But art? Which art? Not the art of music.

I can't believe I'm in this thread again. Kick me hard.


----------



## arpeggio

OK.......................................


----------



## Haydn man

I am puzzled about all this
I can understand the idea of 4'33" being about listening to the ambient sounds around us, and the concept of this being a performance. What happens if during the performance of 4'33" someone starts playing music, am I then listening to that or 4'33"?


----------



## Guest

I thought we'd given this thread a respectful burial!


----------



## Guest

Haydn man said:


> I am puzzled about all this
> I can understand the idea of 4'33" being about listening to the ambient sounds around us, and the concept of this being a performance. What happens if during the performance of 4'33" someone starts playing music, am I then listening to that or 4'33"?


What happens if during the performance of a Haydn work someone starts playing a Bach work, am I then listening to that or Haydn?


----------



## Haydn man

dogen said:


> What happens if during the performance of a Haydn work someone starts playing a Bach work, am I then listening to that or Haydn?


That's a good question and one that could start the whole debate again, so perhaps we should just let matters rest as you sensibly suggest


----------



## Lukecash12

Why am I not surprised at this thread? It's been six years and TC is still caught up on 4'33". It's the "song that never ends".


----------



## Woodduck

Lukecash12 said:


> Why am I not surprised at this thread? It's been six years and TC is still caught up on 4'33". It's the "song that never ends".


And never begins.


----------



## breakup

JD Reyes said:


> It is playing right now.


No, right now I'm hearing my tinnitus, thankfully 4'33" never plays for me.


----------



## Lukecash12

Woodduck said:


> And never begins.


Hmmm... In the interests of insanity I guess I'll take another hack at it for old time's sake:






What are my thoughts on John Cage's view of music? It influenced the way I listen to *his* music. My approach to music is asking this: what is the *composer's* intention?

Other approaches are as rewarding, underlying marked preferences, e.g. romantic interpretations of baroque music, or wanting each new interpretation to sound substantially unique (as is one trend within classical pedagogy today). While that's perfectly fine, the musical societies shouldn't neglect the historical and philosophical setting in which the composer wrote, related biographical information, or the composer's intentions within the development of music theory. We can't just hijack their ideas and repeatedly put a stamp on it saying "hey, look at me", without losing something of real value.

John Cage wrote essays on Eastern philosophy, especially Taoist ideas on Lao Tzi's idea of an ineffable Tao (e.g. "everything coming from nothingness", "the ultimate fundamental of reality as a necessity being indefinable"), reflecting on them and expressing that with his music. His piece "four thirty three" is degraded by many theorists and uneducated listeners alike, as it simply consists of counting out sections of silence; clearly they feel it is pompous for him to call that "music". But really they are neglecting to contemplate the underpinning philosophy, wherein ambient noises, happenstance occurrences, and silence, are possessive of aesthetic qualities as well, worthy of being discerned within a musical frame of mind. The stillness of self, and the manic activity of otherness, can be profound.

How is it a musical performance? They are indeed *using* sound, and they are indeed prompting the audience to form emotional and intellectual ideas about that sound. So how is it *not* musical? Mendelssohn without any conceptual context is no more or less musical than Cage is, when bereft of the same. Sound is merely sound; *we* supply the meaning.

Cage is inviting us to explore his philosophy, to think aesthetically about our surroundings for an extended period of time, pleasing ourselves with the thought that music can be meaningless and meaningful, just like laughter. It is the sound, and thinking about the sound, that counts, not the type of sound and the type of thinking.

Of course, I'm sure I sound like a broken record, saying all of this.



breakup said:


> No, right now I'm hearing my tinnitus, thankfully 4'33" never plays for me.


As a fellow sufferer, you have my sympathies. The way I figure it, one can either go mad or just accept it. Evidently I chose the first response.


----------



## breakup

dogen said:


> I thought we'd given this thread a respectful burial!


Please, let it be so.


----------



## breakup

Lukecash12 said:


> Of course, I'm sure I sound like a broken record, saying all of this.


Please pretend you are a John Cage composition, and be silent.


----------



## Lukecash12

breakup said:


> Please pretend you are a John Cage composition, and be silent.


I have to admit that your coy humor is almost as boring.


----------



## Woodduck

Lukecash12 said:


> *John Cage wrote essays on Eastern philosophy,* especially Taoist ideas on Lao Tzi's idea of an ineffable Tao (e.g. "everything coming from nothingness", "the ultimate fundamental of reality as a necessity being indefinable"), reflecting on them and expressing that with his music. His piece "four thirty three" is degraded by many theorists and uneducated listeners alike, as it simply consists of counting out sections of silence; clearly they feel it is pompous for him to call that "music". But really *they are neglecting to contemplate the underpinning philosophy*, wherein ambient noises, happenstance occurrences, and silence, are possessive of aesthetic qualities as well, worthy of being discerned within a musical frame of mind. The stillness of self, and the manic activity of otherness, can be profound.
> 
> *How is it a musical performance? They are indeed using sound, and they are indeed prompting the audience to form emotional and intellectual ideas about that sound. So how is it not musical? Mendelssohn without any conceptual context is no more or less musical than Cage is, when bereft of the same. Sound is merely sound; we supply the meaning.*
> 
> *Cage is inviting us to explore his philosophy,* to think aesthetically about our surroundings for an extended period of time, pleasing ourselves with the thought that music can be meaningless and meaningful, just like laughter. *It is the sound, and thinking about the sound, that counts, not the type of sound and the type of thinking.
> *


The test of your argument that 4'33" is music is found in your comparison of 4'33" with Mendelssohn. Both, you say, are "merely sound," and both acquire their significance, and their status as music, from their "conceptual context."

But this is quite wrong. Of the two, only Cage's work depends for its identity on a "conceptual context." Mendelssohn's music is not "merely sound." It is self-evidently music; it needs only to be heard, not explained or justified. In 4'33," we do not hear anything we identify as music unless we believe, or have been told, that whatever we happen to hear during its presentation is music.

It's one thing to argue, philosophically, that it's the conceptual context in which sounds are heard that determines their status as music. But Mendelssohn's status as music does not depend on this, or any, philosophical position. What Mendelssohn wrote is what has always been recognized as music, and his organization of sound as an object of aesthetic contemplation explains itself as such to the mind. Cage, in 4'33," wrote no music. His work does not explain itself in any way: it does not even provide or suggest the "conceptual context" you say it needs, since the ideas which purport to explain that its apparent meaninglessness actually means something must be imported from elsewhere.

It's presumptuous to state that someone who denies that 4'33" is music is "neglecting to contemplate the underpinning philosophy." More likely, they simply disagree with the underpinning philosophy, or disagree that the stunt which is 4'33" implies, in and of itself, without explanation, any philosophy at all. A work of "music" cannot in itself define music, and it certainly cannot do so merely by not offering any.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> the ideas which purport to explain that its apparent meaninglessness actually means something must be imported from elsewhere.


Unless one can figure it out for oneself? It's difficult to test this, since few people will be able to approach it now without having prior knowledge, but it's possible to conceive that an innocent attending a performance might have the capacity to ask what just happened and why without prejudging.


----------



## Lukecash12

Ah, monsieur, I had hoped I could count on a member like yourself to roll around and prompt discussion with some substance. Glad to see I piqued your interest.



Woodduck said:


> The test of your argument that 4'33" is music is found in your comparison of 4'33" with Mendelssohn. Both, you say, are "merely sound," and both acquire their significance, and their status as music, from their "conceptual context."


Exactly.



> But this is quite wrong. Of the two, only Cage's work depends for its identity on a "conceptual context." Mendelssohn's music is not "merely sound." It is self-evidently music; it needs only to be heard, not explained or justified. In 4'33," we do not hear anything we identify as music unless we believe, or have been told, that whatever we happen to hear during its presentation is music.


Are you so certain of this, that a piece from Mendelssohn's lieder ohne worte *would be received as music by someone entirely unfamiliar with music*? That is, of course, your implication; this conclusion of "self evident" you are forwarding is a _petitio principii_ fallacy (begging the question). Mendelssohn most certainly *has* been explained and justified, whether it be in his own context or a broader one, before a single note is heard. Even in youth we listen to him with the preconceived understanding that it is music.

Say we were to expose someone who is unfamiliar with instruments and music in general, and we asked him/her about a piece of music being played... What is the response? It's kind of a hard question to answer, considering that H. Sapiens Neanderthalensis invented the flute, so one would be hard pressed to find such an individual.



> It's one thing to argue, philosophically, that it's the conceptual context in which sounds are heard that determines their status as music. But Mendelssohn's status as music does not depend on this, or any, philosophical position. What Mendelssohn wrote is what has always been recognized as music, and his organization of sound as an object of aesthetic contemplation explains itself as such to the mind. Cage, in 4'33," wrote no music. His work does not explain itself in any way: it does not even provide or suggest the "conceptual context" you say it needs, since the ideas which purport to explain that its apparent meaninglessness actually means something must be imported from elsewhere.


Does Mendelssohn "explain himself" any more than Cage, when you've never heard music before? When you don't know what a piano is, or rhythm and melody for that matter?



> It's presumptuous to state that someone who denies that 4'33" is music is "neglecting to contemplate the underpinning philosophy." More likely, they simply disagree with the underpinning philosophy, or disagree that the stunt which is 4'33" implies, in and of itself, without explanation, any philosophy at all. A work of "music" cannot in itself define music, and it certainly cannot do so merely by not offering any.


Go ahead and find me art that doesn't have an attendant explanation somewhere. But I digress, let's get into some discussion of a more genuine philosophical nature: how is it that music is actually capable of possessing this "self evident" quality? And by that I really mean this: what is it exactly, that makes music *ontologically* different from sound?


----------



## KenOC

4'33" -- a favorite of pantsless emperors for years. This even though the uneducated might think it's a total ripoff of earlier silent works, starting with Alphonse Allais and his "Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man" in 1897.

I've brought this up before and been soundly scorned for not realizing that the works were quite different -- that is, silence is not silence. After all doesn't Karlheinz Klopweisser tell us that German silence is organic, while French silence is ornamental? Many thanks to Glenn Gould for reminding us of that. That's why this forum is great. The things you learn from hanging out around here!


----------



## Woodduck

Lukecash12 said:


> *Are you so certain of this, that a piece from Mendelssohn's lieder ohne worte would be received as music by someone entirely unfamiliar with music*? That is, of course, your implication; this conclusion of "self evident" you are forwarding is a _petitio principii_ fallacy (begging the question). Mendelssohn most certainly *has* been explained and justified, whether it be in his own context or a broader one, before a single note is heard. Even in youth we listen to him with the preconceived understanding that it is music.
> 
> *Say we were to expose someone who is unfamiliar with instruments and music in general*, and we asked him/her about a piece of music being played... What is the response? It's kind of a hard question to answer, considering that H. Sapiens Neanderthalensis invented the flute, so one would be hard pressed to find such an individual.
> 
> Go ahead and find me art that doesn't have an attendant explanation somewhere. But I digress, let's get into some discussion of a more genuine philosophical nature: how is it that music is actually capable of possessing this "self evident" quality? And by that I really mean this: *what is it exactly, that makes music **ontologically** different from sound?*


The questions here are: is 4'33" music? Is music different from mere sound? And - most fundamentally - what is music?

These question cannot even be asked, much less answered, unless we already have the concept "music." A concept is not just a word. It must have content, and we must have an understanding of that content. If we understand the concept "music," even in a basic sense, we know that when a pianist is sitting before us playing Mendelssohn, he is making music - even if we have never heard Mendelssohn, or classical music, or Western music - while a pianist sitting before us making no sound is not making music.

When I say that Mendelssohn's music "is self-evidently music; it needs only to be heard, not explained or justified," I am making the necessary assumption that we do have the concept "music." I have to assume this because without the concept this conversation cannot even begin. Your hypothetical Neanderthal who has never heard or heard of music cannot ask these questions, and his ignorance cannot be invoked to answer them. We cannot discuss concepts which do not even exist.

Your question, "What is it exactly, that makes music _ontologically_ different from sound?", is empty. Meaning is not ontological but epistemological. You might as well ask whether a raven is "ontologically" different from a writing desk. And while we're invoking Lewis Carroll, we might well recall Humpty Dumpty's epistemological views: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

Apparently Cage got his philosophy degree from Humpty Dumpty U.


----------



## arpeggio

I have not read every new post because they are rehashing the same old arguments.

It seems that some have problems dealing with members whose musical esthetics are different that theirs. And they come up with all sorts of rhetoric to support their positions.

If a person does not like 433 or does not think it is music or art or whatever, they really do not have to create a 400 word essay to support their feelings. Just "I don't like it" is good enough.

I do not like Cage. I just do not care if others do. What they like is their business.

I have mentioned this before that because of all of the anti-Cage oratory I have actually discovered some works of Cage that I now actually enjoy.


----------



## Blancrocher

Woodduck said:


> - while a pianist sitting before us making no sound is not making music.


I believe that I attended that performance, and I can assure you that his stool was squeaky. Accordingly, whether it was music or not is at least debatable.


----------



## Ingélou

arpeggio said:


> I have not read every new post because they are rehashing the same old arguments.
> 
> It seems that some have problems dealing with members whose musical esthetics are different that theirs. And they come up with all sorts of rhetoric to support their positions.
> 
> If a person does not like 433 or does not think it is music or art or whatever, they really do not have to create a 400 word essay to support their feelings. Just "I don't like it" is good enough.
> 
> I do not like Cage. I just do not care if others do. What they like is their business.
> 
> I have mentioned this before that because of all of the anti-Cage oratory I have actually discovered some works of Cage that I now actually enjoy.


What keeps this thread running? - It's not about personal preferences; it's the various definitions and concepts of music, and whether 4'33" _counts_.

Whether one likes Cage as a composer is not very pertinent. 
I like some of his works and not others, maybe like you.


----------



## Blancrocher

Ingélou said:


> What keeps this thread running? - It's not about personal preferences; it's the various definitions and concepts of music, and whether 4'33" _counts_.


Well, there's also the fact that the Stupid Thread Ideas Editorial Board has a large-money pool where everyone submitted guesses as to the date this thread would reach page 1000. So far the odds are looking good for Dim7's prediction of Dec. 4th, 2015.


----------



## Mahlerian

Blancrocher said:


> Well, there's also the fact that the Stupid Thread Ideas Editorial Board has a large-money pool where everyone submitted guesses as to the date this thread would reach page 1000. So far the odds are looking good for Dim7's prediction of Dec. 4th, 2015.


The other of the two biggest contributors is currently absent, though, so maybe not until the 5th.


----------



## Blancrocher

Mahlerian said:


> The other of the two biggest contributors is currently absent, though, so maybe not until the 5th.


I really can't believe we were stupid enough to let a mod in on the action...


----------



## Stavrogin

arpeggio said:


> I have not read every new post because they are rehashing the same old arguments.
> 
> It seems that some have problems dealing with members whose musical esthetics are different that theirs. And they come up with all sorts of rhetoric to support their positions.
> 
> If a person does not like 433 or does not think it is music or art or whatever, they really do not have to create a 400 word essay to support their feelings. Just "I don't like it" is good enough.
> 
> I do not like Cage. I just do not care if others do. What they like is their business.
> 
> I have mentioned this before that because of all of the anti-Cage oratory I have actually discovered some works of Cage that I now actually enjoy.


Your post is assuming (EDIT - no, it does not. My bad: let's say that it may suggest) an equivalence between "not liking 4'33" and "not considering it music", which, imo, is not a given at all.
One can consider it music and still not like it.
One can consider it not music, but like it.

This is not a negligible detail, because it sets the necessary separation between discussing on personal preferences and discussing on taxonomy.

Since a lot of people come up with accusations like "just because you don't like it, you feel the need to disregard it as music", well, I think it's worth suggesting that no, maybe people just want to talk about "what is music" and if they feel 4'33'' is a wonderful piece of conceptual art or performance art or whatever, this is not to diminish neither the work itself, neither Music, nor the other types of art.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> I have not read every new post because they are rehashing the same old arguments.
> 
> It seems that some have problems dealing with members whose musical esthetics are different that theirs. And they come up with all sorts of rhetoric to support their positions.
> 
> If a person does not like 433 or does not think it is music or art or whatever, they really do not have to create a 400 word essay to support their feelings. Just "I don't like it" is good enough.
> 
> I do not like Cage. I just do not care if others do. What they like is their business.
> 
> I have mentioned this before that because of all of the anti-Cage oratory I have actually discovered some works of Cage that I now actually enjoy.


Fortunately, we are not required to read posts that don't interest us.

If all you want to say about something is "I don't like it," no one will disparage you for not saying more. But if other people actually want to discuss their views and set forth their ideas on the subject, why criticize them for doing so? Are they doing something wrong or offensive?

Speaking for myself, I have no problem at all with anyone whose musical esthetics are different from mine. But you do appear to have a problem with those who have an interest in _discussing_ musical esthetics.

Lukecash12 raised some philosophical questions. I responded to him. He will probably respond to me in turn. May we not enjoy our conversation?


----------



## EdwardBast

Ingélou said:


> What keeps this thread running? - It's not about personal preferences; it's the various definitions and concepts of music, and whether 4'33" _counts_.


Perhaps it keeps running because after 1350 posts no one is willing to read the whole thread before contributing. Thus, they don't realize that the same exchanges occurred 700 posts prior. It is just too big to die.


----------



## arpeggio

Woodduck said:


> Fortunately, we are not required to read posts that don't interest us.
> 
> If all you want to say about something is "I don't like it," no one will disparage you for not saying more. But if other people actually want to discuss their views and set forth their ideas on the subject, why criticize them for doing so? Are they doing something wrong or offensive?
> 
> Speaking for myself, I have no problem at all with anyone whose musical esthetics are different from mine. But you do appear to have a problem with those who have an interest in _discussing_ musical esthetics.
> 
> Lukecash12 raised some philosophical questions. I responded to him. He will probably respond to me in turn. May we not enjoy our conversation?


Good. A Woodduck post I understand. Sorry. I ain't that smart and most of the time I have trouble understanding what you are trying to prove.

You may not believe it but I agree with everything you just said. And please, I have no problem with members whose aesthetics are different than mine. If people think I have a problem with people who have different tastes, that is probably my fault because I do a lousy job of expressing myself. I do the best I can with what I got.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Perhaps it keeps running because after 1350 posts no one is willing to read the whole thread before contributing. Thus, they don't realize that the same exchanges occurred 700 posts prior. It is just too big to die.


I'm guessing that only we old retired folks have the time to read a whole thread consisting of 1350 posts. New members enter threads and regard them as opportunities to think and talk and listen, not as reference books to be digested. Their ideas may evoke new thoughts in members who have already opined, resulting in exchanges subtly different from previous ones, taking different angles and saying things in new ways.

The subject of the definition of music is pretty fertile ground, and we could start new threads about it, but why bother when this one has such a snappy title? I'm predicting eternal life for it.


----------



## Dim7

Although from a principled standpoint it seems questionable, sometimes I wonder that maybe banning the entire subject of 4'33'' would be better for us all, utilitarianly speaking.


----------



## Blancrocher

Dim7 said:


> Although from a principled standpoint it seems questionable, sometimes I wonder that maybe banning the entire subject of 4'33'' would be better for us all, utilitarianly speaking.


I once called for a 4 minutes and 33 seconds moratorium on discussion of the topic, but that just led to lengthy posts debating whether or not that apparent silence wouldn't itself be (in some sense) a discussion.


----------



## Ingélou

Blancrocher said:


> I once called for a 4 minutes and 33 seconds moratorium on discussion of the topic, but that just led to lengthy posts debating whether or not that apparent silence wouldn't itself be (in some sense) a discussion.


Or maybe a validation of it - the *oxygen of publicity*!


----------



## Wood

KenOC said:


> 4'33" -- a favorite of pantsless emperors for years. This even though the uneducated might think it's a total ripoff of earlier silent works, starting with Alphonse Allais and his "Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man" in 1897.
> 
> I've brought this up before and been soundly scorned for not realizing that the works were quite different -- that is, silence is not silence. After all doesn't Karlheinz Klopweisser tell us that German silence is organic, while French silence is ornamental? Many thanks to Glenn Gould for reminding us of that. That's why this forum is great. The things you learn from hanging out around here!


Of course, if you'd paid attention during the first 1,354 posts you would have learnt that 4'33 is not a silent piece.

I recommend that you go back to the start and read through once more. :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC

Wood said:


> Of course, if you'd paid attention during the first 1,354 posts you would have learnt that 4'33 is not a silent piece.


Sadly, there are things written in this forum that don't qualify as learning opportunities.


----------



## isorhythm

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Cage himself called it a "silent piece."


----------



## Guest

I've become a Hindu.


----------



## DeepR

No matter what 4'33" is and what it stands for, the audible part during a "performance" of 4'33" still kinda sucks. Coughing, other audience noises and some laughter maybe. Well, how exciting. Next time people should bring a boombox and play some (real) music during 4'33" out of protest.


----------



## breakup

KenOC said:


> Sadly, there are things written in this forum that don't qualify as learning opportunities.


This thread, especially.


----------



## breakup

Lukecash12 said:


> As a fellow sufferer, you have my sympathies. The way I figure it, one can either go mad or just accept it. Evidently I chose the first response.


Since I've had it for many years, I just accept it, it's there whether I notice it or not. From your posts I can see that you have accepted the first response.


----------



## breakup

DeepR said:


> No matter what 4'33" is and what it stands for, the audible part during a "performance" of 4'33" still kinda sucks. Coughing, other audience noises and some laughter maybe. Well, how exciting. *Next time people should bring a boombox and play some (real) music during 4'33" out of protest.*


That would be a welcome relief.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> This thread, especially.


This thread may have become worn out, but while it was young and fresh, it was definitely a learning opportunity for me and, I suspect, for some others who had not previously encountered and argued the merits of the piece.


----------



## science

breakup said:


> That would be a welcome relief.


Only if there were multiple "boomboxes" and they were playing completely different music.


----------



## Lukecash12

Woodduck said:


> The questions here are: is 4'33" music? Is music different from mere sound? And - most fundamentally - what is music?


We're in agreement.



> These question cannot even be asked, much less answered, unless we already have the concept "music." A concept is not just a word. It must have content, and we must have an understanding of that content. If we understand the concept "music," even in a basic sense, we know that when a pianist is sitting before us playing Mendelssohn, he is making music - even if we have never heard Mendelssohn, or classical music, or Western music - while a pianist sitting before us making no sound is not making music.


What is the concept, though? How can it be appealed to before it is properly defined? Surely the argument (of course in saying "argument" I mean it in the academic, not popular, sense) you're presenting here exhibits the special pleading and question begging fallacies, respectively.



> When I say that Mendelssohn's music "is self-evidently music; it needs only to be heard, not explained or justified," I am making the necessary assumption that we do have the concept "music." I have to assume this because without the concept this conversation cannot even begin. Your hypothetical Neanderthal who has never heard or heard of music cannot ask these questions, and his ignorance cannot be invoked to answer them. We cannot discuss concepts which do not even exist.


It appears that your axiom here is the already existing mental state of understanding what music is. This fundamental member of the epistemological ladder you're appealing to is a member that coincidentally leads into the argument I intended to compose in response.



> Your question, "What is it exactly, that makes music ontologically different from sound?", is empty. Meaning is not ontological but epistemological. You might as well ask whether a raven is "ontologically" different from a writing desk. And while we're invoking Lewis Carroll, we might well recall Humpty Dumpty's epistemological views: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."


"Meaning is not ontological but epistemological" is an unduly unqualified statement if I've ever seen one. Epistemology is a necessary practice in the pursuit of ontology, the deductions and inductions of which build towards the metaphysical ends of ontology. Asking what the ontological meaning of music is, is not an empty query because ontology is the pursuit of classification, and it is *substantial* as opposed to merely *nominal*. Things have *qualities of their own* which *merit* classification.



> Apparently Cage got his philosophy degree from Humpty Dumpty U.


Maybe so. I, on the other hand, am interested in demonstrating philosophy of a different essence:

The phenomenon of sound is experienced differently amongst different species. Music as a concept is *sound produced in order to stimulate those sensibilities in humans*. Rhythm and melody can stimulate those sensibilities, but they are not necessary to stimulate one's sensibilities such that a person will think intently about sound, ascribing emotional and intellectual content to it.

What is music, then? It is a frame of mind through which people *use* sound in order to contemplate and express something about themselves. While not solipsistic in every sense of the word, music is essentially solipsistic regardless of the intended content, because the perspective is human irrespective of the object. It is an anthropomorphizing phenomena.


----------



## Stavrogin

Lukecash12 said:


> The phenomenon of sound is experienced differently amongst different species. Music as a concept is *sound produced in order to stimulate those sensibilities in humans*. Rhythm and melody can stimulate those sensibilities, but they are not necessary to stimulate one's sensibilities such that a person will think intently about sound, ascribing emotional and intellectual content to it.
> 
> What is music, then? It is a frame of mind through which people *use* sound in order to contemplate and express something about themselves. While not solipsistic in every sense of the word, music is essentially solipsistic regardless of the intended content, because the perspective is human irrespective of the object. It is an anthropomorphizing phenomena.


You wrote two different "music is" in this bit.

"Music... is sound produced in order to..."
and
"Music... is a frame of mind through which people use sound in order to..."

Care to elaborate on the difference between these two?


----------



## breakup

science said:


> Only if there were multiple "boomboxes" and they were playing completely different music.


Even better. It would remind me of a job that I no longer have.


----------



## Woodduck

Lukecash12 said:


> What is the concept, though? *How can it be appealed to before it is properly defined?* Surely the argument (of course in saying "argument" I mean it in the academic, not popular, sense) you're presenting here exhibits the special pleading and question begging fallacies, respectively.
> 
> *It appears that your axiom here is the already existing mental state of understanding what music is. *This fundamental member of the epistemological ladder you're appealing to is a member that coincidentally leads into the argument I intended to compose in response.
> 
> *"Meaning is not ontological but epistemological"* is an unduly unqualified statement if I've ever seen one. *Epistemology is a necessary practice in the pursuit of ontology,* the deductions and inductions of which build towards the metaphysical ends of ontology. Asking what the ontological meaning of music is, is not an empty query because ontology is the pursuit of classification, and it is *substantial* as opposed to merely *nominal*. Things have *qualities of their own* which *merit* classification.
> 
> The phenomenon of sound is experienced differently amongst different species. *Music as a concept is sound produced in order to stimulate those sensibilities in humans*. Rhythm and melody can stimulate those sensibilities, but they are not necessary to stimulate one's sensibilities *such that a person will think intently about sound, ascribing emotional and intellectual content to it. *
> 
> *What is music, then? It is a frame of mind through which people use sound in order to contemplate and express something about themselves.* While not solipsistic in every sense of the word, music is essentially solipsistic regardless of the intended content, because the perspective is human irrespective of the object. It is an anthropomorphizing phenomena.


In debating the definition of any word, we cannot begin _tabula rasa_. We have to begin with some conceptual content attached to any word we use. You say "It appears that your axiom here is the already existing mental state of understanding what music is." It would be wrong to call such an assumed understanding an "axiom," since my understanding of what music is could certainly change if I were given a reason to change it; but we have to start with something in order to be talking about anything. What we start with is _common understanding:_ what have human beings called "music," and how have they distinguished music from other things? Only after establishing that can we go on to ask whether that common understanding is adequate, whether some other definition - different, more expansive, more restricted - might be more useful. Notice that I say "more useful," not "more correct." We define things in order to bring order to our perceptions, clarify our thinking, be understood in communicating with other people, and interact productively with the world around us. Definitions may legitimately vary and change as the context of our thought and action varies and changes, but the "correctness" of a definition in a given context depends on its cognitive and practical usefulness. That's what I mean when I say that meaning is epistemological rather than ontological.

It appears that you agree with me that we must begin this discussion by accepting some conception of music, since you offer, without support, two conceptions of your own:_ "music as a concept is sound produced in order to stimulate those sensibilities in humans," _and_ "it is a frame of mind through which people use sound in order to contemplate and express something about themselves." _You don't say whether these conceptions are intended to express your own ideas of music or what you think are common understandings of it. On their face the two conceptions appear to be quite different; whether they are compatible or not - whether they are merely separate elements of the whole phenomenon called music - would require further argument to establish. But they do point up the fact that, in common understanding, the word "music" is used in more than one sense, which I think it's helpful to divide into two categories: the literal and the figurative. People say things like "the song of a bird" or "the music of falling water" or "it's music to my ears," but they know that they are speaking metaphorically, and that the metaphor refers to something more literal - namely, a specifically human activity and the product of that activity known as "music." This understanding will not and need not be universal: we may actually believe, naively or after study, that when a bird sings, it is doing exactly what a human being does when he sings, and that the product of its effort in no way differs from human music. This would not necessarily change our basic concept of music, however; it could merely add birds to our list of entities capable of making music. Definitions may be expanded - we find a hitherto unknown instance which fits into an established category of things - without being fundamentally altered.

Both of your conceptions (I'm not saying "definitions" now) acknowledge music to be a human activity involving the use of sound for the purpose of expressing or affecting a mental or emotional state. That certainly accords with common understanding. You go on to say "Rhythm and melody can stimulate those sensibilities, but they are not necessary to stimulate one's sensibilities such that a person will think intently about sound, ascribing emotional and intellectual content to it." That is certainly true, although its relevance to an actual definition of music is not established. How far do your suggestions as to music's identity get us in the debate as to whether 4'33" should be considered music? Not very far, I would have to say. I don't find that you've disturbed my conception, which I think is the common conception, of music in any way, nor brought us any closer to breaking down the distinctions between what musicians do and what Mr. Cage has done in his little experiment.

I'll have to leave it there for now, as other business calls. I look forward to your response.


----------



## millionrainbows

4'33" is not a silent piece; it involves the potential sounds one hears during a performance.

The piece was conceived in the context of a musical performance (concert hall, pianist, audience) by a legitimate accepted composer (John Cage), so the given factors are there: the piece is intended as a statement about music and how we experience sound.

Whether or not it fits a definition of music is irrelevant.


----------



## isorhythm

"The white paintings came first; *my silent piece* came later."

- John Cage

(I'm going to post this quote every time this comes up, btw.)


----------



## Blancrocher

isorhythm said:


> "The white paintings came first; *my silent piece* came later."
> 
> - John Cage
> 
> (I'm going to post this quote every time this comes up, btw.)


In a famous concert/"happening," Cage made use of white paintings by his friend Rauschenberg in the midst of other art media and chance ambient events. His multimedia work is yet another way he was influential. This is just by the way.


----------



## Strange Magic

I am reminded of the slogan or motto that served as an advertising blurb for the great film _Alien_: "In space, no one can hear you scream." I may be screaming now, but who will know?


----------



## DeepR

millionrainbows said:


> The piece was conceived in the context of a musical performance (concert hall, pianist, audience) by a legitimate accepted composer (John Cage), so the given factors are there: the piece is intended as a statement about music and how we experience sound.
> 
> Whether or not it fits a definition of music is irrelevant.


I get it now. It doesn't matter whether something made by a composer is music or not. Anything that is conceived in the context of a musical performance by a legitimate accepted composer deserves the same respect as western forms of sacred music.


----------



## Woodduck

Millionrainbows: _The piece was conceived in the context of a musical performance (concert hall, pianist, audience) by a legitimate accepted composer (John Cage), so the given factors are there: the piece is intended as a statement about music and how we experience sound.

Whether or not it fits a definition of music is irrelevant._

*Irrelevant to people who claim it's music? To people who disagree? To the question: What is music? To the philosophy of art? To cultural history of the 20th century?
*
DeepR: _I get it now. It doesn't matter whether something made by a composer is music or not. Anything that is conceived in the context of a musical performance by a legitimate accepted composer deserves the same respect as western forms of sacred music. _

 *!*


----------



## Blancrocher

Strange Magic said:


> I am reminded of the slogan or motto that served as an advertising blurb for the great film _Alien_: "In space, no one can hear you scream." I may be screaming now, but who will know?


I'm pretty sure _everyone_ is screaming in a John Cage thread, Strange Magic.


----------



## Strange Magic

It may be music.


----------



## Dim7

Without 4'33'', life would not be music.


----------



## Blancrocher

Dim7 said:


> Without 4'33'', life would not be music.


It's only when discussing 4'33'' that I notice the sound of my fingers hitting the keyboard.


----------



## Ingélou

millionrainbows said:


> 4'33" is not a silent piece; it involves the potential sounds one hears during a performance.
> 
> The piece was conceived in the context of a musical performance (concert hall, pianist, audience) by a legitimate accepted composer (John Cage), so the given factors are there: *the piece is intended as a statement about music and how we experience sound.* (my italics)...


So not *music*, then. 
As I decided above, it's _a statement about music_, i.e. 'meta-music'. 
Thanks!


----------



## DeepR

I think it's quite funny that the things you might hear during a concert hall "performance" of 4'33" are exactly those things you don't want to hear during an actual performance of music. So if anything... 4'33" is the very opposite of music.


----------



## Lyricus

DeepR said:


> I think it's quite funny that the things you might hear during a concert hall "performance" of 4'33" are exactly those things you don't want to hear during an actual performance of music. So if anything... 4'33" is the very opposite of music.


Hear, hear! There must be a cold going around here, as the loud coughing diminished the beginning of the Romeo and Juliet Overture last night. Everyone seemed to be coughing at once-did they all forget to take a cough drop?


----------



## millionrainbows

DeepR said:


> I think it's quite funny that the things you might hear during a concert hall "performance" of 4'33" are exactly those things you don't want to hear during an actual performance of music. So if anything... 4'33" is the very opposite of music.


You are forcing your will, your expectations, on what you think music should be. This is the opposite attitude needed for 4'33". You must relax your ego.


----------



## millionrainbows

Cage never said that 4'33" was music, did he? He just set the stage & conditions for you to listen.


----------



## ArtMusic

DeepR said:


> I think it's quite funny that the things you might hear during a concert hall "performance" of 4'33" are exactly those things you don't want to hear during an actual performance of music. So if anything... 4'33" is the very opposite of music.


That's a very agreeable way of putting it.


----------



## dzc4627

Because it has garnered so much discussion. I personally don't care for the piece (not as much development as I might prefer), and after hearing it spoken of so much in terms of being a great work of art or significant etc., well, the more my negative feelings toward it are compounded after having to face the idea of it so much. Want the disparaging to stop? Stop discussing the piece. Obviously no one wants to stop discussion, but with the discussion of something so volatile and controversial as 4'33, you have got to expect some disparaging.


----------



## ArtMusic

millionrainbows said:


> Cage never said that 4'33" was music, did he? He just set the stage & conditions for you to listen.


I think by suggesting an orchestra / performer sit in front of his _4'33"_ score, it implied he thought it was music just like any other, and also listen to whatever sounds that came from around the performers and the listeners.


----------



## DeepR

millionrainbows said:


> You are forcing your will, your expectations, on what you think music should be. This is the opposite attitude needed for 4'33". You must relax your ego.


I get the idea of the piece, hence the smiley. But understanding what it is about, doesn't make me think any better of it, whether it's music or not. Wrapping up a statement about music as a piece of music; some may find it clever, I think it's pretentious art.



millionrainbows said:


> Cage never said that 4'33" was music, did he? He just set the stage & conditions for you to listen.


But you are comparing it to music by starting this topic. If it's not music, why should it be treated equally as music?


----------



## Pugg

millionrainbows said:


> Cage never said that 4'33" was music, did he? He just set the stage & conditions for you to listen.


And people are still talking about this hilarious "piece":lol:


----------



## Guest

Pugg said:


> And people are still talking about this hilarious "piece":lol:


We're trying to get the UN to close it down, but it's proving hard to get unanimity.


----------



## Dim7

Never Again 4'33''. Tens of Pages of Pointless Debates and Lame Jokes Remind Us.


----------



## Woodduck

Pugg said:


> And people are still talking about this hilarious "piece":lol:


Talk is the sound that fills the silence.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

4' 33"? It is what it is, tacet or leave it


----------



## breakup

millionrainbows said:


> *Cage never said that 4'33" was music*, did he? He just set the stage & conditions for you to listen.


Well he was right about that.


----------



## Metairie Road

I've tried to listen to this piece but could not get beyond the first movement. Perhaps it's over my head, or I wasn't in a receptive mood, or my chakras weren't balanced, or something.

As others have pointed out, Cage never actually referred to this piece as 'music' (as far as I know), but simply as 'composition'.

I haven't delved too deeply into this matter beyond this thread and the Wiki article, so I may be showing my ignorance here (not for the first time, nor the last I imagine). I have no reason to believe that Cage was a liar or was not serious about his work; therefore I must accept Cage's justifications and reasons for this piece (4'33') at face value, and accept it as a legitimate composition and not just a joke on the listener.

The Wiki article also references several other 'compositions' by other composers (long dead) of a similar nature, and I have to assume that these composers also were serious about their work.

Now that it's established that these pieces are serious compositions and works of art (in my mind anyway), this raises a few questions -

Is there a difference in quality, or substance, or individuality to these silent compositions, from one composer to the next? Can anyone (more knowledgable than me) point to a particular composition and say that this piece was composed by so-and-so, and that piece was composed by so-and-so?

There's also a legal issue to be considered. I think the estates of one or more of these 'silent composers' have every right to sue the Cage estate for plagiarism. I don't know if it would be worth the effort though, the legal fees would certainly be more than any royalty potential.


----------



## Rhombic

You can read this article (in Spanish) that sort of thinks through what is music, what is art and what is conceptual art. Hint: conceptual art belongs in art but not in music:

http://musiccato.blogspot.com/2015/11/sigue-siendo-arte-aquello-que-no-se.html


----------



## millionrainbows

Rhombic said:


> You can read this article (in Spanish) that sort of thinks through what is music, what is art and what is conceptual art. Hint: conceptual art belongs in art but not in music:


4'33" is a philosophical statement, and at the same time, it is experienced as sound. If you need to read an article to figure that out, so be it. I think you'd be better off reading "Silence" by John Cage.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Some peeps here might be interested in this....... (that's if anyone still comes here. If not please move it somewhere where it might get wider exposure)

http://www.openculture.com/2016/04/john-cage-performs-his-avant-garde-piano-piece-433.html


----------



## Lukecash12

If 4'33" reaches 100 pages on TC, will it finally be heard?


----------



## Pugg

Lukecash12 said:


> If 4'33" reaches 100 pages on TC, will it finally be heard?


Another row more likely


----------



## Lukecash12

Pugg said:


> Another row more likely


It's beyond me why all these people are criticizing something they haven't even heard...


----------



## EdwardBast

Lukecash12 said:


> It's beyond me why all these people are criticizing something they haven't even heard...


Perhaps because others keep asking "why all these people are criticizing something they haven't even heard..." instead of letting this apparently unkillable zombie thread rot in peace."  Just a guess …


----------



## StlukesguildOhio




----------



## Kieran

Lukecash12 said:


> It's beyond me why all these people are criticizing something they haven't even heard...


:lol: ........................


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> It's beyond me why all these people are criticizing something they haven't even heard...


Yet another tired 4'33" joke...yawnnn...

Now I'll take it seriously.

They didn't hear 4'33" when they were sitting there during the allotted performance duration? Then they must have had their fingers in their ears.

By the way, I am totally surprised that this "unkillable zombie thread" is still alive, and I started the thing.

Oh yes, I forgot; when I made the thread, I was taking a bite out of an "immortality hot-dog." :lol:


----------



## Lukecash12

EdwardBast said:


> Perhaps because others keep asking "why all these people are criticizing something they haven't even heard..." instead of letting this apparently unkillable zombie thread rot in peace."  Just a guess …


Sure, you say that, but at the same time you're still throwing your hat in the ring by making another post.






"He said 'it' again!"


----------



## millionrainbows

But now, these are posts without substance, not truly alive, but 'zombie posts.' This one, too.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> But now, these are posts without substance, not truly alive, but 'zombie posts.' This one, too.


It's a form of meditation. I believe we're approaching no-mind.


----------



## breakup

Woodduck said:


> It's a form of meditation. I believe we're approaching *no-mind*.


:lol: No-mind with no-music. That's good.


----------



## Pugg

breakup said:


> :lol: No-mind with no-music. That's good.


Good.....genius you mean :lol:


----------



## Guest

Still, that 4'33", eh? What a fargin' great idea, no? Got us all hot under the collar and twitchin' and itchin' in our knickers and it ain't EVER going to go away. EVER. Long after we're all dead and gone (like dear JC himself), it's in the books (New Grove ...) it's referenced, it's OUT THERE and none of us can change it. So, I suggest we move on.
I'll say it once more for the record about 4'33" : a neat ("cool"), little idea. 
Next!


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> It's a form of meditation. I believe we're approaching no-mind.


If it's zombies, we are approaching no-brain.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> Still, that 4'33", eh? What a fargin' great idea, no? Got us all hot under the collar and twitchin' and itchin' in our knickers and it ain't EVER going to go away. EVER. Long after we're all dead and gone (like dear JC himself), it's in the books (New Grove ...) it's referenced, it's OUT THERE and none of us can change it. So, I suggest we move on.
> I'll say it once more for the record about 4'33" : a neat ("cool"), little idea.
> Next!


I'm rolling over in my grave. 4'33" will live on, long after we're dead and gone, like zombies.


----------



## Blancrocher

I was just wondering--do people think that 4'33'' should be considered "music," in a meaningful sense of the term?


----------



## Guest

Blancrocher said:


> I was just wondering--do people think that 4'33'' should be considered "music," in a meaningful sense of the term?


Er...did you not dip into _any _of the previous 95 pages? Or, when you say 'people' are you referring to the public at large and not we here at TC?


----------



## Lukecash12

Pugg said:


> Good.....genius you mean :lol:


I'm afraid that Cage is intent on making proselytes out of us for this peculiar religion. However, as opposed to serving in the temple where they take a vow of silence, I'd like to serve where they take a vow of pots, pans, and radio feedback.


----------



## Guest

Blancrocher said:


> I was just wondering--do people think that 4'33'' should be considered "music," in a meaningful sense of the term?


Start a thread with a poll. If you can work the A word into it too, it will live forever.


----------



## Dim7

MacLeod said:


> Er...did you not dip into _any _of the previous 95 pages? Or, when you say 'people' are you referring to the public at large and not we here at TC?


Hint: posted by Blancrocher.


----------



## Ingélou

*Why is 4'33" disparaged, while Western forms of sacred music get their own forum?*

*Why do people scoff at instant coffee when connoisseurs thrive on discussing the finer points of tea cultivation? *

*Why do people make fun of anoraks while models pose on the catwalks wearing the latest in designer swimwear?*

*Why does 2 + 2 = 4, when the sum of 33 and 42 is not an even number? *

Well, exactly...


----------



## DeepR

4'33" can have its own forum too, when you click on it you get a blank page for a 4'33" duration, ha ha..


----------



## arpeggio

My own personal view is that it is a theatrical work. If it was a play by Albee we would not be having this discussion. In spite of all of the discourse that this work has generated I have seen nothing that changes my mind.


----------



## Xenakiboy

I don't know and I don't expect anybody to ever know, but "silence", or the natural ambiance that we generally ignore in our daily lives is actually; to me one of the most peaceful and therapeutic things you can listen to, or experience. Especially when you get irritated by a day to day ritualistic habits, involving day jobs or house work. Escaping from that insanity for a short time is something we really need and should want to. 
Though this is more about silence as a whole than 4'33 in a concert hall, these ideas are important.


----------



## ArtMusic

I agree with your post. Silence is very much part of our lives but it hardly is appropriate for a concert hall with a music sheet and professionally paid musicians. There are more meaningful way to appreciate silence for what it is.


----------



## KenOC

arpeggio said:


> My own personal view is that it is a theatrical work. If it was a play by Albee we would not be having this discussion.


And if it were a play by Albee made up entirely of blank pages?


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Silence is very much part of our lives but it hardly is appropriate for a concert hall with a music sheet and professionally paid musicians. There are more meaningful way to appreciate silence for what it is.


You still thinks it's about silence?


----------



## Blancrocher

KenOC said:


> And if it were a play by Albee made up entirely of blank pages?


Aesthetic issues aside, I might like it if that meant that George and Martha were finally getting along alright.


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> You still thinks it's about silence?


Yeah, I know! Nearly 1,500 posts and some people haven't digested the most basic information.

Ken: If it was a play with blank pages members of the audience would get up on stage and enact their own drama about the downfall of civilization and the definitions of art.


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> You still thinks it's about silence?


That's what Cage said. Yes, it is a conceptual piece about silence. As I wrote, I disagree however that it needs to be musical.


----------



## tortkis

ArtMusic said:


> That's what Cage said. Yes, it is a conceptual piece about silence. As I wrote, I disagree however that it needs to be musical.


_"The piece is not actually silent (there will never be silence until death comes which never comes); it is full of sound, but sounds which I did not think of beforehand, which I hear for the first time the same time others hear."_ - John Cage (1954, letter to Christian Wolff's mother, Heren)


----------



## Pugg

tortkis said:


> _"The piece is not actually silent (there will never be silence until death comes which never comes); it is full of sound, but sounds which I did not think of beforehand, which I hear for the first time the same time others hear."_ - John Cage (1954, letter to Christian Wolff's mother, Heren)


What else could he say?
Never mind, waste of time and enginery.


----------



## KenOC

tortkis said:


> _"The piece is not actually silent (there will never be silence until death comes which never comes); it is full of sound, but sounds which I did not think of beforehand, which I hear for the first time the same time others hear."_ - John Cage (1954, letter to Christian Wolff's mother, Heren)


I had an anechoic chamber built in my basement to listen carefully to 4'33". I guarantee it's absolutely, totally silent.


----------



## JosefinaHW

:KenOC: You would have heard your heartbeat and your breathing.


----------



## KenOC

JosefinaHW said:


> :KenOC: You would have heard your heartbeat and your breathing.


Nonsense. Didn't I mention I'm deaf?


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> That's what Cage said. Yes, it is a conceptual piece about silence. As I wrote, I disagree however that it needs to be musical.


Cage: "They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn't know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″#cite_note-Kostelanetz_2003.2C_70-9)

etc etc etc for 99 pages


----------



## znapschatz

Some years ago I attended a John Cage concert event in Los Angeles. No joy. Someone later told me the pieces were performed badly. How could he tell? I'm not all that keen on conceptual music, so I will leave Cage to those who find value in it.


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> Cage: "They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn't know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″#cite_note-Kostelanetz_2003.2C_70-9)
> 
> etc etc etc for 99 pages


Yes, that's what I meant. Not about dead silence, but the noise you might just hear when the players are not playing any musical note. Silence because no musical notes are played, but of course you hear background noise or whatever noise that might be heard, even psychological ones. Unless one is deaf, I feel no compelling reason to want to listen per se as per the concept behind _4'33"_.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> I'm afraid that Cage is intent on making proselytes out of us for this peculiar religion. However, as opposed to serving in the temple where they take a vow of silence, I'd like to serve where they take a vow of pots, pans, and radio feedback.


I suppose you are correct; Cage would rather have us sitting silently than making atomic bombs. What a scoundrel!


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Nonsense. Didn't I mention I'm deaf?


Wasn't this little anechoic chamber drama played out in the opening pages of Cage's book "Silence?"


----------



## Ingélou

MacLeod said:


> Cage: "They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn't know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″#cite_note-Kostelanetz_2003.2C_70-9)
> 
> etc etc etc for 99 pages


But there *is* such a thing as silence - in Outer Space. And we can hold the *concept* of that, so if this is conceptual music, and the instructions on the sheet say 'tacet', then if the musicians make audible noises, they are performing badly, and their performance can be criticised.


----------



## Ingélou

Ingélou said:


> But there *is* such a thing as silence - in Outer Space. And we can hold the *concept* of that, so if this is conceptual music, and the instructions on the sheet say 'tacet', then if the musicians make audible noises, they are performing badly, and their performance can be criticised.


OMG - I've been dragged in again...!


----------



## Morimur

Ingélou said:


> OMG - I've been dragged in again...!


----------



## Guest

That's why in space no one can hear you scream.


----------



## Guest

Ingélou said:


> But there *is* such a thing as silence - in Outer Space. And we can hold the *concept* of that, so if this is conceptual music, and the instructions on the sheet say 'tacet', then if the musicians make audible noises, they are performing badly, and their performance can be criticised.


We can also hold the concept of werewolves and vampires...

(I was just quoting Cage, of course, who was explaining the point about the piece, not giving a scientifically correct analysis of 'silence'. I don't think he can be criticised for forgetting that without air, no sounds can be heard - I don't suppose he had a performance in Outer Space in mind.)


----------



## KenOC

Noting all the back-and-forth about 4'33" here, in thread after thread. Have we found the ultimate first-world problem? :lol:


----------



## Xenakiboy

dogen said:


> That's why in space no one can hear you scream.


Sounds good then, there ain't no Xenomorphs around though?


----------



## Xenakiboy

Let's make this thread as controversial as we can then:

I believe that 4'33 is an invisible painting
Oh no, what have I done???


----------



## Ingélou

dogen said:


> That's why in space no one can hear you scream.


In *this* space, even if we can't hear the screams, we can imagine them...

...and with that she posted #1462.


----------



## Guest

In view of recent posts above, I quote this passage from a recent article in UK newspaper _The Guardian_: 
_For centuries, the essential qualities of Chinese music hinged on the rising, falling, winding and turning of sound and *non-sound elements*. * Non-sound*, according to linguist and musicologist Adrian Tien,* includes silence*, interruptions and rests, as well as the ebb of sounds as they fall towards *nothingness*. *Non-sound was as integral to music as the white space in a work of calligraphy*_. 
Here's a link the full article: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...n-what-western-classical-music-means-in-china


----------



## Ingélou

Hasn't Western music also included 'non-sound' for centuries - silence, interruptions, rests and diminuendoes?


----------



## Pugg

98 pages and still going strong.


----------



## millionrainbows

ArtMusic said:


> That's what Cage said. Yes, it is a conceptual piece about silence...


Obviously, Mr. Cage, you know NOTHING about your music!


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> I had an anechoic chamber built in my basement to listen carefully to 4'33". I guarantee it's absolutely, totally silent.


I walked into an anechoic chamber, and it sucked the sound right out of my head! I immediately had to go replace it.


----------



## millionrainbows

According to the Church doctrine of Privatio Boni (Privation of Good), there is no silence, and there could not be, because silence is nothing.

Since God created everything, there can be no "nothing," as this would be heretical.

Therefore, evil was not created by God; evil is simply the lack, or absence of God. Evil doesn't really exist on it's own; it is simply the result of an absence of good.

Cage agrees that there is no such thing as silence; so he's being a good Christian in saying that, and anyone here who thinks 4'33" is a "silent" piece is a HERETIC!


----------



## millionrainbows

My music isn't religious; in fact, it doesn't even go to church! On Sunday mornings I have to try to get it out of bed, and it just lays there...


----------



## SixFootScowl

While the concept of total silence in a vacuum is interesting, there are a couple of problems for one to experience it:

1. How to breathe in this total vacuum (or even to keep our bodies from bloating or exploding from internal pressure not resisted)

2. You would still have the ringing sound in your ears from tinnitus, no?


----------



## millionrainbows

Florestan said:


> While the concept of total silence in a vacuum is interesting, there are a couple of problems for one to experience it:
> 
> 1. How to breathe in this total vacuum (or even to keep our bodies from bloating or exploding from internal pressure not resisted)
> 
> 2. You would still have the ringing sound in your ears from tinnitus, no?


The hard part is getting a Steinway grand into orbit.


----------



## millionrainbows

Silence in a total vacuum? That would suck. :lol:


----------



## Pugg

millionrainbows said:


> Silence in a total vacuum? That would suck. :lol:


Even if it's only 4'33":lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

If Cage's 4'33" is a "vacuum," then the rest of Western classical music is the opposite of that; the vacuum turned to reverse, where it's blowing out all sorts of dust, debris, irritating particles, and generally fouling up the atmosphere with blow-hard bombast. 
Cough! Cough! Somebody open up a window and let this bad air out!


----------



## isorhythm

It's unclear what you would hear in your unfortunate final seconds if you were thrown into space, but I doubt it would be complete silence. Sound still conducts within your body, after all.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> It's unclear what you would hear in your unfortunate final seconds if you were thrown into space, but I doubt it would be complete silence. Sound still conducts within your body, after all.


Without a spacesuit, you'd hear the sound of your head exploding.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Without a spacesuit, you'd hear the sound of your head exploding.


A common misconception! You would not explode, you would just asphyxiate.


----------



## Woodduck

Gosh. I just dipped back into this thread and I see that my options are death by asphyxiation or death by cranial explosion.

Would it take 4'33" to die by either method, or would I freeze to death first?


----------



## Strange Magic

"In space, no one can hear you scream." Teaser for film _Alien._


----------



## SixFootScowl

http://www.cnet.com/news/what-happens-to-the-unprotected-human-body-in-space/


----------



## Woodduck

Florestan said:


> http://www.cnet.com/news/what-happens-to-the-unprotected-human-body-in-space/


Thanks. I personally like this part:

_"If you do die in space, your body will not decompose in the normal way, since there is no oxygen. If you were near a source of heat, your body would mummify; if you were not, it would freeze. If your body was sealed in a space suit, it would decompose, but only for as long as the oxygen lasted. Whichever the condition, though, your body would last for a very, very long time without air to facilitate weathering and degradation. Your corpse could drift in the vast expanse of space for millions of years."_

It reverses the old adage. "Forgotten but not gone."


----------



## isorhythm

Maybe in the future the rich and vain will have their bodies launched into deep space. Like the Pharaohs....


----------



## Pugg

isorhythm said:


> Maybe in the future the rich and vain will have their bodies launched into deep space. Like the Pharaohs....


Just ordered that process ( kidding):lol:


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> Maybe in the future the rich and vain will have their bodies launched into deep space. Like the Pharaohs....


Ooooh! Ooooh! Let's do it now!

Trump first!


----------



## Pugg

Woodduck said:


> Ooooh! Ooooh! Let's do it now!
> 
> Trump first!


With his siblings please .


----------



## Woodduck

Pugg said:


> With his siblings please .


Cruel. :devil: ..........


----------



## pmsummer

I've got nothing to say.


----------



## Pugg

pmsummer said:


> I've got nothing to say.


----------



## helenora

> Maybe in the future the rich and vain will have their bodies launched into deep space. Like the Pharaohs....
> Ooooh! Ooooh! Let's do it now!


Trump first!



> Ooooh! Ooooh! Let's do it now!


Trump first!


> With his siblings please


 .

it reminded me of " Madamina, il catalogo e questo" aria:lol:, but reversed...and yes, really in order, even starting by families


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> A common misconception! You would not explode, you would just asphyxiate.


Well, pardon me for exploding!


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Gosh. I just dipped back into this thread and I see that my options are death by asphyxiation or death by cranial explosion.
> 
> Would it take 4'33" to die by either method, or would I freeze to death first?


Even if you did survive, eventually you would drift out of orbit and be incinerated. We'll watch for the debris tonight.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> "In space, no one can hear you scream." Teaser for film _Alien._


Also, "In space, no one can hear the audience catcalls."


----------



## Xenakiboy

I like the brushstrokes in 4'33, Cage's use of unconventional brush tools, too have added to the striking quality that we get from 4'33. I think it's a marvellous painting!


----------



## Xenakiboy

pmsummer said:


> I've got nothing to say.


----------



## DeepR

Nevermind 
15char


----------



## pmsummer

millionrainbows said:


> Also, "In space, no one can hear the audience catcalls."


Or as my wife says... "In space, no one can hear the soprano, thank God."

;-)


----------



## Xenakiboy

pmsummer said:


> Or as my wife says... "In space, no one can hear the soprano, thank God."
> 
> ;-)


It's not over till the fat lady sings! :lol:


----------



## Pugg

DeepR said:


> Nevermind
> 15char


I do like this post very much.


----------



## millionrainbows

Pugg, you might like Cage's "opera" called "Europera."


----------



## SixFootScowl

millionrainbows said:


> Pugg, you might like *Cage's "opera" called "Europera*."


Brief but fascinating write up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europeras


----------



## Pugg

millionrainbows said:


> Pugg, you might like Cage's "opera" called "Europera."


I promise I'll try.
 ( not sure when though)


----------



## Xenakiboy

4'33 is actually a soap opera and the actors are the audience


----------



## SixFootScowl

Xenakiboy said:


> 4'33 is actually a soap opera and the actors are the audience


Or a farce and the actors are the audience.


----------



## Xenakiboy

4'33 is not the name of the piece, it's the brand name of the paper used by John Cage to compose the piece, huge misunderstanding!!


----------



## Pugg

Florestan said:


> Or a farce and the actors are the audience.


+ 1 
and..........


----------



## Blancrocher

Btw, here's a death metal cover of 4'33''.


----------



## millionrainbows

Blancrocher said:


> Btw, here's a death metal cover of 4'33''.


You know, I could grow to like death metal if it's anything like this. Really, though, you can't "cover" 4'33", and the idea that you can is supported by the misconception that it is 4'33" of 'silence,' or, really, that it is a 'composition' at all that is 'played' by anybody on any instrument, even if they don't play anything. It's not a 'performance' except as a 'frame' or convention, but only uses that convention to circumvent and reverse the idea, to allow the audience to listen to sound itself around them as 'music,' until the distinction of 'music,' 'performance,' and audience is gone.

In this sense, 4'33" is a really subversive piece, in that it is trying to affect our ideas about music, and attempts to persuade us to 'let go' of our conception of what music and performance, and sound, is. Cage made no distinction between music and sound of any kind.

Just think of the consequences of this: no more stars, no more virtuosi, no Leonard Bernstein, no Yo-Yo Ma, no Juilliard Quartet, no John Williams, no Star Wars theme, no Maria Callas...


----------



## ArtMusic

But what if I, ArtMusic composed say _5'44"_ , would it be viewed any differently?


----------



## Xenakiboy

4'33 still makes a great ballet


----------



## EdwardBast

ArtMusic said:


> But what if I, ArtMusic composed say _5'44"_ , would it be viewed any differently?


Yes. It would be viewed as a derivative work by an amateur.


----------



## Pugg

ArtMusic said:


> But what if I, ArtMusic composed say _5'44"_ , would it be viewed any differently?


I am sure the members have something to say about it, don't worry .


----------



## helenora

Florestan said:


> Or a farce and the actors are the audience.




it would be fun it it wasn't true....but the guy I mean Cage predicted a current situation with so called classical music ( at least this prediction is true for some part of this world) where classical music is a big and large 4'33 as such. I mean it, literally , from a farce it became a reality in some places.....

I must admit he was a futurologist. and so, his work became sort of prophetic in a paradigm of modern society development, where a majority is pretending there is value in something which has no value at all ( well, apart from the fact that we can write posts about "Idon'tknowwhat" :lol

anyway I'm trying to imagine how it would sound in an after concert "bravi" and "encore, encore" session.
must be something exciting....haha, only clapping hands after every 4 and a half minutes and appreciation of a pianist's brilliant technique and interpretation of a piece....and after all even a greater appreciation that he didn't break sacred silence , rarely happening phenomenon we can witness living in a noisy world.


----------



## helenora

Florestan said:


> Brief but fascinating write up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europeras


from an article above:
"No recordings have yet been released of "Europeras I and II."

I wonder why? ! :lol:


----------



## Guest

helenora said:


> from an article above:
> "*No recordings have yet been released of "Europeras I and II*."
> 
> I wonder why? ! :lol:


Sure about that?
http://johncage.org/pp/John-Cage-Work-Detail.cfm?work_ID=67


----------



## Pugg

TalkingHead said:


> Sure about that?
> http://johncage.org/pp/John-Cage-Work-Detail.cfm?work_ID=67


That's 20 year ago, try to find it these days.


----------



## Guest

Pugg said:


> That's 20 year ago, try to find it these days.


That's not the point.


----------



## helenora

TalkingHead said:


> That's not the point.


hahaha, yes, I´m glad someone is fascinated by them and spend their time on recording....may be it´s sort of a documentary to show future generations " Look, guys, we passed through this sort of stuff as well"


----------



## pmsummer

Before I knew about the existence of Cage's 4'33, and while still in school, I purchased thirty seconds of airtime on my local Classical Music Station (one of the few classical commercial stations in the USA). After some negotiations, they agreed to my request to play a 30 second blank cartridge for a 'performance piece', with the proviso (their request) that they announce my 'sponsorship' over the air... and they wouldn't sell me a full minute.

At the scheduled time, I gathered some fellow students, my advisor and a few faculty in the studio gallery and turned on the KLH table radio I had set up. Much to my amazement, Bedrich Smetana's frenetic overture from "The Bartered Bride" was playing (the absolute antithesis of silence). 

When the orchestral excitement concluded, there was indeed a LONG period of uncomfortable quiet in the gallery. Finally, to the relief of the gathered anxious, the announcer said, "The preceding thirty seconds of silence has been brought to you by P.M. Summer Creative... serving Texas since 1950."

My goal was not to experience the odd sounds in the room during the silence (Cage's goal, perhaps), but to provoke irritation among the listeners. 

It was a successful performance.


----------



## millionrainbows

ArtMusic said:


> But what if I, ArtMusic composed say _5'44"_ , would it be viewed any differently?


It would be seen as derivative.


----------



## millionrainbows

Europera…yer opera.


----------



## Gordontrek

Let's just say, I was pretty miffed when my trumpet professor and I were kicked out of a practice room so that a piano student and his teacher could work on 4'33 for an upcoming concert.


----------



## Pugg

Gordontrek said:


> Let's just say, I was pretty miffed when my trumpet professor and I were kicked out of a practice room so that a piano student and his teacher could work on 4'33 for an upcoming concert.


And you putting it polite.


----------



## helenora

Gordontrek said:


> Let's just say, I was pretty miffed when my trumpet professor and I were kicked out of a practice room so that a piano student and his teacher could work on 4'33 for an upcoming concert.


hahahah, I´d say they should have used visualization technique for better results, for that one doesn´t need an access to the instruments as such haha


----------



## ArtMusic

EdwardBast said:


> Yes. It would be viewed as a derivative work by an amateur.


Correct, but it sounds no different to _4'33"_ and if performed one after the other (i.e. _4'33"_ followed by _5'44"_ it's only the duration and the sounds heard during that differ. Hence demonstrating the artistic conceptual flaw with the original piece.


----------



## millionrainbows

ArtMusic said:


> Correct, but it sounds no different to _4'33"_ and if performed one after the other (i.e. _4'33"_ followed by _5'44"_ it's only the duration and the sounds heard during that differ. Hence demonstrating the artistic conceptual flaw with the original piece.


But it is the sounds which occur randomly during the timeframe which _are_ the 'content' of the piece, as we are intended to listen to them with the same degree of regard as what we previously listened to as 'music.'

Since each 'performance' of 4'33" will consist of different sounds, then they will always be different, and no two performances will be identical.


----------



## millionrainbows

I wrote a similar piece called "From Now Until You Die." Once you hear the title, you are doomed to hear the sounds around you until you die.


----------



## regenmusic

I think this thread is going to make more people disparage it than did before.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

regenmusic said:


> I think this thread is going to make more people disparage it than did before.


I do not think that would be possible.


----------



## ArtMusic

millionrainbows said:


> But it is the sounds which occur randomly during the timeframe which _are_ the 'content' of the piece, as we are intended to listen to them with the same degree of regard as what we previously listened to as 'music.'
> 
> Since each 'performance' of 4'33" will consist of different sounds, then they will always be different, and no two performances will be identical.


Yes that's the intention so it voids whether it is four minutes thirty-three seconds or indeed four minutes thirty-nine seconds. The impact is the same.


----------



## Xenakiboy

I like the part where everyone argues, my favorite part of 4'33.


----------



## SixFootScowl

millionrainbows said:


> I wrote a similar piece called "From Now Until You Die." Once you hear the title, you are doomed to hear the sounds around you until you die.


The grim reaper ear worm!


----------



## Pugg

millionrainbows said:


> I wrote a similar piece called "From Now Until You Die." Once you hear the title, you are doomed to hear the sounds around you until you die.


How long was it exactly?


----------



## Klavierspieler

Fifteen hundred posts in this thread?!?! WTH??!?!?!


----------



## Merl

Have you really got 103 pages out of this post? How?


----------



## pmsummer

Klavierspieler said:


> Fifteen hundred posts in this thread?!?! WTH??!?!?!


It's a demonstration of what happens when there's no music.


----------



## Merl

I did enjoy reading back some of the comments on here though.


----------



## Pugg

Klavierspieler said:


> Fifteen hundred posts in this thread?!?! WTH??!?!?!


It has been cleaned up also once or twice


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Pugg said:


> It has been cleaned up also once or twice


Sure this thread is watched over by the moderators.


----------



## millionrainbows

_


millions said:



I wrote a similar piece called "From Now Until You Die." Once you hear the title, you are doomed to hear the sounds around you until you die.

Click to expand...

_


Pugg said:


> How long was it exactly?


What am I, a fortune teller?


----------



## millionrainbows

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Sure this thread is watched over by the moderators.


Yes; this thread, this virtual world, is watched over by "God the Moderators," just as our real world is. I'm glad to know that you are a believer.


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, it is amazing that this thread has gone on for this long. Is this an anniversary or something? If so, let us celebrate with a fizzy drink of some sort. The bubbles represent "nothingness" or the illusory nature of this world (maya). They also represent that vacant smile on John Cage's face.

Since 4'33" was a published work, and I know of one CD which contains it, I wonder if it made him any money in royalties? Now, money is something that you can't argue with.


----------



## Buoso

How on earth could you copyright something like 4 33? I wonder how much a copy the score is if the score consists of nothing.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

.sheetmusicplus has it for 7$ for 2 pages.

http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/4-33-sheet-music/1008430


----------



## Blancrocher

Johnnie Burgess said:


> .sheetmusicplus has it for 7$ for 2 pages.


Hm, I guess the price went down - last I'd checked it was $8.66.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Blancrocher said:


> Hm, I guess the price went down - last I'd checked it was $8.66.


Guess it is not a big seller.


----------



## Buoso

Blancrocher said:


> Hm, I guess the price went down - last I'd checked it was $8.66.


This just raises further questions! Who would buy this.... It would almost certainly be a small pamphlet of empty lines with no notes!


----------



## KenOC

Buoso said:


> How on earth could you copyright something like 4 33? I wonder how much a copy the score is if the score consists of nothing.


Believe I read that Cage's estate sued over an unauthorized performance. Don't know if damages were awarded.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

KenOC said:


> Believe I read that Cage's estate sued over an unauthorized performance. Don't know if damages were awarded.


Yes it happened Mike Batt for "A One Minute Silence," he settled and paid the Cage family in the low 6 figures.


----------



## Buoso

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Yes it happened Mike Batt for "A One Minute Silence," he settled and paid the Cage family in the low 6 figures.


:lol: Six figures.... John Cage is laughing all the way to the bank as he managed to do what millions maybe even billions of people have tried to do throughout which is make money out of absolutely nothing.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Buoso said:


> :lol: Six figures.... John Cage is laughing all the way to the bank as he managed to do what millions maybe even billions of people have tried to do throughout which is make money out of absolutely nothing.


No, he died in 1992, the family sued Blatt in 2002. So the family made money over silence.


----------



## Buoso

Johnnie Burgess said:


> No, he died in 1992, the family sued Blatt in 2002. So the family made money over silence.


So his descendants are going to reap money out of silence till 2062 in the European Union at least. Sadly for them in the United states I think the protection on silence lasts only until 2047.


----------



## Mahlerian

Buoso said:


> So his descendants are going to reap money out of silence till 2062 in the European Union at least. Sadly for them in the United states I think the protection on silence lasts only until 2047.


John Cage didn't have any children, to my knowledge. He was briefly married, but his longest-lived partnership was with a man.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Mahlerian said:


> John Cage didn't have any children, to my knowledge. He was briefly married, but his longest-lived partnership was with a man.


His trust sued.


----------



## Mahlerian

Johnnie Burgess said:


> His trust sued.


Yeah, I get that, but the person I was replying to said his "descendants" would reap money. He didn't have any as far as I know.


----------



## Woodduck

Buoso said:


> This just raises further questions! Who would buy this.... It would almost certainly be a small pamphlet of empty lines with no notes!


It does indeed consist (I'm told) entirely of brief instructions for its presentation, informing us as well that the piece may take more time than 4'33" if desired (hence the title). No need to buy it, though. The work is easily memorized from a recording by people with minimal musical training.


----------



## Pugg

Mahlerian said:


> John Cage didn't have any children, to my knowledge. He was briefly married, but his longest-lived partnership was with a man.


I could make a bad joke about lasting time of that marriage, but I don't .:angel:


----------



## Xenakiboy

I want to see a discussion of 4'33 that looks like this:

"


















"


----------



## Woodduck

Xenakiboy said:


> I want to see a discussion of 4'33 that looks like this:
> 
> "
> 
> "


No need now. You've just said it all.


----------



## Xenakiboy

Woodduck said:


> No need now. You've just said it all.


I think I made some good points, the part where I said "

" and also "

" really have a deep and significant meaning. I wish everyone else would see the truth behind those comments.


----------



## millionrainbows

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Yes it happened Mike Batt for "A One Minute Silence," he settled and paid the Cage family in the low 6 figures.


If this is the case I am thinking of, the estate sued because he listed himself and Cage as the composers. I.e., he used Cage's name in an unauthorized manner. This was "The Wombles" or something, and he was selling a lot of records. He was making royalties off this, and the Cage estate merely wanted their share. It was not "six figures," and the case was settled by Batt paying a "donation" to the estate. This is more a case of copyright, because Cage's name was used.


----------



## millionrainbows

Johnnie Burgess said:


> .sheetmusicplus has it for 7$ for 2 pages.
> 
> http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/4-33-sheet-music/1008430
> 
> View attachment 87576


Yeah! See there? 4'33" really IS music, and here's the sheet music to prove it!


----------



## Pugg

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah! See there? 4'33" really IS music, and here's the sheet music to prove it!


Did someone said anything else?


----------



## millionrainbows

Pugg said:


> Did someone said anything else?


We're waiting on your review of "Europera," Pugg. It's interesting: as well as actual voices, a couple of turntables are also used, playing those old "vintage" opera recordings. Maybe you'd recognize some of them. In fact, this work might have a more profound resonance with you than it did with me.

...and then, on the other hand...:lol:


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah! See there? 4'33" really IS music, and here's the sheet music to prove it!


I do not think a couple lines telling you how to sit silently at the piano makes it music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Johnnie Burgess said:


> I do not think a couple lines telling you how to sit silently at the piano makes it music.


The point is, the fact that 4'33" is a published piece on Universal Edition makes it a legitimate composition, regardless of what you think of it. _I'm not saying that the publishing of it 'legitimizes' the idea behind it;_ you have to decide that. The publishing only legitimizes it as an actual composition.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

millionrainbows said:


> The point is, the fact that 4'33" is a published piece on Universal Edition makes it a legitimate composition, regardless of what you think of it. _I'm not saying that the publishing of it 'legitimizes' the idea behind it;_ you have to decide that. The publishing only legitimizes it as an actual composition.


Or they want to make money off people buying this.


----------



## fluteman

IMO, John Cage had a sense of humor, and he wanted to make an observation about the act of listening. That's all. I find it funny that many like to endlessly ridicule 4'33" in internet forums, but many in internet forums are also superficial listeners.
However, the fact that something has been published by Universal is a mark against it, IMO. I am not impressed by many of their editions. Perhaps they managed to publish 4'33" without too many errors. (Oops, there I go joining the jokers. But I'm serious about not liking Universal.)


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> IMO, John Cage had a sense of humor, and he wanted to make an observation about the act of listening. That's all. *I find it funny that many like to endlessly ridicule 4'33" in internet forums, but many in internet forums are also superficial listeners.*
> However, the fact that something has been published by Universal is a mark against it, IMO. I am not impressed by many of their editions. *Perhaps they managed to publish 4'33" without too many errors.* (*Oops, there I go joining the jokers. * But I'm serious about not liking Universal.)


Ha! You see? It _is_ funny after all. Your brain knows what to do in spite of you.

To me the ability of 4'33' to release a seemingly endless flood of humor, some of it quite good, is the greatest thing about it. This has nothing to do with being a superficial listener, or any other kind of listener. It's a testament to the power of ideas: the oxymoronic notion of music which is not composed or performed, yet has a "composer" and a "performer," and of music which is silent, yet consists of any and all sounds, is a paradox as liable to induce a laugh of enlightenment as any zen koan.

I know of no music more delightful than 4'33." When I think that the experience of it is not an experience of music unless I believe it is - that I have the power to abrogate by fiat the law of identity by which the universe keeps from swallowing itself and vanishing - the Godlike omnipotence of that makes me laugh.

But I laugh even harder at those who think that they - and Cage - really have that power.


----------



## fluteman

Yes, I'll have to agree with your comments about John Cage and 4'33". I'm still not impressed by some of Universal's editions, though. Hmph.


----------



## Pugg

millionrainbows said:


> We're waiting on your review of "Europera," Pugg. It's interesting: as well as actual voices, a couple of turntables are also used, playing those old "vintage" opera recordings. Maybe you'd recognize some of them. In fact, this work might have a more profound resonance with you than it did with me.
> 
> ...and then, on the other hand...:lol:


Funny as ever, thanks for your support though.


----------



## Balthazar

fluteman said:


> Yes, I'll have to agree with your comments about John Cage and 4'33". *I'm still not impressed by some of Universal's editions, though*. Hmph.


Just to clarify -- the sheet music for Cage's 4'33" linked to above is published by Edition Peters.

This is a completely different company from Universal Edition.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> The publishing only legitimizes it as an actual composition.


No it doesn't. It legitimises it as an actual publication.


----------



## fluteman

Balthazar said:


> Just to clarify -- the sheet music for Cage's 4'33" linked to above is published by Edition Peters.
> 
> This is a completely different company from Universal Edition.


OK then. Peters isn't so bad. I take my comment back. Carry on.


----------



## LarryShone

Because it's not music?


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> No it doesn't. It legitimises it as an actual publication.


I'm sure someone has brought this up before, but the fact that 4'33" has been discussed for months on a classical music forum in one of the longest threads of all time pretty much proves it is an actual composition.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> I'm sure someone has brought this up before, but the fact that 4'33" has been discussed for months on a classical music forum in one of the longest threads of all time pretty much proves it is an actual composition.


I don't agree that such a fact is significant at all. That doesn't mean that I don't accept that it is a composition.


----------



## LarryShone

How can silence be a composition? You can't compose silence. Cage was being demonstrative, maybe even artistic. But its not music.


----------



## Guest

LarryShone said:


> How can silence be a composition? You can't compose silence.


Since silence is an integral part of composing, to a greater or lesser degree, I don't see why not.


----------



## LarryShone

MacLeod said:


> Since silence is an integral part of composing, to a greater or lesser degree, I don't see why not.


As an integral part yes-Beethoven allegedly said as such in a famous quote. But as a part not as a whole.


----------



## Mahlerian

LarryShone said:


> How can silence be a composition? You can't compose silence. Cage was being demonstrative, maybe even artistic. But its not music.


(Why do I keep stepping into this???)

But it's not silence. It's a work of art or frame or whatever that uses the sounds that occur when it is performed. Say it is or isn't music, but you have to understand that that was Cage's intent.


----------



## Blancrocher

Mahlerian said:


> (Why do I keep stepping into this???)


For one thing, we really need to get this up to 433 pages.


----------



## LarryShone

No. Its silence. Period. Artistic expression as he might call it. Or he was just having a laugh.


----------



## Guest

LarryShone said:


> As an integral part yes-Beethoven allegedly said as such in a famous quote. But as a part not as a whole.


Why not as a whole?

[setting aside the fact that it's a part - the silence of the players contrasts with the background sounds thus heard.]


----------



## Mahlerian

LarryShone said:


> No. Its silence. Period. Artistic expression as he might call it. Or he was just having a laugh.


No, he was completely serious. Like I said, call it music or don't call it music, I really don't care, as the piece and Cage are not that important to me personally.


----------



## DeepR

It's like a painter sitting next to an empty frame for people to look through, with the idea that everything can be a painting.


----------



## LarryShone

DeepR said:


> It's like a painter sitting next to an empty frame for people to look through, with the idea that everything can be a painting.


Hmm modern art. All idea no substance


----------



## isorhythm

DeepR said:


> It's like a painter sitting next to an empty frame for people to look through, with the idea that everything can be a painting.


Cage said 4'33" was directly inspired by Robert Rauschenberg's blank white paintings.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

isorhythm said:


> Cage said 4'33" was directly inspired by Robert Rauschenberg's blank white paintings.


So even his work could be called a derivative of something else.


----------



## millionrainbows

LarryShone said:


> No. Its silence. Period. Artistic expression as he might call it. Or he was just having a laugh.


No; there's no such thing as complete silence, unless a bear falls over in the woods and you don't know it.

It's not a joke.

It* is *artistic expression, that's correct.


----------



## GreenMamba

Johnnie Burgess said:


> So even his work could be called a derivative of something else.


"Inspired by" doesn't quite mean the same thing as "derivative of."


----------



## millionrainbows

Johnnie Burgess said:


> So even his work could be called a derivative of something else.


No, the Rauschenberg paintings were black, not white, so this criticism is based on false information.


----------



## isorhythm

Specifically, he wrote, in a preface to an article on Rauschenberg,

"To Whom It May Concern: The white paintings came first; *my silent piece* came later."

So maybe go easy on people who call it "silent."


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> I don't agree that such a fact is significant at all. That doesn't mean that I don't accept that it is a composition.


It is significant under the institutional definition of art. You know, the one that makes a urinal a work of art if it is displayed in an art museum? (somewhere other than the rest rooms )



Mahlerian said:


> No, he was completely serious. Like I said, call it music or don't call it music, I really don't care, as the piece and Cage are not that important to me personally.


I'm surprised anyone cares enough to get riled up over it. It was inevitable some joker (figuratively) was going to do it. There isn't much at stake here.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Cage said 4'33" was directly inspired by Robert Rauschenberg's blank white paintings.


The ones I've seen were black.
From Wik: "In the early 1950s, Rauschenberg (b. 1925, Port Arthur, Texas, USA; d. 2008) became known for…black...monochrome canvases. The Black Paintings (1951-53) incorporated texture under the painted surface by way of collaged newspaper that sometimes indicates a grid-like structure."


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> It is significant under the institutional definition of art. You know, the one that makes a urinal a work of art if it is displayed in an art museum? (somewhere other than the rest rooms )


If Marcel Duchamp got a urinal, named it "Fountain" and signed it, then exhibited it, then it's art, regardless if any random viewer accepts it or likes it.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> The ones I've seen were black.
> From Wik: "In the early 1950s, Rauschenberg (b. 1925, Port Arthur, Texas, USA; d. 2008) became known for…black...monochrome canvases. The Black Paintings (1951-53) incorporated texture under the painted surface by way of collaged newspaper that sometimes indicates a grid-like structure."


He made multiple black paintings too, yes. The black ones aren't featureless like the white ones though.


----------



## Sloe

EdwardBast said:


> It is significant under the institutional definition of art. You know, the one that makes a urinal a work of art if it is displayed in an art museum? (somewhere other than the rest rooms )


If it is art I think the artist is the manufacturer and not the one who signed it.
At least there is something to see unlike a piece of what is called music were you hear nothing.
Yes I know I can listen to my own and others breathing, people caughing, the sound of the ventilation system and other wonderful sounds that would have been there regardless of what they would have been playing or just having a break.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> If Marcel Duchamp got a urinal, named it "Fountain" and signed it, then exhibited it, then it's art, regardless if any random viewer accepts it or likes it.


Hey, you're quick . That was the point. That is the institutional definition at work.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Specifically, he wrote, in a preface to an article on Rauschneberg,
> 
> "To Whom It May Concern: The white paintings came first; *my silent piece* came later."
> 
> So maybe go easy on people who call it "silent."


Yes, but Cage said "MY" silent piece, so he was simply being conversational and colloquial. It was just a figure of speech, as a concession to the fact that he was talking about a piece that is ascribed to him as the composer, as a nicety, playing the game of "I am John Cage."

So sorry, cannot go easy on the fast & loose use of the term "silence," especially since there is no such thing.

In reality, Cage was trying to remove himself and his ego from the works he produced. 4'33" is not a piece about silence itself, even though Cage's input and the performer's input is "silent." They are "silenced" for a reason: to reverse the notion of composer and performer, and let the listener be the "receiver" of the input, which is to be listened to and processed as 'music,' and the sounds which are 'performed' randomly by the environment.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> He made multiple black paintings too, yes. The black ones aren't featureless like the white ones though.


That's good; because 4'33" isn't "featureless" either. It features the ambient sounds of whatever place it is performed in.


----------



## isorhythm

I don't think I've ever responded directly to this thread. My thoughts:

-4'33" had some significance in its time. It isn't very significant now.

-Whether or not it's music is not a very interesting question. It isn't the same kind of thing that a Mozart concerto is.

-It only exists in the context of Western classical music publishing and performance traditions. Outside of that context John Cage, who was just some guy, does not get to copyright a length of time or the act of silent contemplation - those belong to everyone and always have.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Hey, you're quick . That was the point. That is the institutional definition at work.


In some institutions, people think they're Napoleon.


----------



## Blancrocher

EdwardBast said:


> It is significant under the institutional definition of art. You know, the one that makes a urinal a work of art if it is displayed in an art museum? (somewhere other than the rest rooms )


So if I ever get the chance to purchase Duchamp's urinal for $70 million or whatever, it'll just lose its value the second I walk out the door with it?!

Glad I read this post in time...


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> That's good; because 4'33" isn't "featureless" either. It features the ambient sounds of whatever place it is performed in.


The white paintings are also not featureless, both in that a white coat of paint is never going to be perfectly even, and in that the light on them as they hang in a gallery will change; that's what inspired Cage.

The black paintings are more like a variety of abstract expressionism and aren't really analogous to 4'33".


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Hey, you're quick . That was the point. That is the institutional definition at work.


I don't recognize any other definition. I don't call any definition of art "institutional" as opposed to some "individual" opinion. This is simply the effects of the internet mindset. There is no "individual" on matters such as these, except the artist. This issue has already been determined by history.


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> I don't think I've ever responded directly to this thread. My thoughts:
> 
> -4'33" had some significance in its time. It isn't very significant now.
> 
> -Whether or not it's music is not a very interesting question. It isn't the same kind of thing that a Mozart concerto is.
> 
> -It only exists in the context of Western classical music publishing and performance traditions. Outside of that context John Cage, who was just some guy, does not get to copyright a length of time or the act of silent contemplation - those belong to everyone and always have.


I consider it a commentary on the ritual of going to a concert and listening to a piece.

John Cage would have been the first to tell you that he didn't own it.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I don't recognize any other definition. I don't call any definition of art "institutional" as opposed to some "individual" opinion. This is simply the effects of the internet mindset. There is no "individual" on matters such as these, except the artist. This issue has already been determined by history.


There's no such thing as "history." Here's only your history and my history. By "history" you mean the "authorities" - _your _authorities.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> The white paintings are also not featureless, both in that a white coat of paint is never going to be perfectly even, and in that the light on them as they hang in a gallery will change; that's what inspired Cage.
> 
> The black paintings are more like a variety of abstract expressionism and aren't really analogous to 4'33".


All of the monochromatic paintings (white, black, and red) deal with "absence of subject" rather than some form of "nothingness" or "silence."

The fact that there is "content" in even a blank painting in the form of brushstrokes and irregularities does reinforce Cage's assertion that there is really no "silence," so in that regard, the two things reinforce the same idea; but I don't think the initial intent of Rauschenberg was to create paintings which were about brushstrokes or other resultant anomalies, but about color fields, as a way of painting without "subject" per se. The absence of subject allowed these other elements to emerge, but they need to be viewed in terms of color field, not brushstrokes or irregularities in the painting's surface.

Likewise, Cage's allowance of silence should not allow the resultant ambient sounds which emerge out of this absence as "content" that he intentionally put there. Like wise, Rauschenberg's "brushstrokes" are not "content" that he intended to be seen, or that he "controlled" with his intent.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> There's no such thing as "history." Here's only your history and my history. By "history" you mean the "authorities" - _your _authorities.


No, there is no "individual" component to history is what I mean. History, even if it consists of individual acts, becomes an objectified record. There is no "authority" in history; it is an accumulation of events, with no author, or it is not history. It is something else, but not history.


----------



## Guest

I don't accept - nor do I have to accept - that a piece of 'art' can be anything that an 'artist' declares to be so.


----------



## LarryShone

No such thing as history? What tosh!!


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> No, there is no "individual" component to history is what I mean. History, even if it consists of individual acts, becomes an objectified *record*. There is no "authority" in history; it is an *accumulation of events*, with no author, or it is not history. It is something else, but not history.


Which is it? Is history an "accumulation of events," or is it a "record" of those events? And which of those, if either, has "decided the issue" of 4'33"?

Events don't "decide" the meaning of things. And when records are kept, someone has kept them and proposed meanings - someone with whom others may disagree.

The status of 4'33" as art, as music, can never be decided by "history" - in either sense of the word.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Which is it? Is history an "accumulation of events," or is it a "record" of those events? And which of those, if either, has "decided the issue" of 4'33"?


It's a record in some regards, but 10 people will have 10 different versions of an event 15 minutes after it happens, so we can't depend on individual accounts alone. We have to "accumulate" data, and then determine what is most likely the most accurate. But it's not a science.

4'33"s fate in history has already been set.



> Events don't "decide" the meaning of things. And when records are kept, someone has kept them and proposed meanings - someone with whom others may disagree.


Many times events DO decide the meaning of things, just by their very existence as events. Although you say history is a result of kept records, it cannot be a result of one individual record, but of an accumulation of records. If an idea survives, it is a meme which becomes history.



> The status of 4'33" as art, as music, can never be decided by "history" - in either sense of the word.


Yes, it can and already has. Just the fact of your speaking about it proves that. It is art, without a doubt. It belongs to the ages now, and has transcended your ephemeral opinion. It will live on as a historic piece, while all this chatter will be blown away in the squall of circumstance.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> I don't accept - nor do I have to accept - that a piece of 'art' can be anything that an 'artist' declares to be so.


OK, but that doesn't change anything. The "acceptance" that matters is of a collective nature. There are things outside of your own ego that are bigger: things like God and history. Your hubris will be swept away by the tide of larger forces. Stand in awe of history.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> I don't recognize any other definition. I don't call any definition of art "institutional" as opposed to some "individual" opinion. This is simply the effects of the internet mindset. There is no "individual" on matters such as these, except the artist. This issue has already been determined by history.


The Institutional Definition of Art is a standard term in modern aesthetic theory, not something I or the internet made up. This definition (and the supporting theory) is often invoked when someone asks how a urinal or a "silent" musical work qualifies as a work of art. It was invented by George Dickie in his _Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis_. Ithaca: NY: Cornell UP, 1974.

Here is the essential definition: "A work of art in the classificatory sense is (1) an artifact (2) a set of the aspects of which has had conferred upon it the status of candidate for appreciation by some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld)" (p. 229).


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> The Institutional Definition of Art is a standard term in modern aesthetic theory, not something I or the internet made up. This definition (and the supporting theory) is often invoked when someone asks how a urinal or a "silent" musical work qualifies as a work of art. It was invented by George Dickie in his _Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis_. Ithaca: NY: Cornell UP, 1974.
> 
> Here is the essential definition: "A work of art in the classificatory sense is (1) an artifact (2) a set of the aspects of which has had conferred upon it the status of candidate for appreciation by some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld)" (p. 229).


So? Plenty of room for interpretation (which persons? Which institutions?) and still if I don't recognise it as art, I don't have to. I may be in splendid isolation, but I cannot be compelled to submit to the p.229 definition.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> OK, but that doesn't change anything. The "acceptance" that matters is of a collective nature. There are things outside of your own ego that are bigger: things like God and history. Your hubris will be swept away by the tide of larger forces. Stand in awe of history.


The only thing I can be sure of out of those three things is my ego.


----------



## LarryShone

You may not recognise it as art but it still is. Recognising art doesnt equal liking art. There are plenty of art works, in the various media, that I dont like. Heck I don't like Picasso's work but I still recognise him as an important artist.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> It's a record in some regards, but 10 people will have 10 different versions of an event 15 minutes after it happens, so *we* can't depend on individual accounts alone. *We* have to "accumulate" data, and then determine what is most likely the most accurate. But it's not a science.
> 
> 4'33"s fate in history has already been set.
> 
> Many times events DO decide the meaning of things, just by their very existence as events. Although you say history is a result of kept records, it cannot be a result of one individual record, but of an accumulation of records. If an idea survives, it is a meme which becomes history.
> 
> [4'33"] is art, without a doubt. It belongs to the ages now, and has transcended your ephemeral opinion. It will live on as a historic piece, while all this chatter will be blown away in the squall of circumstance.


_We?_ Precisely the issue.

A meme is not a truth. History is not _the_ truth. Any historian will tell you that. My opinion is no more ephemeral than anyone else's. In fact, in its essence it is very widely held despite any "squall" which the circumstances you prefer can send my way.

Most people would not, never did, and never will, recognize 4'33" as music. The notion that it _is_ music is indeed a meme, a product of an ideology, which arose in a particular cultural context not so very long ago, appealed to an in-group who fancied themselves the most avant of the avant garde, and persists (often unthinkingly, like any meme) among a fellowship of believers, a certain cultural establishment. Your attempt to identify that establishment view as the verdict of "history" proves nothing, except that you're a member of the establishment in good standing.

I'm not - and neither are most people who, recognizing music when they hear it, are not relying on someone's idea of "history" for their sense of reality.


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> So? Plenty of room for interpretation (which persons? Which institutions?) and still if I don't recognise it as art, *I don't have to. I may be in splendid isolation, but I cannot be compelled to submit to the p.229 definition.*


Well, yes, of course! I'm not advocating the institutional definition. I'm just pointing out that some of the questions currently being fumbled with here have been examined carefully by people who get paid to do that sort of thing. My point is that *if* there is a general theory of art that includes instances like "Fountain," empty-frame paintings and 4'33", it is the institutional definition. It has been challenged and if anyone is interested in how, the clues I have provided might allow them to track it down.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

millionrainbows said:


> OK, but that doesn't change anything. The "acceptance" that matters is of a collective nature. There are things outside of your own ego that are bigger: things like God and history. Your hubris will be swept away by the tide of larger forces. Stand in awe of history.


And views of history on an item or event can change in a generation without warning or concern how the previous generation thought.


----------



## Guest

LarryShone said:


> You may not recognise it as art but it still is. Recognising art doesnt equal liking art. There are plenty of art works, in the various media, that I dont like. Heck I don't like Picasso's work but I still recognise him as an important artist.


Not sure if you're addressing me, but of course liking is irrelevant.

For the record...and I don't think I've changed my mind on this since I first contributed to this thread...is that 4'33" is not music, but is a philosophical statement that could be considered 'art'. I like it.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Not sure if you're addressing me, but of course liking is irrelevant.
> 
> For the record...and I don't think I've changed my mind on this since I first contributed to this thread...is that 4'33" is not music, but is a philosophical statement that could be considered 'art'. I like it.


This states simply and clearly the fact that - re the OP - it needn't be a "disparagement" of 4'33" to withhold from it the designation "music."

I would even go as far as to say that not having to submit to some ridiculous postmodernist dogma about what music is will enable some people to relax and just enjoy a guided meditation couched in humor.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> The Institutional Definition of Art is a standard term in modern aesthetic theory, not something I or the internet made up. This definition (and the supporting theory) is often invoked when someone asks how a urinal or a "silent" musical work qualifies as a work of art. It was invented by George Dickie in his _Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis_. Ithaca: NY: Cornell UP, 1974.
> 
> Here is the essential definition: "A work of art in the classificatory sense is (1) an artifact (2) a set of the aspects of which has had conferred upon it the status of candidate for appreciation by some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld)" (p. 229).


I guess I didn't make it clear: the ONLY definition of art is one which has passed institutional muster, not some "individual" definition/opinion of some guy on the internet who is trying to say Jackson Pollock paintings are not art, or some such nonsense.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> So? Plenty of room for interpretation (which persons? Which institutions?) and still if I don't recognise it as art, I don't have to. I may be in splendid isolation, but I cannot be compelled to submit to the p.229 definition.


This is what I mean by "internet definitions/opinions" which mean nothing.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> The only thing I can be sure of out of those three things is my ego.


That is a very revealing statement.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> A meme is not a truth. History is not _the_ truth. Any historian will tell you that.


I never claimed otherwise, or meant to imply that. History is what it is, but it must be recognized in contrast to individual/subjective opinion.



> My opinion is no more ephemeral than anyone else's. In fact, in its essence it is very widely held despite any "squall" which the circumstances you prefer can send my way.


Can you cite some references, other than internet blogs and ill-informed negative reviews? Can you cite any definitive reference which supports the idea that "4'33" is not music?" History does not recognize any other fact than that 4'33" is a legitimate composition. Whether or not it is "music" is irrelevant to its historical existence as art. I'm not interested.



> Most people would not, never did, and never will, recognize 4'33" as music. The notion that it _is_ music is indeed a meme, a product of an ideology, which arose in a particular cultural context not so very long ago, appealed to an in-group who fancied themselves the most avant of the avant garde, and persists (often unthinkingly, like any meme) among a fellowship of believers, a certain cultural establishment. Your attempt to identify that establishment view as the verdict of "history" proves nothing, except that you're a member of the establishment in good standing.


I've humbled myself before the altar of art history. I am not here to defend 4'33", it needs no defense. It belongs to the ages now.



> I'm not - and neither are most people who, recognizing music when they hear it, are not relying on someone's idea of "history" for their sense of reality.


Such subjective experience is invisible to history, and to all other people. That's metaphysics.


----------



## millionrainbows

Johnnie Burgess said:


> And views of history on an item or event can change in a generation without warning or concern how the previous generation thought.


Well, if history does change, then that is of a collective nature which supersedes the subjective opinions of people on the internet. History belongs to the realm of Gods, not men. (Giambattista Vico)


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Not sure if you're addressing me, but of course liking is irrelevant.
> 
> For the record...and I don't think I've changed my mind on this since I first contributed to this thread...is that 4'33" is not music, but is a philosophical statement that could be considered 'art'. I like it.


Your opinion of 4'33", and the way you are framing this issue as "music vs. philosophy" are totally irrelevant to the historical status of 4'33," as well as being ill-informed.

Yes, "philosophy as art"…that's called "conceptual art." Duhhh...


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

millionrainbows said:


> Well, if history does change, then that is of a collective nature which supersedes the subjective opinions of people on the internet. History belongs to the realm of Gods, not men. (Giambattista Vico)


Who is this Giambattista Vico is he not but one man so what he wrote could be have no meaning at all.

Just look back at how many theories on why the U.S civil war was fought. Each generation since that has put forth new ideas on why it happened.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> This states simply and clearly the fact that - re the OP - it needn't be a "disparagement" of 4'33" to withhold from it the designation "music."


But even framing the "argument" in such terms is ill-informed and irrelevant.



> I would even go as far as to say that not having to submit to some ridiculous postmodernist dogma about what music is will enable some people to relax and just enjoy a guided meditation couched in humor.


It is what it is, and to keep on questioning it is…embarrassing to me. Art is not utilitarian. It is its very "uselessness" and ephemerality that makes it more than merely a materialistic commodity, or a clever idea that some marketing guy came up with, or an "internet meme." History has spoken, and now the internet has given all these subjective experts a chance to try to rewrite it. Good luck, see you in a generation or two to see how it turns out!


----------



## Woodduck

All you've done, million, is repeat, over and over, ad nauseam, that "history" can decide what things mean, and that its "decisions" are ultimate and binding.

It can't, and they aren't. "History" is either a sequence of events - and events do not define anything - or an interpretation of events - and interpretations are made by individuals. The number of individuals who subscribe to a given interpretation, and the number of doctorates they hold or books they publish, and over how many years or decades, has no necessary relation to any truth.

If you can sing without embarrassment the praises of the intellectual mob rule of a self-proclaimed, self-congratulatory, and self-perpetuating art establishment - which is all your "history" amounts to - sing away. But those who can use their own ears and minds would rather listen to 4'33."


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> The number of individuals who subscribe to a given interpretation, and the number of doctorates they hold or books they publish, and over how many years or decades, has no necessary relation to any truth.


Such an appeal to "authority" is a common argument put forward in debates about ideas such as "genius" and "greatness."


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

millionrainbows said:


> I've humbled myself before the altar of art history. I am not here to defend 4'33", *it needs no defense. It belongs to the ages now.*


 I think that 4'33'' will be just a curiosity footnote in the annals of music. There really isn't anything interesting about it, musically speaking.


----------



## Woodduck

dogen said:


> Such an appeal to "authority" is a common argument put forward in debates about ideas such as "genius" and "greatness."


The appeal to authority has its uses, and its usefulness depends on the subject or question under discussion. Genius and greatness in art are not quantifiable, but they are generally recognizable, once certain parameters are established. Defining art itself, by contrast, is a matter of _establishing_ such parameters, not of evaluating things with reference to them, and so there have always been, and always will be, fundamental disagreements over it.

What we have here, in my judgment, is not an appeal of the former sort, a legitimate appeal to the judgments of informed individuals based on commonly understood premises. It is an attempt to dismiss dissenting views in the absence of such premises, claiming final truth for a view, created quite recently by a certain cultural establishment and eccentric in the whole context of human history, of what music is.

Is it not ironic that the status of 4'33" as music should be claimed as confirmed by history, when the overwhelming majority of people throughout history would not recognize it as such? If we're going to appeal to "authority," that poses an interesting dilemma, and challenges us to defend the "authority" we choose.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> What we have here, in my judgment, is not an appeal of the former sort, a legitimate appeal to the judgments of informed individuals based on commonly understood premises. It is an attempt to dismiss dissenting views in the absence of such premises, claiming final truth for a view, created quite recently by a certain cultural establishment and eccentric in the whole context of human history, of what music is.
> 
> Is it not ironic that the status of 4'33" as music should be claimed as confirmed by history, when the overwhelming majority of people throughout history would not recognize it as such? If we're going to appeal to "authority," that poses an interesting dilemma, and challenges us to defend the "authority" we choose.


This sounds a little paranoid to me. I think "what we have here" is just philosophers doing what they do, in this case, trying to find a general definition of music that accounts for all instances. After one accepts aleatoric music, indeterminate music, setting the vaguest parameters around which players are asked to improvise for any length of time and calling it a musical composition, one finds oneself on a frictionless slope. How little control over outcomes in a "work" must a composer exert before any claim to being the composer of a musical work is void? I don't know where to draw the line. Do you? And I don't mean that to sound like a challenge I think you can't meet. I'm hoping you do know and that you can.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> This sounds a little paranoid to me. I think "what we have here" is just philosophers doing what they do, in this case, trying to find a general definition of music that accounts for all instances. After one accepts aleatoric music, indeterminate music, setting the vaguest parameters around which players are asked to improvise for any length of time and calling it a musical composition, one finds oneself on a frictionless slope. How little control over outcomes in a "work" must a composer exert before any claim to being the composer of a musical work is void? I don't know where to draw the line. Do you? And I don't mean that to sound like a challenge I think you can't meet. I'm hoping you do know and that you can.


I think you misunderstood. By "what we have here," I was referring to millionrainbows (who really is right _here_) asserting as settled truth that 4'33" is music because "history" says it is. Maybe you haven't been following his posts, but my argument is with his concept of "history" as some reified entity capable of asserting authority in matters of aesthetics. In light of this information, I think you'll read my post differently. If not, just let me know and I'll try again.

As to where to draw the line on that slope, I'd start by drawing it at the point where people calling themselves musicians are not making any sound or giving any instructions for the making of sound. We might then consider backing it up a bit farther, but I don't want to ruffle any more feathers today...


----------



## SimonNZ

Is there anyone on TC who has changed their opinion of 4'33 as a result of the discussions and opinions put forward on this thread?

That's not a rhetorical question - I really want to know.


----------



## Pugg

SimonNZ said:


> Is there anyone on TC who has changed their opinion of 4'33 as a result of the discussions and opinions put forward on this thread?
> 
> That's not a rhetorical question - I really want to know.


I was thinking this the other day, but then one has to go trough 1638 post


----------



## mmsbls

SimonNZ said:


> Is there anyone on TC who has changed their opinion of 4'33 as a result of the discussions and opinions put forward on this thread?


I did not change my opinion on 4'33" due to this thread, but I did change my opinion after reading other TC threads and thinking about definitions of music. When I came to TC, I believed that 4'33" was a work of music primarily because I thought the classical music establishment had made that determination. When I read various TC discussions of 4'33", I began thinking more about how music might be defined. I read about Cage's thoughts on music and considered how various people, including those on TC, viewed music. Eventually I came to 2 conclusions.

1) Apparently some subset of the classical music establishment believes that 4'33" is music.
2) I couldn't properly define music, but I could determine certain minimum requirements for what I consider music.

The two minimal requirements, for me, were sound and intention. Music should consist of sounds, and those sounds should be the product of conscious intention. The composer or performer must intend for a musical work to sound a particular way. So I no longer viewed 4'33" as music since the intention was absent. I'm actually thankful for the discussions on 4'33" since it forced me to think harder and attempt to better understand people's views of music.

So clearly I think there are two types of definitions of music - a "technical" one (that of the classical music establishment) and a generic one (what general music listeners believe). I see no problem with certain people agreeing that 4'33" is music while others think that view is preposterous. I do believe that 4'33" is art in a general sense since it is performed, but my view of art is much broader than my view of music.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I guess I didn't make it clear: the ONLY definition of art is one which has passed institutional muster, not some "individual" definition/opinion of some guy on the internet who is trying to say Jackson Pollock paintings are not art, or some such nonsense.


You mean, the only definition of art that you will accept. I accept a different one, I guess, though I recognise that there are institutions that lay claim to greater authority on the subject, but since there are no consequences for me in making my own decisions, I'm happy to be just some guy on the internet.



millionrainbows said:


> This is what I mean by "internet definitions/opinions" which mean nothing.


They mean at least enough for you and me to be here and attack them.



millionrainbows said:


> That is a very revealing statement.


Hmmm...do I dare ask...?



millionrainbows said:


> Your opinion of 4'33", and the way you are framing this issue as "music vs. philosophy" are totally irrelevant to the historical status of 4'33," as well as being ill-informed.
> 
> Yes, "philosophy as art"…that's called "conceptual art." Duhhh...


The historical status of 4'33" - that it is a piece that was 'created' and has been debated is not in doubt. That there are plenty of 'authoritative' people who accord it the status of 'art' and 'music' is also not in doubt. So what? Even a cursory look at Wiki shows that definitions are not settled, and even if they were, there is no requirement on the individual to accede to them. Nor are there any consequences for the individual to declare disagreement.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> the classical music establishment


And there's another undefinable concept...can I ring them up and ask for their opinion, or definition?

Does the UK's Royal Academy have a definition that I can look up, take away and share? Is it the same as whatever the US equivalent's definition is? And are we to accord the UK and the US some kind of hegemony in the matter?

That there are composers, listeners, patrons, worthies, academics and rebels who believe in the existence of a musical establishment is not in doubt, but such an establishment is only an accretion over time of the activities and opinions of composers, listeners, patrons, worthies etc etc.

It's somewhat ironic if the 'music establishment' is now prepared to embrace and defend what was once a challenge to their (mythical) authority. Yet I am not allowed to also ignore the supposed authority of a possibly non-existent body?



SimonNZ said:


> Is there anyone on TC who has changed their opinion of 4'33 as a result of the discussions and opinions put forward on this thread?
> 
> That's not a rhetorical question - I really want to know.


Can I begin my answer by pointing to an article I've only just read (in my search for 'definition of music') in which a well-known UK rock critic writes about his discovery of classical by spending a year learning composition at the Academy?

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/jul/12/classical-music-becoming-a-composer

Paul Morley, one of our more infuriating but perceptive and entertaining critics said this about his experience:



> I could sense more and more clearly the way one thing leads to another, the way music moves forwards by becoming liberated from the historic implications loaded into it, in much the same way I have come to view the ebb and flow of pop music. Doing this enabled me to get to the music simply as it is once all associations of time, history, fashion, prejudice and interpretation are stripped away - seeing Bach or Shostakovich not as something that should only be appreciated in a very particular and formalised context, requiring sophisticated technical understanding and the correct clothing, but as liberated sound existing in a pure metaphysical space reflecting timeless thinking and emotion that other artistic endeavours cannot come close to conveying.


This debate about 4'33" has, in small ways, like so many other threads of equal importance, informed my listening to, experience of, thinking about music - and not just classical. There are times when I would rather debate with you than listen to the music, and, of course, vice versa. What millionrainbows perceives as a self-aggrandising ego, setting itself up as some kind of authority (or counter-authority) is, in fact, nothing more than one of the many people who come together to communicate with others about something very important. That we might disagree (or agree), or hold on to our opinions (or change them) is less significant than that we keep coming back for as long as we find these communications useful.


----------



## mmsbls

MacLeod said:


> And there's another undefinable concept...can I ring them up and ask for their opinion, or definition?


Probably not truly undefinable (see below).



MacLeod said:


> ...such an establishment is only an accretion over time of the activities and opinions of composers, listeners, patrons, worthies etc etc.


This is a reasonable definition, but I would probably define the establishment more along the lines of the set of classical music experts where experts have two characteristics:

1) significant experience studying classical music and interacting with others studying classical music,
2) others who have spent a large amount of time studying classical music recognize that person as having attained a superior level of knowledge and understanding of that field.



MacLeod said:


> It's somewhat ironic if the 'music establishment' is now prepared to embrace and defend what was once a challenge to their (mythical) authority. Yet I am not allowed to also ignore the supposed authority of a possibly non-existent body?


One can always ignore the authority of any group. I think many people view the definition of music as being subjective and lying outside the purview of expert groups. I accept that the establishment likely agrees that 4'33" is music while I do not.


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Is there anyone on TC who has changed their opinion of 4'33 as a result of the discussions and opinions put forward on this thread?
> 
> That's not a rhetorical question - I really want to know.


Yes, me. In the interests of having a life I'm not going to expand on that!


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> Yes, me. In the interests of having a life I'm not going to expand on that!


'Having a life'? You're having a laff! Who are you to lay claim to such an entitlement when the worthies of TC have determined that all must be revealed - and in another thread, recently declared that resistance is futile?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> All you've done, million, is repeat, over and over, ad nauseam, that "history" can decide what things mean, and that its "decisions" are ultimate and binding.
> 
> It can't, and they aren't. "History" is either a sequence of events - and events do not define anything - or an interpretation of events - and interpretations are made by individuals. The number of individuals who subscribe to a given interpretation, and the number of doctorates they hold or books they publish, and over how many years or decades, has no necessary relation to any truth.


No, history is not either/or a sequence of events, or their interpretation by individuals. There are plenty of other factors that figure in, some of which are time-sensitive, some which are not. Technology and other factors play a part. The art world itself has a history, and sometimes art is a commentary on its own history: Donald Judd's comments, via his art, on the state of painting, Frank Stella's statements, via paintings, on the nature of painting, Jasper Johns, Pollock, etc: all of this is dependent on other factors. Your view is overly-simplistic, and too pat.



> If you can sing without embarrassment the praises of the intellectual mob rule of a self-proclaimed, self-congratulatory, and self-perpetuating art establishment - which is all your "history" amounts to - sing away. But those who can use their own ears and minds would rather listen to 4'33."


Art can't be separated from its history; works can't be yanked out of their rightful, meaningful context; if you do this, you destroy art. You divest it of its meaning, and turn it into a commodity for your convenient consumption. It thus becomes utilitarian, serving the needs of the present-day consumer. What a nightmare.


----------



## millionrainbows

dogen said:


> Such an appeal to "authority" is a common argument put forward in debates about ideas such as "genius" and "greatness."


Woodduck's invalidation of authority and history is likewise indicative of an agenda, just as feminists wish to "de-genius" history for their own purposes.

Things such as: Einstein's wife, not Einstein, came up with relativity; Thoreau's mother did his laundry and brought him pies when he was at Walden Pond "roughing" it; Picasso treated women badly; you're just a middle-aged loser, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I think that 4'33'' will be just a curiosity footnote in the annals of music. There really isn't anything interesting about it, musically speaking.


Really? Is that what you think? Wow! Revelatory! Perhaps you should get a doctorate and write a book. Meanwhile, back at the internet…4'33" is not that great! This is according to experts from the "talk classical" thread of the early 21st century. Unfortunately, the server was vaporized by a North Korean nuclear warhead...


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Is it not ironic that the status of 4'33" as music should be claimed as confirmed by history, when the overwhelming majority of people throughout history would not recognize it as such?


Well, as Frank Zappa said, "The most plentiful substance in the universe is not hydrogen; it's stupidity."


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I think you misunderstood. By "what we have here," I was referring to millionrainbows (who really is right _here_) asserting as settled truth that 4'33" is music because "history" says it is. Maybe you haven't been following his posts, but my argument is with his concept of "history" as some reified entity capable of asserting authority in matters of aesthetics. In light of this information, I think you'll read my post differently. If not, just let me know and I'll try again.
> 
> As to where to draw the line on that slope, I'd start by drawing it at the point where people calling themselves musicians are not making any sound or giving any instructions for the making of sound. We might then consider backing it up a bit farther, but I don't want to ruffle any more feathers today...


If you draw that line, where does it stop? Morton Feldman's music uses actual sounds from classical instruments, but now you are giving creedence to those who would say it is not music, for one reason or another. That would be a travesty.

Let's instead give creedence to 4'33" and its legacy, and let IT draw the line as to what is music or not. That is its great accomplishment; to bypass our inflated notions of what "music" is supposed to be.

Long live non-utilitarian art! Long live the "useless!" Long live those things which transcend the boxes we attempt to stuff them in, in our infinite hubris! Long live the submission of Man's ego!


----------



## millionrainbows

SimonNZ said:


> Is there anyone on TC who has changed their opinion of 4'33 as a result of the discussions and opinions put forward on this thread?
> 
> That's not a rhetorical question - I really want to know.


Like any vigorous debate, it has motivated me to more precisely define my position; and thus, I understand it better.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Woodduck's invalidation of authority and history is likewise indicative of an agenda...


Woodduck's agenda is not his own, or course, but is based on the secret protocols of the _Society to Completely Un-elitise Music,_ commonly known as SCUM.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> ...When I came to TC, I believed that 4'33" was a work of music primarily because I thought the classical music establishment had made that determination…


I think you should have stopped right there.



> The two minimal requirements, for me, were sound and intention. Music should consist of sounds, and those sounds should be the product of conscious intention.


Now you're digging yourself into a hole. Now, Lutoslawski's aleatoric elements are "not music;" now, beautiful pieces like Cage's Atlas Eclipticalis are "not music." Now, Stockhausen's group intuitive improvisations are "not music."



> The composer or performer must intend for a musical work to sound a particular way. So I no longer viewed 4'33" as music since the intention was absent.


I simply do not agree. Music and art are not about conscious control and intent all the time. If your definition was true, there would be no Surrealism or Abstract Expressionism.



> So clearly I think there are two types of definitions of music - a "technical" one (that of the classical music establishment) and a generic one (what general music listeners believe). I see no problem with certain people agreeing that 4'33" is music while others think that view is preposterous. I do believe that 4'33" is art in a general sense since it is performed, but my view of art is much broader than my view of music.


This is irrelevant to what 4'33" is trying to achieve. It is not a "removal" or "cancellation" of what we define as music; it is conceptual music, because it reverses the parameters of how we experience music. It is not, and never was, "playing" with a definition of music. It just changed some parameters of how we could experience music, if we went along with it and experienced it, instead of allowing our ticker-tape conscious, controlling ideas, definitions, egos, and mindsets to run roughshod over its noble intent. What a shame for that "generic," larger "set" of people who think that way. Let's start a war!


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Woodduck's agenda is not his own, or course, but is based on the secret protocols of the _Society to Completely Un-elitise Music,_ commonly known as SCUM.


So does that mean, like Valerie Solanis, with her "SCUM" manifesto, that he's coming out with a book called "I Shot John Cage," soon to be a movie?


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> I think you should have stopped right there.


You really think Cage didn't want people to think about his work? You think he would have been happy if people had simply kept with their conventional view of music and ignored 4'33"? I don't know enough about him, but I've always imagined he would be thrilled to know that people did think about 4'33" and what he was trying to do.



millionrainbows said:


> Now you're digging yourself into a hole. Now, Lutoslawski's aleatoric elements are "not music;" now, beautiful pieces like Cage's Atlas Eclipticalis are "not music." Now, Stockhausen's group intuitive improvisations are "not music."


I think you have a definition of intent that differs markedly from mine. My understanding of aleatoric music is that composers use chance to define some but not all elements of the music. They create a work that is either completely specified by the composer or specified by the composer plus performers. Together their intent defines the music. This is true of improvisations as well.



millionrainbows said:


> I simply do not agree. Music and art are not about conscious control and intent all the time. If your definition was true, there would be no Surrealism or Abstract Expressionism.


No, Surrealism and Abstract Expressionism involve considerable intent. Automatic writing would be complete gibberish (i.e. few if any actual words) without intent. Surrealist painter's think hard about their works. One of my favorite painters is Yves Tanguy. Anyone who thinks his works were created without intent would have an extremely difficult time explaining how that could be true. Again I think our definitions of intent must vary considerably.



millionrainbows said:


> This is irrelevant to what 4'33" is trying to achieve.


And your statement is irrelevant to my views. I was simply trying to share some of my views on whether 4'33" is music. I understand that Cage was trying to get people to think (yes think) about what music and ambient sound are. He was trying to suggest that people could "hear" ambient sounds as music. And I agree. People can choose to hear those sounds as music. People can choose to define such sounds as music. I could do that as well, but after reading, listening, and thinking hard about these issues, I do not.

I'm actually thrilled that some percentage (likely rather small) of listeners do think about Cage's work and what it means. We may have different views, but he created something that acted as a catalyst for greater understanding of music and sounds. That's great.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> This is irrelevant to what 4'33" is trying to achieve. It is not a "removal" or "cancellation" of what we define as music; it is conceptual music, because it reverses the parameters of how we experience music. It is not, and never was, "playing" with a definition of music. It just changed some parameters of how we could experience music, if we went along with it and experienced it, instead of allowing our ticker-tape conscious, controlling ideas, definitions, egos, and mindsets to run roughshod over its noble intent.


Would someone - someone besides millionrainbows - like to try translating any part of this into language I can understand?

How is "reversing the parameters of how we experience music" not equivalent to changing the definition of music? Is the way music is experienced not an essential part of what music is? But even if this refers to something irrelevant to the meaning of music, doesn't the statement still assume that there's some music there to be experienced, which is the very thing in dispute here? What does it mean to "reverse parameters" anyway? And what does ego and mindset have to do with it? I have no ego invested in the matter of whether I'm hearing music or not, and refusing to call something what it plainly isn't is not the "set" of my mind but its normal way of functioning.

You hear music or you don't, and if you don't, you don't call the random noises occurring around you "music" because you're in a concert hall and someone's sitting at a piano in front of you with his hands folded. This is true for precisely the same reason you don't call an empty plate a waiter has served you "dinner."

Even the argument from the authority of "history" has more (ostensible) credibility than this artspeak.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Would someone - someone besides millionrainbows - like to try translating any part of this into language I can understand?


I was going to suggest Lewis Carroll, but I checked and he's not available.


----------



## arpeggio

SimonNZ said:


> Is there anyone on TC who has changed their opinion of 4'33 as a result of the discussions and opinions put forward on this thread?
> 
> That's not a rhetorical question - I really want to know.


This is a point that many of us have been trying to make for years.

I think that there was one member who changed his mind.

I do not think it is music but I have many friends who do. I am not going to pick a fight with them every time I see them over this.

I am more concerned with saving my money so I can buy a bass clarinet.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> I was going to suggest Lewis Carroll, but I checked and he's not available.


Ah well. 'Twas a brillig idea.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Ah well. 'Twas a brillig idea.


We could try Lear...

There was a composer called Cage
Whose music got folks in a rage
"My parameters clear
Faced to front or to rear:
There's no music to hear from my page!"


----------



## Guest

Here are three different views on music and, in particular, its value to society (and only one explicitly about Cage's piece.)



> [4'33" is] serious because it gets right to the heart of the avant garde project of the last century as a whole, as expressed in Dada, in Picasso's pasting bits of Le Figaro onto his canvasses, Marcel Duchamp's urinal "readymade", in the sirens that wail through the orchestral works of the composer Edgard Varese like Ameriques, in Futurist Luigi Russolo's Art Of Noises manifesto - to collapse the walls between art and life, in this case to extend the notion of what is admissible as music and what is not to . . . everything. This was an idea that would have confounded the great musical masters of the 19th century and previously, whose overarching assumptions would come crashing down in the early part of the 20th. In this respect, 4'33", ironically, is closer to "noise" music than anything else.


David Stubbs http://thequietus.com/articles/05438-silence-why-john-cage-s-4-33-is-no-laughing-matter



> The default stance of ethnomusicology, therefore, is aesthetic relativism. We don't argue that one kind of music is better than another, because there isn't an objective position from which to make such a claim.


Patrick Burke http://www.neh.gov/humanities/2015/januaryfebruary/feature/what-music



> Music is different things to different people: to Ian Skelly, author of the article 'Beauty Speaks', above all things music has a transcendental significance that is captured in the beautiful patterns of Nature and architecture - a kind of 'frozen music'; to Mark Kidel, author of 'Conversations and Crossroads', music can bridge cultures in a universal 'conversation' that is beyond intellect or reason, but which is heartfelt; to Brian Eno, music brings the joy of unexpected and beautiful sound; and to singer/songwriters like myself and Howard Milner, music - and singing in particular - takes us to a world apart: a world beyond self and ego; a place of emotion that touches the soul.


Annie Lennox http://www.resurgence.org/magazine/article2540-What-is-Music.html


----------



## EdwardBast

mmsbls said:


> The two minimal requirements, for me, were sound and intention. Music should consist of sounds, and those sounds should be the product of conscious intention. The composer or performer must intend for a musical work to sound a particular way. So I no longer viewed 4'33" as music since the intention was absent. I'm actually thankful for the discussions on 4'33" since it forced me to think harder and attempt to better understand people's views of music.


I think 4'33" clearly met the intention requirement. It was composed for an outdoor venue in the Catskill Mountains of New York State. Cage was familiar with the venue and so knew and intended that the summer night sounds of that place and time and no others be heard as the composition. A friend of mine just interviewed for a job directing the chamber music series in which 4'33" was premiered. She lives near the venue, so perhaps I'll ask her to describe the sounds in detail.


----------



## fluteman

EdwardBast said:


> I think 4'33" clearly met the intention requirement. It was composed for an outdoor venue in the Catskill Mountains of New York State. Cage was familiar with the venue and so knew and intended that the summer night sounds of that place and time and no others be heard as the composition. A friend of mine just interviewed for a job directing the chamber music series in which 4'33" was premiered. She lives near the venue, so perhaps I'll ask her to describe the sounds in detail.


I've always thought that typical ambient or environmental sounds, the sort of sounds we hear ceaselessly in all our waking hours and therefore seldom hear at all, play a major role in music generally. Consider the endless rumble and hum of cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, radio, TV, and heating and air conditioning equipment that most of us hear all day. None of that was around before the late 19th century. Things were generally quieter (though far from dead silent, of course), and the music reflected that. Now things are louder, and a lot of music, especially popular music, has become piercingly loud to be heard over the din.
It is no accident that classical chamber music recitals are often held in idyllic rural settings in the summer, like Woodstock, NY, where 4'33" was premiered, and in museums in colder weather. Those places are not dead silent, but they have a more muted, human level of ambient noise than is typical in most of the industrialized, urbanized world today.


----------



## mmsbls

EdwardBast said:


> I think 4'33" clearly met the intention requirement. It was composed for an outdoor venue in the Catskill Mountains of New York State. Cage was familiar with the venue and so knew and intended that the summer night sounds of that place and time and no others be heard as the composition. A friend of mine just interviewed for a job directing the chamber music series in which 4'33" was premiered. She lives near the venue, so perhaps I'll ask her to describe the sounds in detail.


Cage intended that listeners hear the ambient sound during a performance, but he had no influence over the actual sounds heard. He did not intend, for example, that listeners hear "a rustling of a fox" in the first movement, "the whistling of wind through trees" in the second movement, or any other specific sounds. He simply did not know what the listeners would hear. In fact he could only give very general guesses at what would be heard. Those guesses would probably be no more specific than my guesses at the sounds heard during a random Chicago Symphony Orchestra performance next October.

He intended listeners to hear _whatever_ sounds occurred in the same manner they would hear music (or perhaps as though those sounds were music). His work directs listeners but not the sounds.

I am not aware of any work (other than 4'33") where the composer, conductor, and performers do not specify all the sounds heard. Aleatoric music uses chance operations to specify the music, but the music is eventually specified by the composer, conductor, or performers.

One interesting question arises. In aleatoric music the composer gives up some control over the music. How much control can be lost before the resulting work is no longer music? I don't know the answer. I have imagined a work where the composer programs the output using entirely stochastic methods. In other words, the ensemble instruments are chosen randomly. The characteristics of each note for each chosen instrument is chosen randomly (i.e. pitch, duration, loudness, attack, etc.). Every aspect of the music is defined completely by chance. Even then there are presumably many choices specified by the composer. What is the maximum number of instruments? What is the maximum duration for each note? What is the maximum loudness? Even with the composer choosing answers to those type of questions, I still don't feel the resulting work would be music. The composer has relinquished too much control. But, of course, that's just my opinion.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Would someone - someone besides millionrainbows - like to try translating any part of this into language I can understand?


As I've told you before, Woodduck, your brain is wired differently from mine, and apparently will not meet on many points. That doesn't mean I'm a deficient communicator.



> How is "reversing the parameters of how we experience music" not equivalent to changing the definition of music?


You're missing the point of the piece. I suppose that, yes, it does change your definition of music, but Cage did not write it to oppose your definition, and replace it with his own. I think he was more interested in the possibilities of hearing sound around us as music.

I think instead of "re-defining" music, as you are saying, Cage was trying to eradicate the idea of "definition" itself. He was trying to get rid of fixed perspectives.



> Is the way music is experienced not an essential part of what music is? But even if this refers to something irrelevant to the meaning of music, doesn't the statement still assume that there's some music there to be experienced, which is the very thing in dispute here? What does it mean to "reverse parameters" anyway?


No, it doesn't assume that there is some music there to be experienced, except as we experience it in the sounds around us, not as a pre-conceived intent on his part. To 'reverse parameters' I mean that he made the listener into the "composer," in that we are to hear the sounds as music, with our experience and intent as the determining factor, and the traditional intent of "composer" is absent. In other words, our subjectivity is now what creates the musical experience, a reversal of the Western way in which we are "presented" with music.



> And what does ego and mindset have to do with it? I have no ego invested in the matter of whether I'm hearing music or not, and refusing to call something what it plainly isn't is not the "set" of my mind but its normal way of functioning.


I'm referring to your resistance, and your agitation. As I said above, I suppose that, yes, it does change your definition of music, but Cage did not write it to oppose your definition, and replace it with his own. I think he was more interested in the possibilities of hearing sound around us as music. But you are perceiving this as being "in conflict" with your definition of music. In Buddhism, they call this "attachment." This is your ego at work.



> You hear music or you don't, and if you don't, you don't call the random noises occurring around you "music" because you're in a concert hall and someone's sitting at a piano in front of you with his hands folded. This is true for precisely the same reason you don't call an empty plate a waiter has served you "dinner."


Once again, you are too literal to be able to engage with this John Cage piece. He is asking you to NOT be literal.



> Even the argument from the authority of "history" has more (ostensible) credibility than this artspeak.


So ya don't like modern art?

Your stance is too literal for me, and too rational, and assumes too much.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> I've always thought that typical ambient or environmental sounds, the sort of sounds we hear ceaselessly in all our waking hours and therefore seldom hear at all, play a major role in music generally. Consider the endless rumble and hum of cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, radio, TV, and heating and air conditioning equipment that most of us hear all day. None of that was around before the late 19th century. Things were generally quieter (though far from dead silent, of course), and the music reflected that. Now things are louder, and a lot of music, especially popular music, has become piercingly loud to be heard over the din.
> It is no accident that classical chamber music recitals are often held in idyllic rural settings in the summer, like Woodstock, NY, where 4'33" was premiered, and in museums in colder weather. Those places are not dead silent, but they have a more muted, human level of ambient noise than is typical in most of the industrialized, urbanized world today.


Yes, I think you have touched on one of the main elements of Cage's aesthetic: that all sound can be heard as music. Listen to Variations IV (1961), and read the liner notes about how it was constructed. An art gallery in Los Angeles, a big mixer, a microphone over the bar, one outside=on the street, and various phonographs and tape decks feeding into the mixer.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I think you have touched on one of the main elements of Cage's aesthetic: that all sound can be heard as music.


Pity Beethoven didn't know that. He could have saved himself a lot of trouble.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> Cage intended that listeners hear the ambient sound during a performance, but he had no influence over the actual sounds heard. He did not intend, for example, that listeners hear "a rustling of a fox" in the first movement, "the whistling of wind through trees" in the second movement, or any other specific sounds. He simply did not know what the listeners would hear. In fact he could only give very general guesses at what would be heard. Those guesses would probably be no more specific than my guesses at the sounds heard during a random Chicago Symphony Orchestra performance next October.
> 
> He intended listeners to hear _whatever_ sounds occurred in the same manner they would hear music (or perhaps as though those sounds were music). His work directs listeners but not the sounds.
> 
> I am not aware of any work (other than 4'33") where the composer, conductor, and performers do not specify all the sounds heard. Aleatoric music uses chance operations to specify the music, but the music is eventually specified by the composer, conductor, or performers.


That's a good post, and shows a good understanding of the piece. Take note, Woodduck.



> One interesting question arises. In aleatoric music the composer gives up some control over the music. How much control can be lost before the resulting work is no longer music? I don't know the answer. I have imagined a work where the composer programs the output using entirely stochastic methods. In other words, the ensemble instruments are chosen randomly. The characteristics of each note for each chosen instrument is chosen randomly (i.e. pitch, duration, loudness, attack, etc.). Every aspect of the music is defined completely by chance.


To my understanding, many of the Cage works are like that. Morton Feldman has also explored these areas, but he specifies instruments. What does it matter? If the music itself is randomly determined, that seems enough. But many of Cage's works specify "for any number of players on any instruments."



> Even then there are presumably many choices specified by the composer. What is the maximum number of instruments? What is the maximum duration for each note? What is the maximum loudness? Even with the composer choosing answers to those type of questions, I still don't feel the resulting work would be music. The composer has relinquished too much control. But, of course, that's just my opinion.


Well, don't knock it until you've tried it. This Cage CD "The Seasons" is beautiful, yet it has little of his intent. Yet, it sounds like something he would write.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Pity Beethoven didn't know that. He could have saved himself a lot of trouble.


I'm glad that Beethoven did what he did, and had a huge ego.

I'm also glad that John Cage "saved himself a lot of trouble" and did what he did.

Then on the other hand, you can't disparage good old hard work. As anyone who has read about Cage knows, he was a hard worker. He was not lazy, if that is the implication. John Cage was very sincere in doing his life's work.

So, all joking aside, let's give credit where credit is due, and respect what John Cage accomplished.


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> Your stance is too literal for me, and too rational, and assumes too much.


Yes, I agree. I think this statement gets to the difference between you and posters such as Woodduck and myself. We do take a much more rational view of defining music or at least deciding whether certain works are music. I don't see a problem with being quite rational, and I don't see a problem with viewing certain issues less rationally. The difference in method can easily lead to a difference in the result. But that particular result may not be particularly interesting. For example, I think it's interesting to try to define music at some level, but don't think it's interesting that 4'33" or any other particular work is or is not music.

While I would say that 4'33" is not music, that by itself does not say anything about whether the work may be interesting, useful, or enjoyable to music listeners. I can easily imagine someone listening to 4'33", thinking about what it means, and then finding wonderful experiences listening to ambient sounds that they had essentially ignored (or tried to ignore) before. Ambient sounds, even those that are generally ignored or repressed, _can_ be interesting and enjoyable whether one believes 4'33" is or is not music. And that's really the important thing (to me anyway).


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> Yes, I agree. I think this statement gets to the difference between you and posters such as Woodduck and myself. We do take a much more rational view of defining music or at least deciding whether certain works are music. I don't see a problem with being quite rational, and I don't see a problem with viewing certain issues less rationally. The difference in method can easily lead to a difference in the result. But that particular result may not be particularly interesting. For example, I think it's interesting to try to define music at some level, but don't think it's interesting that 4'33" or any other particular work is or is not music.
> 
> While I would say that 4'33" is not music, that by itself does not say anything about whether the work may be interesting, useful, or enjoyable to music listeners. I can easily imagine someone listening to 4'33", thinking about what it means, and then finding wonderful experiences listening to ambient sounds that they had essentially ignored (or tried to ignore) before. Ambient sounds, even those that are generally ignored or repressed, _can_ be interesting and enjoyable whether one believes 4'33" is or is not music. And that's really the important thing (to me anyway).


Yes; I think Cage's intent with most of his music was to "enlighten" people, so in that regard, he was a composer of "sacred" music, and that's why this thread is in this sub-forum.

There is a story of young students who, after being exposed to Cage's ideas and music, excitedly ran up to their teacher saying "Come listen to this!" So he was bring to open up people's ears.


----------



## Stavrogin

I don't remember if I've ever posted in this thread and I am still not sure whether 4'33" is music or not (I might have had an opinion at some point).
However, my 2 cents on the subject is a question to those who think that 4'33" is not music because there is no note on the score: Would your opinion be different if there was a single brief note at the beginning (or at the end)?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> You hear music or you don't, and if you don't, you don't call the random noises occurring around you "music" because you're in a concert hall and someone's sitting at a piano in front of you with his hands folded. This is true for precisely the same reason you don't call an empty plate a waiter has served you "dinner."


This reminds me of a cute story about my wife. When she was a little girl, her mother's friends were all visiting in some sort of meeting, and she came into the room and began serving them imaginary soup, which she would ladle into their imaginary bowls. She said it was mushroom soup, since that was her idea of the most elegant soup possible.

The guests all went along with the idea, and were quite charmed. That's the way I think 4'33" was intended, as Cage "charming" us with an idea. Not to get us to arguing.


----------



## EdwardBast

mmsbls said:


> Cage intended that listeners hear the ambient sound during a performance, but he had no influence over the actual sounds heard. He did not intend, for example, that listeners hear "a rustling of a fox" in the first movement, "the whistling of wind through trees" in the second movement, or any other specific sounds. He simply did not know what the listeners would hear. In fact he could only give very general guesses at what would be heard. Those guesses would probably be no more specific than my guesses at the sounds heard during a random Chicago Symphony Orchestra performance next October.
> 
> He intended listeners to hear _whatever_ sounds occurred in the same manner they would hear music (or perhaps as though those sounds were music). His work directs listeners but not the sounds.
> 
> I am not aware of any work (other than 4'33") where the composer, conductor, and performers do not specify all the sounds heard. Aleatoric music uses chance operations to specify the music, but the music is eventually specified by the composer, conductor, or performers.
> 
> One interesting question arises. In aleatoric music the composer gives up some control over the music. How much control can be lost before the resulting work is no longer music? I don't know the answer. I have imagined a work where the composer programs the output using entirely stochastic methods. In other words, the ensemble instruments are chosen randomly. The characteristics of each note for each chosen instrument is chosen randomly (i.e. pitch, duration, loudness, attack, etc.). Every aspect of the music is defined completely by chance. Even then there are presumably many choices specified by the composer. What is the maximum number of instruments? What is the maximum duration for each note? What is the maximum loudness? Even with the composer choosing answers to those type of questions, I still don't feel the resulting work would be music. The composer has relinquished too much control. But, of course, that's just my opinion.


Given the potential for this to devolve into silliness, I will just say that the sounds of a summer eve in Woodstock are probably not as indeterminate as you seem to think. I suspect Cage did in fact know a lot about what the listeners would hear, as would anyone who had spent an evening or two in that setting. While his work does not "direct … the sounds," those that are predictable and recurrent in the environment are nevertheless, arguably, an expression of his compositional intent.

As for the issues in the last paragraph, chance elements and indeterminate elements don't necessarily affect the status of the resulting performance as music, only whether and to what extent the "composition" should be credited to (or blamed on ) the "composer."


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> Well, don't knock it until you've tried it. This Cage CD "The Seasons" is beautiful, yet it has little of his intent. Yet, it sounds like something he would write.


I just listened to a piano version of The Seasons and found it beautiful at times and overall definitely enjoyable. Another benefit of this thread. I read a bit about how Cage composed it, but what I found unfortunately gave little detail.


----------



## millionrainbows

Stavrogin said:


> I don't remember if I've ever posted in this thread and I am still not sure whether 4'33" is music or not (I might have had an opinion at some point).
> However, my 2 cents on the subject is a question to those who think that 4'33" is not music because there is no note on the score: Would your opinion be different if there was a single brief note at the beginning (or at the end)?


In homage to Haydn's "Surprise" symphony, there could be a "Surprise 4'33", in which, at the very last moment, each member of the orchestra played a note as loud as possible, and startle the audience.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Given the potential for this to devolve into silliness, I will just say that the sounds of a summer eve in Woodstock are probably not as indeterminate as you seem to think. I suspect Cage did in fact know a lot about what the listeners would hear, as would anyone who had spent an evening or two in that setting. While his work does not "direct … the sounds," those that are predictable and recurrent in the environment are nevertheless, arguably, an expression of his compositional intent.


Yes, I see your point: a performance of 4'33" taking place inside of the Guantanamo Bay detainment facility when it was in full operation would sound quite different, I would predict.


----------



## mmsbls

EdwardBast said:


> Given the potential for this to devolve into silliness, I will just say that the sounds of a summer eve in Woodstock are probably not as indeterminate as you seem to think. I suspect Cage did in fact know a lot about what the listeners would hear, as would anyone who had spent an evening or two in that setting. While his work does not "direct … the sounds," those that are predictable and recurrent in the environment are nevertheless, arguably, an expression of his compositional intent.


I think what you're saying is probably true and the composer certainly did have a particular intent. I would simply say that, in my view, the collective intent must determine, to a significant extent, the particular sounds.



EdwardBast said:


> As for the issues in the last paragraph, chance elements and indeterminate elements don't necessarily affect the status of the resulting performance as music, only whether and to what extent the "composition" should be credited to (or blamed on ) the "composer."


I have much sympathy for this interpretation especially the last clause. I can't really give a good reason why I feel there should be a significant causal relationship between the creating intelligence (composer, conductor, performers) and the actual sounds, but without that, too much potentially seems to "slip through" as art or music. Thus, I think there are many things that are musical but not music.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> I just listened to a piano version of The Seasons and found it beautiful at times and overall definitely enjoyable. Another benefit of this thread. I read a bit about how Cage composed it, but what I found unfortunately gave little detail.


There are other composers who have an interest in creating "automatic" music. Brian Eno set uo some synthesizers which played repeating sequences of different lengths, and the resulting sounds would coincide randomly, producing startlingly musical results. He did a similar thing with tape loops of different lengths, in "Music for Airports."


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> I think what you're saying is probably true and the composer certainly did have a particular intent. I would simply say that, in my view, the collective intent must determine, to a significant extent, the particular sounds.
> 
> I have much sympathy for this interpretation especially the last clause. I can't really give a good reason why I feel there should be a significant causal relationship between the creating intelligence (composer, conductor, performers) and the actual sounds, but without that, too much potentially seems to "slip through" as art or music. Thus, I think there are many things that are musical but not music.


Well, the idea of individual authorship did not always exist. This is true of many "anonymous" works of the Medieval era, yet we don't let this fact deter our enjoyment of it, to question its authenticity or sincerity as music.


----------



## mmsbls

Stavrogin said:


> However, my 2 cents on the subject is a question to those who think that 4'33" is not music because there is no note on the score: Would your opinion be different if there was a single brief note at the beginning (or at the end)?


That question is slightly different but very similar to another issue that arose earlier I believe in this thread. Millionrainbows pointed out that Lamont Young created works with a single note. I couldn't find the posts (I should look harder), but I think there was a back and forth over whether a work with one note could be music.

Miillionrainbows, Do you remember that exchange? I think some guy was part as well. It could have been in another thread.

I think I felt my answer was no only because I didn't think I could differentiate between a work with one short, constant note and a note played apart from a work of music. I do think it depends a lot on how the note actually sounds.

If Cage had put a single note at the end, I think I would view the work as music (A long rest followed by a pitched sound.)


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> One interesting question arises. *In aleatoric music the composer gives up some control over the music. How much control can be lost before the resulting work is no longer music?* I don't know the answer. I have imagined a work where the composer programs the output using entirely stochastic methods. In other words, the ensemble instruments are chosen randomly. The characteristics of each note for each chosen instrument is chosen randomly (i.e. pitch, duration, loudness, attack, etc.). Every aspect of the music is defined completely by chance. Even then there are presumably many choices specified by the composer. What is the maximum number of instruments? What is the maximum duration for each note? What is the maximum loudness? Even with the composer choosing answers to those type of questions, I still don't feel the resulting work would be music. The composer has relinquished too much control. But, of course, that's just my opinion.


I think the answer here is "It doesn't matter" - or, more casually, "Who cares?" - or, more formally, "Borderline cases are not reference points for forming definitions." Many things are unclassifiable (organisms, colors, emotions, physical states, aesthetic qualities, et al.), because they possess features or qualities belonging to more than one defined category, because they exist along a continuum and have no definite boundaries, or because they're in a state of transition or metamorphosis. But such cases are not indications that classification and definitions are meaningless or useless, or that the rules for arriving at them are arbitrary.

Definitions are tools for understanding, for keeping concepts in order and thought from disintegrating. How we classify things - what words we use for them and how we define those words - is not fixed in nature, but neither is it whimsical; it depends on how well it aids the clarity of our thinking and communicating. Definitions are dictated not by their occurrence in nature but by their mental usefulness. And a factor in their usefulness, actually the first factor to be considered, is whether or not they correspond to common understanding and usage - i.e., to convention. Conventions differ among different groups of people, and can change over time. Cultures classify things differently, but so long as there is common understanding and common usage of words the basic purpose of definition is served, and the "correct" definition of a word is the definition implicit in the way that word is commonly used.

It is always possible, but it may or may not be useful, to question, or attempt to change, the common usage of words. If we're considering how to classify something which seems to fit no known definition, it may serve understanding better to create new terms for it than to stretch and possibly weaken or obscure the meaning of existing terms. But if If we propose to do the latter, we need to show the benefit of doing so - which means, the benefit to our understanding. Opposing or challenging the common understanding of things (often fetishized as an unqualified virtue by artistic "avant gardes") may be an invigorating exercise that sensitizes us to things we either take for granted or have failed to notice. Or it may be nothing more than a corruption of thought and a wedge for the erosion of values. Anyone who doubts this has not been paying attention to the intellectual condition of the arts and humanities as modernism has slid into postmodernism and postmodernism into whatever intellectual and artistic fashion we are presently thrashing about in.

The question "Is this event (for example, 4'33") a piece of music or an experience of music?" breaks down into several questions: "Is there a commonly held concept of what music is? What are the essential elements of what is commonly called music? Does this event feature those essential elements and thus fit our commonly held concept of music? If it doesn't, does it give us any compelling reason to change that commonly held concept? If not, is there another way of classifying this event in order better to understand its nature?"

It's in the wondrous powers of the human mind that we often ask these questions automatically and almost unconsciously, and so reach remarkably accurate understandings intuitively. Of course the mind is also capable of fudging and fuzzing and fizzling out when faced with a challenge, as some of the arguments in this thread demonstrate.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> As I've told you before, Woodduck, your brain is wired differently from mine
> 
> I'm referring to your *resistance*, and your *agitation.* In Buddhism, they call this "attachment." This is your *ego* at work.
> 
> Once again, you are too literal to be able to engage with this John Cage piece.
> 
> Your stance is too literal for me, and *too rational*...


When I was a student at a Christian college and used to argue with other kids about their religious beliefs, I would hear comments such as: "Your _ego_ prevents you from hearing the truth and submitting to God's will"; "Jesus is calling you, but you're _resisting_ him"; "You're _agitated_ because you know you're wrong"; and "You're _too_ _rational!_ You must have faith!"

It's "Come to Jesus Time" again.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> When I was a student at a Christian college and used to argue with other kids about their religious beliefs, I would hear comments such as: "Your _ego_ prevents you from hearing the truth and submitting to God's will"; "Jesus is calling you, but you're _resisting_ him"; "You're _agitated_ because you know you're wrong"; and "You're too _rational!_ You must have faith!"
> 
> It's "Come to Jesus Time" again.


You were a student at a Christian college? Wow, I guess we have more in common than I would ever think of.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> That question is slightly different but very similar to another issue that arose earlier I believe in this thread. Millionrainbows pointed out that Lamont Young created works with a single note. I couldn't find the posts (I should look harder), but I think there was a back and forth over whether a work with one note could be music.
> 
> Miillionrainbows, Do you remember that exchange? I think some guy was part as well. It could have been in another thread.
> 
> I think I felt my answer was no only because I didn't think I could differentiate between a work with one short, constant note and a note played apart from a work of music. I do think it depends a lot on how the note actually sounds.
> 
> If Cage had put a single note at the end, I think I would view the work as music (A long rest followed by a pitched sound.)


There is a saying in North Indian music: The understanding of all music can be found in a single note.

With the Lamont Young works, there is more to it. He would set up several sine wave generators in his & his wife's "room" environments, which you would walk through. The oscillators were detuned slightly, so that "phasing" would occur as you moved about. Phasing, as you know, is what allows stereo reproduction to place instruments spatially. So these notes would appear to move "through" your head, and change their location in space.

Lamont Young did start out in New York as a hard-core conceptual artist, though, and is easy pickings for the critics. Some of his works were simply repetitions of a note, or an action performed 2,456 times, etc.

The point of the most known "one note" works is the harmonics. This was the first "minimalism," pre-Glass, Riley, or Reich. Tony Conrad was an exponent, with his one-note violin pieces, and pop artist John Cale.

With Karlheinz Stockhausen's Stimmung, the point was listening to the shimmer go harmonics as they emerged. Also, Kenneth Gaburo was interested in this one-note idea:

The Flow of (u) (1974) consists of one note sung by three singers for twenty-three minutes. Here, focus is even more intense, and the attention to dynamic shaping given to the lines in the 1956 Stri! ng Quartet is here transferred to the micro-level, and worked on with the singers in an "oral tradition" manner.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> When I was a student at a Christian college and used to argue with other kids about their religious beliefs, I would hear comments such as: "Your _ego_ prevents you from hearing the truth and submitting to God's will"; "Jesus is calling you, but you're _resisting_ him"; "You're _agitated_ because you know you're wrong"; and "You're too _rational!_ You must have faith!" It's "Come to Jesus Time" again.


To be an artist, you must learn to "submit" and be receptive. Look at it as "yin and yang." If you are all "yin," Woodduck, you will be missing out on a lot. You need to achieve a balance. Maybe if you tried some martial arts, and got to kick other people, you might begin to see it.

BTW, I mentioned nothing about religion. I only advocate a healthy, balanced individual. Admittedly, to understand John Cage, it helps to be informed of Buddhist concepts.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I think the answer here is "It doesn't matter" - or, more casually, "Who cares?"
> 
> 
> 
> I would hope that everyone contributing to this thread cares.
> 
> 
> 
> - or, more formally, "Borderline cases are not reference points for forming definitions." Many things are unclassifiable (organisms, colors, emotions, physical states, aesthetic qualities, et al.), because they possess features or qualities belonging to more than one defined category, because they exist along a continuum and have no definite boundaries, or because they're in a state of transition or metamorphosis. But such cases are not indications that classification and definitions are meaningless or useless, or that the rules for arriving at them are arbitrary.
Click to expand...

You just came a long way in supporting the notion that definitions are not always applicable. And I never said definitions were not a useful tool; just that they are not always, and can be a deterrent, or an irrelevancy.



> Opposing or challenging the common understanding of things (often fetishized as an unqualified virtue by artistic "avant gardes") may be an invigorating exercise that sensitizes us to things we either take for granted or have failed to notice. Or it may be nothing more than a corruption of thought and a wedge for the erosion of values. Anyone who doubts this has not been paying attention to the intellectual condition of the arts and humanities as modernism has slid into postmodernism and postmodernism into whatever intellectual and artistic fashion we are presently thrashing about in.


This sounds defensive. I don't think John Cage's presence in Western music has been "erosive" or "a corruption." Rather, he just removed a lot of the clutter.



> The question "Is this event (for example, 4'33") a piece of music or an experience of music?" breaks down into several questions: "Is there a commonly held concept of what music is? What are the essential elements of what is commonly called music? Does this event feature those essential elements and thus fit our commonly held concept of music?


If you will allow me to quote you, "I think the answer here is "It doesn't matter" - or, more casually, "Who cares?"



> If it doesn't, does it give us any compelling reason to change that commonly held concept? If not, is there another way of classifying this event in order better to understand its nature?"


I think we should approach 4'33" as a singular piece, and try to avoid classifying it.



> It's in the wondrous powers of the human mind that we often ask these questions automatically and almost unconsciously, and so reach remarkably accurate understandings intuitively. Of course the mind is also capable of fudging and fuzzing and fizzling out when faced with a challenge, as some of the arguments in this thread demonstrate.


Whether or not 4'33" is "music" in the traditional sense is not really an essential question in understanding it. There are other aspects of it that are more useful in understanding it. Some of these are a general knowledge of conceptual art, info on Cage and his ideas, a general ida of Buddhism, the difference between Eastern subjectivity and Western objectivity, etc.

But regardless of what you or I say, 4'33" has already been accepted, published, and performed as a legitimate work of music in concert halls, and is mentioned in most texts about Western music history.

Yes, history has spoken! Submit your puny ego to the overwhelming force of history, lest it be swept away!


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> To be an artist, you must learn to "submit" and be receptive. Look at it as "yin and yang." If you are all "yin," Woodduck, you will be missing out on a lot. You need to achieve a balance. Maybe if you tried some martial arts, and got to kick other people, you might begin to see it.
> 
> BTW, I mentioned nothing about religion. I only advocate a healthy, balanced individual. Admittedly, to understand John Cage, it helps to be informed of Buddhist concepts.


Hmmm... So now I don't know how to submit and be receptive, I'm all yin, I lack balance, I'm missing out on a lot, I'm not a healthy, balanced individual, I'm ignorant of Buddhism, and I don't know what's needed to be an artist - all of which must be true if I refuse to accept 4'33" as music and am prepared to say why?

How did you get hold of my biography and medical records? :lol:

Well, I guess now I have to expose myself in public, much as I prefer my privacy. I have been a practicing visual artist, musician, writer and editor since I was old enough to hold a crayon or a pen, open my mouth in song, and reach the keys of a piano. I have a degree in music, I've been paid to sing and play the organ, I was on the accompanist staff at Pacific Northwest Ballet for twelve years, I have exhibited paintings in galleries in several cities, I have won prizes in juried art shows, and I have recorded audio books. As Tosca sings, "Vissi d'arte." I also know quite a bit about religion (though I subscribe to none), including Buddhism, and have practiced meditation (for longer than 4'33"). On the "left-brained" side (here comes some balance!) I have been quite interested in natural science, especially ornithology and botany. As a student, I showed outstanding aptitude for art, music, writing and geometry, and architecture - a "balanced" field if there ever was one - was recommended to me as a profession. Am I "healthy"? Well, maybe, if spending time here responding to posts like this is healthy...

But enough about me. _And I do mean - enough!_ If my carefully-argued stance against the classification of 4'33" as music pushes you into such a flurry of ad hominem speculation, I may not be the one more in need of "balance." My idea of balance is that one cannot be too aesthetically sensitive - _or "too rational."_ I hope to keep both modes in full operation for as many more years as possible, and as a matter of fact I've found nothing more challenging and useful for the purpose than discussing the arts. You, by the way, are one of the people here who helps me keep my brain on its toes, both when I agree with you and when I don't. So -

Thanks! :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Hmmm... So now I don't know how to submit and be receptive, I'm all yin, I lack balance, I'm missing out on a lot, I'm not a healthy, balanced individual, I'm ignorant of Buddhism, and I don't know what's needed to be an artist - all of which must be true if I refuse to accept 4'33" as music and am prepared to say why?


No, I'm just responding to your statements re: Christian college. From the tone of it, you are taking my suggestions as some sort of fundamentalist ultimatum.



> How did you get hold of my biography and medical records? :lol:


Well, with your reminiscence of your college days, you gave the impression that you were under attack, thus your present defensiveness.



> Well, I guess now I have to expose myself in public, much as I prefer my privacy. I have been a practicing visual artist, musician, writer and editor since I was old enough to hold a crayon or a pen, open my mouth in song, and reach the keys of a piano. I have a degree in music, I've been paid to sing and play the organ, I was on the accompanist staff at Pacific Northwest Ballet for twelve years, I have exhibited paintings in galleries in several cities, I have won prizes in juried art shows, and I have recorded audio books. As Tosca sings, "Vissi d'arte." I also know quite a bit about religion (though I subscribe to none), including Buddhism, and have practiced meditation (for longer than 4'33"). On the "left-brained" side (here comes some balance!) I have been quite interested in natural science, especially ornithology and botany. As a student, I showed outstanding aptitude for art, music, writing and geometry, and architecture - a "balanced" field if there ever was one - was recommended to me as a profession. Am I "healthy"? Well, maybe, if spending time here responding to posts like this is healthy…


Apparently, for you to feel compelled to list your credentials, you are taking this discussion more personally than I suspected.



> But enough about me. _And I do mean - enough!_ If my carefully-argued stance against the classification of 4'33" as music pushes you into such a flurry of ad hominem speculation, I may not be the one more in need of "balance." My idea of balance is that one cannot be too aesthetically sensitive - _or "too rational."_ I hope to keep both modes in full operation for as many more years as possible, and as a matter of fact I've found nothing more challenging and useful for the purpose than discussing the arts. You, by the way, are one of the people here who helps me keep my brain on its toes, both when I agree with you and when I don't. So -Thanks! :tiphat:


Likewise, you have my respect; but on this issue, your conservatism is starting to distort things, like the intent of my statements. I only offer advice in the spirit of approaching the work, which of course will be useless if your mind is already made up. But I think the idea of being receptive is a generally good idea, unless you are engaged in a life-or-death struggle.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> No, I'm just responding to your statements re: Christian college. From the tone of it, you are taking my suggestions as some sort of fundamentalist ultimatum.
> 
> Well, with your reminiscence of your college days, you gave the impression that you were under attack, thus *your present defensiveness.*
> 
> Apparently, for you to feel compelled to list your credentials, *you are taking this discussion more personally than I suspected.*
> 
> Likewise, you have my respect; but on this issue, *your conservatism is starting to distort things, like the intent of my statements.* I only offer advice in the spirit of approaching the work, which of course will be useless *if your mind is already made up.* But I think the idea of being receptive is a generally good idea, *unless you are engaged in a life-or-death struggle.*


All right. I'm going to be as clear as I can here, million.

The only thing I'm interested in being "defensive" about here is ideas about music - and defending ideas vigorously is not being "defensive." I'm not interested in discussing other members' presumed motives, prejudices, or mental and spiritual states, and I find it pointless, distracting, and potentially annoying (and maybe even offensive) for you to respond to posts of mine by "explaining" my opinions as symptoms of my personality, motivations, and psychology, as you did in your last post and are continuing to do in this one. Are you telling me that the following statement (and this is only one of several) is _not_ directed at me personally?

_To be an artist, you must learn to "submit" and be receptive. Look at it as "yin and yang." If you are all "yin," Woodduck, you will be missing out on a lot. You need to achieve a balance. Maybe if you tried some martial arts, and got to kick other people, you might begin to see it._

My point in bringing up my conversations with religious believers in post #1683 was simply to illustrate the way in which irrational positions cannot be defended rationally, and how, therefore, people who try to defend them often fall back on ad hominem tactics: they psychologize you, they tell you that you think the way you do because of the sort of person you are, that you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the profundity of John Cage because you're "defensive" or "conservative" or "egotistical" or "closed-minded" or "lacking in spiritual perception" or something...

It really doesn't matter whether all the psychologizing is directed at me, specifically, or whether you're merely using me as a convenient clothes rack for hanging your general opinions about people on the other side of the debate. The point is, this is not a psychology forum, and (correct me if I'm wrong) you are not a psychologist - or a guru, or a guidance counsellor, or my mother (who likes me the way I am, bless her). If you don't want people you disagree with to assume that your analyses of people who disagree with you are directed at them, you might consider self-censoring these little portraits of the ignorant rabble and keeping your focus on the nature of music itself. You're good at that, and it's all you need. The finger-wagging is a distraction, and if you engage in it you can hardly expect whoever you are (apparently) talking to or about not to find it objectionable.


----------



## mmsbls

Just a friendly reminder to focus on the forum topic (or related topics) rather than each other.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> I think "what we have here" is just philosophers doing what they do, in this case, trying to find a general definition of music that accounts for all instances. After one accepts aleatoric music, indeterminate music, setting the vaguest parameters around which players are asked to improvise for any length of time and calling it a musical composition, one finds oneself on a frictionless slope.


Quite. Not only that, I'm being forcibly pushed down the slope to accept that anything that anyone with some alleged authority wants to claim is music.

I have no interest in trying to accommodate 'all instances', nor am I required to - by history or by anyone else. If I were to set myself up as a music school, or write a book about John Cage, or become an instrumental virtuoso and join Ensemble Contemporain - all of which are extremely unlikely - then I might have to bow to others' opinions, no matter how absurd they might appear to me. Until then, all I want to be able to do is listen to music and have amateur discussions about it with other folks - mostly my brothers, then the folks at TC - where my listening responses (and my views of history and the slippery slope) are as valid as everyone else's.

Like the Olympic medal winners who joke by biting to check that it's real, I'm happy to test whatever fellow amateurs might offer me. I bit the 4'33" medal and found it wanting, but whilst I'd be unwilling to wear it round my neck, I could still find a use for it - a coaster perhaps. (In other words, I recognise it as a contribution to a philosophical debate.)


----------



## Guest

Sounds like you're full of yang.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Are you telling me that the following statement (and this is only one of several) is _not_ directed at me personally?
> 
> _
> 
> 
> millions said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be an artist, you must learn to "submit" and be receptive. Look at it as "yin and yang." If you are all "yin," Woodduck, you will be missing out on a lot. You need to achieve a balance. Maybe if you tried some martial arts, and got to kick other people, you might begin to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> No, it's not. It's basically a 'religious' idea concerning the submission of the ego. That's a Buddhist concept, and Cage was a Buddhist. As I said in the OP, 4'33" is a sacred work, and John Cage was a composer of sacred music. This is, after all, the "Religious Music" forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point in bringing up my conversations with religious believers in post #1683 was simply to illustrate the way in which irrational positions cannot be defended rationally, and how, therefore, people who try to defend them often fall back on ad hominem tactics: they psychologize you, they tell you that you think the way you do because of the sort of person you are, that you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the profundity of John Cage because you're "defensive" or "conservative" or "egotistical" or "closed-minded" or "lacking in spiritual perception" or something…
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think most people here would say that it helps in understanding religious and sacred music to at least be cognizant of the principles which lay behind it and produced it for those purposes. Don't you agree? Would you feel compelled to this argument in a discussion of Bach's Mass in B minor? Probably not. You would probably not argue the religious premise of such a work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't matter whether all the psychologizing is directed at me, specifically, or whether you're merely using me as a convenient clothes rack for hanging your general opinions about people on the other side of the debate. The point is, this is not a psychology forum, and (correct me if I'm wrong) you are not a psychologist - or a guru, or a guidance counsellor, or my mother (who likes me the way I am, bless her). If you don't want people you disagree with to assume that your analyses of people who disagree with you are directed at them, you might consider self-censoring these little portraits of the ignorant rabble and keeping your focus on the nature of music itself. You're good at that, and it's all you need. The finger-wagging is a distraction, and if you engage in it you can hardly expect whoever you are (apparently) talking to or about not to find it objectionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sounds to me as though you're setting me up for an infraction, and that was not my intent. My replies were not ad hominems; I simply tried to provide an understanding of how to approach this work, 4'33", which I consider to be a "religious" or sacred work, by a man who was likewise very spiritual.
Click to expand...


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Quite. Not only that, I'm being forcibly pushed down the slope to accept that anything that anyone with some alleged authority wants to claim is music.


No, I'm not doing that; I don't feel that way about other sacred music, like Bach.



> I have no interest in trying to accommodate 'all instances', nor am I required to - by history or by anyone else. If I were to set myself up as a music school, or write a book about John Cage, or become an instrumental virtuoso and join Ensemble Contemporain - all of which are extremely unlikely - then I might have to bow to others' opinions, no matter how absurd they might appear to me. Until then, all I want to be able to do is listen to music and have amateur discussions about it with other folks - mostly my brothers, then the folks at TC - where my listening responses (and my views of history and the slippery slope) are as valid as everyone else's.


I'm not saying your views are invalid, but the fact needs to be acknowledged that 4'33" is a sacred work, part of the large body of John Cage's work, and in the Western tradition, concerns itself with the sacred, just like Bach and Handel.



> Like the Olympic medal winners who joke by biting to check that it's real, I'm happy to test whatever fellow amateurs might offer me. I bit the 4'33" medal and found it wanting, but whilst I'd be unwilling to wear it round my neck, I could still find a use for it - a coaster perhaps. (In other words, I recognise it as a contribution to a philosophical debate.)


I'm afraid the issue is not really philosophical, but of a sacred nature. Being still and receptive allows us to connect to the sacred, and this was John Cage's intent. Likewise, I could reject Bach's Mass in B minor because I am not Lutheran, but that would be rude, and missing the point, wouldn't it?


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> Quite. Not only that, I'm being forcibly pushed down the slope to accept that anything that anyone with some alleged authority wants to claim is music.
> 
> I have no interest in trying to accommodate 'all instances', nor am I required to - by history or by anyone else. If I were to set myself up as a music school, or write a book about John Cage, or become an instrumental virtuoso and join Ensemble Contemporain - all of which are extremely unlikely - then I might have to bow to others' opinions, no matter how absurd they might appear to me. Until then, all I want to be able to do is listen to music and have amateur discussions about it with other folks - mostly my brothers, then the folks at TC - where my listening responses (and my views of history and the slippery slope) are as valid as everyone else's.
> 
> Like the Olympic medal winners who joke by biting to check that it's real, I'm happy to test whatever fellow amateurs might offer me. I bit the 4'33" medal and found it wanting, but whilst I'd be unwilling to wear it round my neck, I could still find a use for it - a coaster perhaps. (In other words, I recognise it as a contribution to a philosophical debate.)


This all sounds good to me! Personally, I think the natural reaction to 4'33" - at the premiere - would have been to roll ones eyes and say: "Gee thanks, but I already know what crickets sound like." Then perhaps: "That's very nice Johnny, now run along and play." As I've said before: "Some joker was inevitably going to do it. Have we all got it out of our system yet?"

A contribution to a philosophical debate sounds about right, and not a very interesting one IMO.


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> Quite. Not only that, I'm being forcibly pushed down the slope to accept that anything that anyone with some alleged authority wants to claim is music.
> 
> I have no interest in trying to accommodate 'all instances', nor am I required to - by history or by anyone else.


Really? Who is forcing you to do anything? I hereby give you permission to accept anything you want to accept, and reject anything you want to reject. Me, I tend to define "art" as broadly as possible. Since a successful work of art needs to take its audience at least slightly out of the predictable and familiar and cause it to think of or see or hear things in at least a slightly new way, I would much rather err on the side of broad than narrow. That's why I find statements like, "_____ism is all bad", or, "is not music", to be rather suspect. In fact, too often sticking a "______ism" label on an often disparate group of artists is just lazy or bad scholarship, an excuse to draw sweeping conclusions that are only partially valid at best. 
For me, it's better to look at a specific work or artist, and ask, Does the artist or a particular work succeed in conveying the intended ideas to the audience? Rather than, Is it art? Ed.: Now I'm going to work on some Honegger, Debussy and C.P.E. Bach so I can make an audition video. Unless someone prevents me!


----------



## Woodduck

4'33", quite apart from the question of whether it ought to be called music, may be "sacred" to some people, but that is a personal valuation and not inherent in the thing, or should I say the experience, itself. Saying that the experience of 4'33" is - or ought to be, or was intended as - sacred doesn't make it so. We can say that Cage intended his audience to be still and receptive, but stillness and receptivity don't necessarily add up to an experience of sacredness: there's no certainty that anyone is going to reach nirvana or find God, or even a modest state of relaxation, in four and a half minutes of watching a musician not make music. In fact that scenario could make for considerable uneasiness. And of course the spiritual masters will tell you that if you're _expecting_ to transcend or obtain enlightenment, you probably won't.

"Sacredness," as a concept, is not something that music alone is capable of conveying. Music can evoke feelings, but it can't tell us what they mean. Various feeling states may be associated with a sense of sacredness, and there may very well be (and probably are) certain kinds of music which are more likely to evoke those states in people. But regardless of the style of the music, it's only the explicit designation of musical works for religious purposes that can identify them objectively as "sacred music," and whether or not they are actually _felt_ as "sacred" by a listener depends on that listener's emotional makeup, prior experiences, expectations, and associations, particularly his religious background. A Japanese Buddhist might find nothing sacred about "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," while a Spanish Catholic might listen to a Vedic hymn and feel his soul untouched.

Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_ is a "sacred" work because it's a setting of a religious text. But if you don't care about the particular religion it contains there's no reason why you need to experience it as sacred. Maybe Beethoven's piano sonata, Opus 111, or Schoenberg's _Verklaerte Nacht_, feels more sacred to you. Cage may have thought that his structured meditation-in-the-concert-hall should be a sacred experience, but with nothing in the "score" to clue us in, sacredness is in the mind of the beholder. Conceivably it might be the farthest thing from his mind.


----------



## KenOC

We could make a quick and dependable judgment on whether or not 4'33" is music if somebody will put forward a decent definition of music. Failing that, the noise you hear is flapping lips.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Woodduck said:


> 4'33", quite apart from the question of whether it ought to be called music, may be "sacred" to some people, but that is a personal valuation and not inherent in the thing, or should I say the experience, itself. Saying that the experience of 4'33" is - or ought to be, or was intended as - sacred doesn't make it so. We can say that Cage intended his audience to be still and receptive, but stillness and receptivity don't necessarily add up to an experience of sacredness: there's no certainty that anyone is going to reach nirvana or find God, or even a modest state of relaxation, in four and a half minutes of watching a musician not make music. In fact that scenario could make for considerable uneasiness. And of course the spiritual masters will tell you that if you're _expecting_ to transcend or obtain enlightenment, you probably won't.
> 
> "Sacredness," as a concept, is not something that music alone is capable of conveying. Music can evoke feelings, but it can't tell us what they mean. Various feeling states may be associated with a sense of sacredness, and there may very well be (and probably are) certain kinds of music which are more likely to evoke those states in people. But regardless of the style of the music, it's only the explicit designation of musical works for religious purposes that can identify them objectively as "sacred music," and whether or not they are actually _felt_ as "sacred" by a listener depends on that listener's emotional makeup, prior experiences, expectations, and associations, particularly his religious background. A Japanese Buddhist might find nothing sacred about "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," while a Spanish Catholic might listen to a Vedic hymn and feel his soul untouched.
> 
> Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_ is a "sacred" work because it's a setting of a religious text. But if you don't care about the particular religion it contains there's no reason why you need to experience it as sacred. Maybe Beethoven's piano sonata, Opus 111, or Schoenberg's _Verklaerte Nacht_, feels more sacred to you. Cage may have thought that his structured meditation-in-the-concert-hall should be a sacred experience, but with nothing in the "score" to clue us in, sacredness is in the mind of the beholder. Conceivably it might be the farthest thing from his mind.


As a non-religious person I have enjoyed many so called religious works without the sacred factor. For me, Bach's religious music is beautiful but I see nothing sacred about it (just talking about the music, not the text).


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> We could make a quick and dependable judgment on whether or not 4'33" is music if somebody will put forward a decent definition of music. Failing that, the noise you hear is flapping lips.


I don't hear anything. 

Just who would find whose judgment dependable, and why should they? Not everyone would accept any particular definition proposed, and conceivably not everyone would agree on whether 4'33" would meet a particular definition. As I explained above, definitions are not entities or mirror images of entities, but tools of thought: they won't tell us whether a specific entity should fall within their reach. Various people have laid out the criteria they think music must meet. For some of us, 4'33" doesn't meet them, and we've said why we think that. That's the most we can expect. Proofs are for logicians, not philosophers of aesthetics.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Proofs are for logicians, not philosophers of aesthetics.


Then it must be given that philosophers of aesthetics can conclude nothing. Kind of like economists.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> Really? Who is forcing you to do anything?


I'm speaking figuratively of the attempt by one particular poster to insist on their opinions (not only in exchanges with me but with others too). However, millionrainbows is not the only individual I have come across here who likes to insist, either directly or indirectly, on the rightness of their views. The style of insisting is not merely forcefully expressing a particular belief (we can all get on a soapbox from time to time) but, for example,

From this



> If Marcel Duchamp got a urinal, named it "Fountain" and signed it, then exhibited it, then it's art, regardless if any random viewer accepts it or likes it.


and this



> I don't recognize any other definition. I don't call any definition of art "institutional" as opposed to some "individual" opinion. This is simply the effects of the internet mindset. There is no "individual" on matters such as these, except the artist. This issue has already been determined by history.


and this



> the ONLY definition of art is one which has passed institutional muster, not some "individual" definition/opinion of some guy on the internet


to this



> There are things outside of your own ego that are bigger: things like God and history. Your hubris will be swept away by the tide of larger forces. Stand in awe of history.


and this



> Your opinion of 4'33", and the way you are framing this issue as "music vs. philosophy" are totally irrelevant to the historical status of 4'33," as well as being ill-informed.
> 
> Yes, "philosophy as art"…that's called "conceptual art." Duhhh...


and this



> [X]'s invalidation of authority and history is likewise indicative of an agenda, just as feminists wish to "de-genius" history for their own purposes.


and this



> I'm referring to your resistance, and your agitation. [...] But you are perceiving this as being "in conflict" with your definition of music. In Buddhism, they call this "attachment." This is your ego at work.
> 
> [...]Once again, you are too literal to be able to engage with this John Cage piece. He is asking you to NOT be literal.
> 
> Even the argument from the authority of "history" has more (ostensible) credibility than this artspeak.
> 
> So ya don't like modern art?
> 
> Your stance is too literal for me, and too rational, and assumes too much.


and this



> To be an artist, you must learn to "submit" and be receptive. Look at it as "yin and yang." If you are all "yin," [X], you will be missing out on a lot. You need to achieve a balance. Maybe if you tried some martial arts, and got to kick other people, you might begin to see it.


But if you've been following this thread, you'll know all this and decided the extent to which it constitutes mere forceful and enthusiastic advocacy of a particular set of views, or more forcing others to submit.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Then it must be given that philosophers of aesthetics can conclude nothing. Kind of like economists.


That depends on what you mean by a conclusion. A correct conclusion doesn't depend on everyone agreeing with it. If it did we would conclude almost nothing. Moreover, conclusions don't necessarily depend on our choice of terminology. Knowing what a thing _is_ is not the same as agreeing on what to _call_ it.

I'm not saying that I think definition is a trivial matter, because definitions are an essential tool for keeping order among concepts. But concepts and definitions are always provisional and subject to change when new knowledge enters the picture. Facts are facts; definitions are not facts. The question of whether something "is" this or that is wrongly posed; things are not their names and are not bound to them. But this doesn't make definitions arbitrary or a mere matter of fashion, taste, or whim. Establishing the definition of a word begins with establishing how it's used (the reason why we have dictionaries), and that's pretty much a matter of simple empirical investigation. New or eccentric uses of words need to be seen as departures from the norm, and need to justify their adoption in specific contexts if we're to preserve cognitive coherence and communicative efficacy - in other words, if we're to know what we're talking about.

I may (and do) conclude, based on an examination of the elements of music as traditionally understood by mankind across time and space, that 4'33" does not fit any common, historical conception of music. Someone else, understanding my conclusion and the reasons for it, can argue that the traditional sense of what the word "music" can refer to needs to be expanded to include 4'33." I would question the need and desirability of so expanding it, arguing that the traditionally accepted elements of music are the essential elements of a rationally useful definition, and that 4'33" is better understood as an experience different from a musical experience. But in spite of our disagreement over the defining traits of music, we may agree on what 4'33" _is_, and may agree on that without ever calling it anything.

I see no parallel whatever with the problems of economics. But maybe you just meant that as a joke.


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> But if you've been following this thread, you'll know all this and decided the extent to which it constitutes mere forceful and enthusiastic advocacy of a particular set of views, or more forcing others to submit.


Well, yes, people do get passionate and forceful about their opinions. I for one don't worry too much about defining the term "music", among other things I think "art" is a more important operative term. An artist is someone who tries to get us to see our world in a new way and refine our senses. And when a work of art communicates successfully and has that impact on a large enough audience, eventually it has an influence on other artists and becomes permanently enmeshed in our culture. Once that happens, it can't be entirely undone (though of course there are always later, superseding artistic and cultural influences as earlier ones fade), and crying out "It isn't art! It isn't art!" doesn't accomplish much, as the horse has left the barn. Maybe that's what is meant by the argument "You must accept the verdict of history", though that's a misleading way to put it, in my opinion.


----------



## Zhdanov

the trick that Cage fellow has turned on you guys being sort of this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> crying out "It isn't art! It isn't art!"


who is? Cage is not art and has never been; clear as daylight for those with common sense.



fluteman said:


> doesn't accomplish much, as the horse has left the barn.


shoot the horse then.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> the trick that Cage fellow has turned on you guys being sort of this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes


This, of course, is the thought that lurks in the back of the mind of everyone following this thread, both sceptics and enthusiasts. The goal of the enthusiast of Cage's bit of "silence" is to strangle such doubt in its cradle.


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> who is? Cage is not art and has never been; clear as daylight for those with common sense.
> 
> shoot the horse then.


You seem not to understand the expression, "The horse has left the barn", which means, roughly, "It is too late to do anything about it". The good news for you is, every day, the world is created afresh and the new possibilities are endless. No need to fret over the rapidly receding past.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> No need to fret over the rapidly receding past.


can speak so nonchalantly because the past is still here and firm.

without the past, all will crumble and collapse within a couple of years.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

We do have a group for the Debasement of Common Sense.


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> can speak so nonchalantly because the past is still here and firm.
> 
> without the past, all will crumble and collapse within a couple of years.


Yes, but the past is continuously built upon, newer layers over the older. Not liking a piece of it is like not liking one stone in the pyramids of Giza. That stone undeniably is there, and even after it is demolished or disintegrates into dust, undeniably still will have been there. But so much has been built since and so much more will be built, there's no sense fretting over that stone.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Last year the high-school students performed 4'33" at a house-concert and the effect of silence was amazing in between rock numbers and other avant garde pieces  To me it's a piece of philosophy and Cage was a philosophic composer.


----------



## Woodduck

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Last year the high-school students performed 4'33" at a house-concert and the effect of silence was amazing in between rock numbers and other avant garde pieces  To me it's a piece of philosophy and Cage was a philosophic composer.


Kids who are constantly bombarding themselves with stimuli would never voluntarily be quiet for four minutes. You'd have to call it music lest they think the world is about to end.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> 4'33", quite apart from the question of whether it ought to be called music, may be "sacred" to some people, but that is a personal valuation and not inherent in the thing, or should I say the experience, itself. Saying that the experience of 4'33" is - or ought to be, or was intended as - sacred doesn't make it so. We can say that Cage intended his audience to be still and receptive, but stillness and receptivity don't necessarily add up to an experience of sacredness: there's no certainty that anyone is going to reach nirvana or find God, or even a modest state of relaxation, in four and a half minutes of watching a musician not make music. In fact that scenario could make for considerable uneasiness. And of course the spiritual masters will tell you that if you're _expecting_ to transcend or obtain enlightenment, you probably won't.


Still, the fact remains that in 4'33", we are faced with the abandonment of intent, or ego, on the performer's part. All intent has been relinquished, and all vestiges of ego are gone. All we are left with is the reality which was there all along, which is perfectly in keeping with zen Buddhist concepts.



> "Sacredness," as a concept, is not something that music alone is capable of conveying. Music can evoke feelings, but it can't tell us what they mean. Various feeling states may be associated with a sense of sacredness, and there may very well be (and probably are) certain kinds of music which are more likely to evoke those states in people. But regardless of the style of the music, it's only the explicit designation of musical works for religious purposes that can identify them objectively as "sacred music," and whether or not they are actually _felt_ as "sacred" by a listener depends on that listener's emotional makeup, prior experiences, expectations, and associations, particularly his religious background. A Japanese Buddhist might find nothing sacred about "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," while a Spanish Catholic might listen to a Vedic hymn and feel his soul untouched.


But sitting silently and receptively in the presence of a performer who is doing likewise, and listening to reality's sounds, with no intent or ego on anyone's part to get in the way, amounts to an experience of meditation. The net result is the same, whether it can be conceptually conveyed as "sacred" or not, or whether Cage's intent is overt or hidden. The piece is successful in those terms, and the net result is what I would characterize as "sacred" in nature, in keeping with John Cage's zen Buddhist practice. I see it as being very in-synch with his ideas as a Buddhist.



> Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_ is a "sacred" work because it's a setting of a religious text. But if you don't care about the particular religion it contains there's no reason why you need to experience it as sacred. Maybe Beethoven's piano sonata, Opus 111, or Schoenberg's _Verklaerte Nacht_, feels more sacred to you. Cage may have thought that his structured meditation-in-the-concert-hall should be a sacred experience, but with nothing in the "score" to clue us in, sacredness is in the mind of the beholder. Conceivably it might be the farthest thing from his mind.


You are saying that a work cannot be _objectively_ "sacred" in its content except if it is a setting of a text as "actual written evidence" of its sacredness, such as Bach's St. Matthew Passion; and that we can only_ by inference_ assume that it is a sacred work. All this is said in order to presumably disqualify 4'33" as a sacred work, as its intent is not explicitly stated.

I don't think those criteria can be fairly applied to 4'33", since it is not a work about "explicitness" or a setting of scripture. So 4'33" is not an explicitly sacred work; but I don't think that an explicit intent is necessary; it conveys the sacred by silencing the performer, urging the listener to be receptive, and allowing "the now" of reality to be experienced. This in itself is a sacred experience, although it is not explicitly religious.

I think that this necessitates an expansion of the Western notion of 'the sacred' to include existence itself as being sacred in nature. This is a very Buddhistic idea, that existence itself is a holy experience. See Allen Ginsberg's "Sunflower Sutra."
www.boppin.com/sunflower.html

Here as elsewhere, I have simply tried to provide an understanding of how to approach this work, 4'33", which I consider to be a "religious" or sacred work, by a man who was likewise very spiritual.


----------



## millionrainbows

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> As a non-religious person I have enjoyed many so called religious works without the sacred factor. For me, Bach's religious music is beautiful but I see nothing sacred about it (just talking about the music, not the text).


I think people of any culture have absorbed a lot more of their culture than they might care to admit.

To say "I am not religious" in order to escape the influence of religion in a sacred work, and to claim one is not affected at all by religious ideas when listening to Bach's religious music, is somewhat disingenuous. The fact remains that Bach's St. Matthew Passion is a religious work in its intent and form.

There are assumptions every person of a culture has made which are not explicit. If what this 'non-religious' person said is to be taken as a completely objective, non-sacred, unbiased truth, then there would be things about certain religious works that he/she would not understand or be able to put into context: why is a choir being used, or an organ, what does the text mean, who is St. Matthew, who is God, etc.

In other words, _let's not assume that we do not implicitly understand what a religious or sacred work by Bach is._ We all know, whether we are religious or not.

Especially as members of Western culture, we all know what constitutes a religious work, and it is impossible to completely separate this knowledge from 'the music itself,' whatever that means. The St. Matthew Passion is experienced as a work with specific cultural trappings, not as some sort of 'musical abstraction' which the listener is able to swallow as somehow "non-religious." That's evasive poppycock.


----------



## Guest

There is no sacred music,there is only music.Subjectively you can call it what you like. Bach used music (parts) from his cantatas also for his secular works.So in one case you can call it sacred and in the other secular,but the music is the same.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Just who would find whose judgment dependable, and why should they? Not everyone would accept any particular definition proposed, and conceivably not everyone would agree on whether 4'33" would meet a particular definition. As I explained above, definitions are not entities or mirror images of entities, but tools of thought: they won't tell us whether a specific entity should fall within their reach. Various people have laid out the criteria they think music must meet. For some of us, 4'33" doesn't meet them, and we've said why we think that. That's the most we can expect. Proofs are for logicians, not philosophers of aesthetics.


The fact that 4'33" doesn't adhere to someone's definition of music does not invalidate the work itself, and definitions are not really what the work is about; so a rejection on those grounds would be a failure to fully comprehend the work.

As an ongoing work presented in a concert hall, it will still see new presentings, and each listener will decide for himself how to approach the work, or refuse it.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> I'm speaking figuratively of the attempt by one particular poster to insist on their opinions (not only in exchanges with me but with others too). However, millionrainbows is not the only individual I have come across here who likes to insist, either directly or indirectly, on the rightness of their views. The style of insisting is not merely forcefully expressing a particular belief (we can all get on a soapbox from time to time) but, for example, From this...and this...and this...to this...and this...and this...and this...and this. But if you've been following this thread, you'll know all this and decided the extent to which it constitutes mere forceful and enthusiastic advocacy of a particular set of views, or more forcing others to submit.


How can I force anyone to consent over the internet? I have absolutely no control over your mind or ideas. That's a ridiculous accusation. Just because I present my ideas with strength and conviction doesn't mean I am "forcing" my ideas on anyone.

Here as elsewhere, I have simply tried to provide an understanding of how to approach this work, 4'33", which I consider to be a "religious" or sacred work, by a man who was likewise very spiritual.


----------



## arpeggio

I have asked this question before, even is this thread, yet I have never received an answer to it. And considering all of the above banter I will ask it again.

Even if the naysayers are correct and _433_ is not music, so what? Even if the people who think it is music are in the minority, what is the bottom line?


----------



## fluteman

Traverso said:


> There is no sacred music,there is only music.Subjectively you can call it what you like. Bach used music (parts) from his cantatas also for his secular works.So in one case you can call it sacred and in the other secular,but the music is the same.


Ah, you people sure do like to disappear down the rabbit hole of semantics, don't you? Bach and Mozart certainly understood what was meant by the distinction between sacred and secular music, though for them those or similar terms were for professional and commercial convenience. I agree with millionrainbows that you can't completely separate a work from its cultural context and examine it in perfect isolation.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> Yes, but the past is continuously built upon, newer layers over the older.


not up to you to decide. nor speak so lightly of this. there's a tragedy behind every layer. need to avoid such practice from now on.


----------



## millionrainbows

Traverso said:


> There is no sacred music,there is only music.Subjectively you can call it what you like. Bach used music (parts) from his cantatas also for his secular works.So in one case you can call it sacred and in the other secular,but the music is the same.


Yes, but as a work, a work of art, the St. Matthew Passion is a sacred work. To separate 'the music itself' from the work doesn't make sense to me.

That's like saying "I like the marble and the sculpted form of Michealangelo's _Pieta,_ but I only accept it and enjoy it as technical sculpture, apart from its religious significance." That seems like an awkward abstraction that misses the point of the art.

That's like saying "I like Picasso's _Guernica,_ but only as a visual experience. I don't care that it was about the massacre of innocents, or the significance of the anguished looks on the people. I only like it as visual art, apart from any other significance it has as a work of art, and regardless of the artist's intent."

This is a good example of the type of internet thinking I have seen so often; a kind of defiant subjectivity.

As Strange Magic said:

_The anti-intellectualism of the U.S. was noted long ago by Alexis de Tocqueville. To him, it appeared to spring from the anti-aristocratic, all-are-equal (except the usual minorities), my notions are as valid as your notions mindset of the "average" Americans he met in his travels here. This accounts in large measure for the American Exceptionalism widely discussed by Seymour Martin Lipset in his book of that name. Its positive qualities are much discussed and praised by various folk, and there can be much good said of it. But it often lapses into what I call *Defiant Ignorance,* giving us widespread refusals to understand many findings of the sciences, and, most tellingly, to be only one of perhaps two nations to not be on the metric system._


----------



## Guest

What I try to explain is this.when a cantata is acknowledged as a sacred piece,and I change the words (as Bach did) and give it a secular meaning ,the music remains the same.What makes it sacred or not,the words?


----------



## millionrainbows

arpeggio said:


> I have asked this question before, even is this thread, yet I have never received an answer to it. And considering all of the above banter I will ask it again.
> 
> Even if the naysayers are correct and _433_ is not music, so what? Even if the people who think it is music are in the minority, what is the bottom line?


I'm left with no other conclusion than prejudice. It's the same basis bias that I have always said lies at the bottom of the dislike and rejection of modernism, in deference to the earlier Judeo-Christian roots of conservative, tonal Western music. 
"We just don't like John Cage, and we don't like all this modernist crap. Get out of our town, boy."


----------



## millionrainbows

Traverso said:


> What I try to explain is this.when a cantata is acknowledged as a sacred piece,and I change the words (as Bach did) and give it a secular meaning ,the music remains the same.What makes it sacred or not,the words?


A work of art, or music, is a two-way street. It is a "map" of the artist's intent, which we experience as an "art object," and then "map" our own experience onto it.

The art, or music, is not merely "an object" which no longer has a connection to the artist once we experience it; it is not objective except in strict terms of form, but it is full of the 'intent' and subjectivity of the artist. That's why it is art, and not just a rock or an object (although this was questioned later by Duchamp).

That's why Bach's St. Matthew Passion should be accepted for its intent as a sacred work, and for its use in religious settings, which many masses were.

But any art form with a predetermined utilitarian use can transcend its trappings and become 'more' than what it was intended to be. The Beatles started out as a pop group, but many now see their work as true art; they transcended the limitations of what they were supposed to be.

The same with Bach; his music stands on its own as art of the highest order, regardless if it was written for use in Church ceremony, as a Mass, or whether it was created as sacred music or not.

"Sacred" is just a designation. It refers to the content and use of the music, our perception of it, and the artist's intent, which we can only infer.

It should not be something that we try to eradicate, or ignore, or separate from the work. It is what it is.


----------



## Zhdanov

millionrainbows said:


> It's the same basis bias that I have always said lies at the bottom of the dislike and rejection of modernism, in deference to the earlier Judeo-Christian roots of conservative, tonal Western music.


in the Soviet Union they were not as much in deference to Christianity.

and since when tonal music is by default Christian & conservative?



millionrainbows said:


> "We just don't like John Cage, and we don't like all this modernist crap. Get out of our town, boy."


he don't even qualify as a composer, modernist or not.


----------



## millionrainbows

Traverso said:


> There is no sacred music,there is only music.Subjectively you can call it what you like. Bach used music (parts) from his cantatas also for his secular works.So in one case you can call it sacred and in the other secular,but the music is the same.


What you are saying is essentially true; great art can transcend whatever original utilitarian purpose it served; The Beatles transcended their limits as pop artists, and Bach's music is great regardless of whether it was intended for use in Church ceremonies or not.

But we should not _oppose_ the idea of sacred music. If that was part of its original intent, then we should deal with that aspect, not reject or ignore it, whether we are religious or not.


----------



## millionrainbows

Zhdanov said:


> in the Soviet Union they were not as much in deference to Christianity.


But Russia was basically a Christian nation before the Soviets, so its roots are the same as ours, generally speaking.



> ...and since when tonal music is by default Christian & conservative?


Western music's roots are in the Christian church, and it started out that way, in contrast to modernism, when secular ideas began to take over. I see this as the main reason classical conservatives do not like modernist music. It's all tied-in with a generally religious Judeo-Christian mindset and world view.



> ...he (John Cage) don't even qualify as a composer, modernist or not.


That's hogwash.


----------



## Zhdanov

millionrainbows said:


> But Russia was basically a Christian nation before the Soviets,


you mean today's politics of Modernism being even more Bolshevist than those of Soviets'?



millionrainbows said:


> Western music's roots are in the Christian church,


forget 'Western' and let us talk 'tonal' - just *tonal*, not Western.



millionrainbows said:


> That's hogwash.


nope. Cage can't compose music as an academic should, he is a cheater.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> What you are saying is essentially true; great art can transcend whatever original utilitarian purpose it served; The Beatles transcended their limits as pop artists, and Bach's music is great regardless of whether it was intended for use in Church ceremonies or not.
> 
> But we should not _oppose_ the idea of sacred music. If that was part of its original intent, then we should deal with that aspect, not reject or ignore it, whether we are religious or not.


 We have cleared this ! It is the essence of all things that gives meaning.It is for us to discover it.:tiphat:


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> I think that this necessitates an expansion of the Western notion of 'the sacred' to include existence itself as being sacred in nature. This is a very Buddhistic idea, that existence itself is a holy experience. See Allen Ginsberg's "Sunflower Sutra."


This is an example of the redefining of words and of concepts such that all meaning is lost forever. If existence itself is "sacred", then what is not sacred? Is non-existence not also sacred? If every color is red, what other colors exist? Ditto for existence itself being a "holy experience". An example, please, of an unholy experience?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> This is an example of the redefining of words and of concepts such that all meaning is lost forever. If existence itself is "sacred", then what is not sacred? Is non-existence not also sacred? If every color is red, what other colors exist? Ditto for existence itself being a "holy experience". An example, please, of an unholy experience?


You see how simple reality is, SM? Everything exists, and existence is sacred, so everything is sacred. All experience is sacred experience, therefore all musical experiences are sacred experiences, therefore all music is sacred. Nothing can be "more sacred" than anything else, since every aspect of everything is sacred, and so there's nothing especially sacred about 4'33."

Once we've redefined music to include everything sung and not sung, played and not played, and heard and not heard, and redefined sacredness to include everything period, all our problems are solved and we are in nirvana.

Hmmm. What shall we do, now that we're here? Do you play chess?


----------



## arpeggio

millionrainbows said:


> I'm left with no other conclusion than prejudice. It's the same basis bias that I have always said lies at the bottom of the dislike and rejection of modernism, in deference to the earlier Judeo-Christian roots of conservative, tonal Western music.
> "We just don't like John Cage, and we don't like all this modernist crap. Get out of our town, boy."


You may be correct. I do not know.

To the best of my recollection I have never received an answer from the anti-_433_ crowd.


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> not up to you to decide. nor speak so lightly of this. there's a tragedy behind every layer. need to avoid such practice from now on.


Ah, but it's you who are speaking lightly (and arrogantly) about the past. You can dislike what you dislike, but who are you to proclaim a "need to avoid such practice from now on"? Fortunately, you lack authority to exercise cultural censorship, seeing as you are not Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong. Your posts are therefore rather ridiculous, even more so than those who seek to impose a definition of music that would exclude 4'33" or other works of John Cage, since they are merely self-appointed semantic police rather than self-appointed dictators of culture.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

arpeggio said:


> You may be correct. I do not know.
> 
> To the best of my recollection I have never received an answer from the anti-_433_ crowd.


Why ansewer someone falls back that your prejudicst for not thinking something 433 is music. You must agree with the pro 433 or you are evil.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

arpeggio said:


> You may be correct. I do not know.
> 
> To the best of my recollection I have never received an answer from the anti-_433_ crowd.


Why answer someone (Not you arpeggio) who implies you are prejudicist for not thinking 433 is music. Seems like someone saying if you do not think 433 you must be evil.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> I'm left with no other conclusion than prejudice. It's the same basis bias that I have always said lies at the bottom of the dislike and rejection of modernism, in deference to the earlier Judeo-Christian roots of conservative, tonal Western music.
> "We just don't like John Cage, and we don't like all this modernist crap. Get out of our town, boy."


The irony is, the Western equal-tempered scale was invented in Germany in the 1720s. So that is a relatively "modern" development. Before that, even "conservative" Western music was at least somewhat atonal, or microtonal, by today's standards. And what about the traditional music of the ancient, highly developed, sophisticated cultures of China, Japan, India and the Middle East, none of which used the Western scale? All of that is to be rejected in one grand gesture of ethnocentrism? GMAB.


----------



## Woodduck

_arpeggio:_
I have asked this question before, even is this thread, yet I have never received an answer to it. And considering all of the above banter I will ask it again.

Even if the naysayers are correct and 433 is not music, so what? Even if the people who think it is music are in the minority, what is the bottom line?

_millionrainbows:_
I'm left with no other conclusion than prejudice. It's the same basis bias that I have always said lies at the bottom of the dislike and rejection of modernism, in deference to the earlier Judeo-Christian roots of conservative, tonal Western music.
"We just don't like John Cage, and we don't like all this modernist crap. Get out of our town, boy." 

_arpeggio:_
You may be correct. I do not know.

To the best of my recollection I have never received an answer from the anti-433 crowd. 

There is no "bottom line" and there is no "anti -433 crowd." There are individuals with various views of this subject, a subject which raises several different questions. We are not members of a party or collective. But it's clear that some people find the discussion easier to deal with if they can turn it into a simple matter of "for or against" and can portray all those who disagree with them, for any reason, as a single disagreeable mass.

The attempt to reduce all intellectual disagreement about an oddity like 4'33" to "prejudice" against "modern music" (whatever that is) is mere crude _argumentum ad hominem_ and an insult to every thinking person here.


----------



## millionrainbows

Zhdanov said:


> nope. Cage can't compose music as an academic should, he is a cheater.


Well, if that's your criteria, you are largely correct, although there are pieces for piano by Cage which show skill; the early keyboard works, some of which is 12-tone, and the prepared piano works. His Fontana Mix, for tape, shows a great deal of skill in tape editing.

But I think you are missing the point; listeners who like Cage go to him to escape tradition, and explore new areas.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> This is an example of the redefining of words and of concepts such that all meaning is lost forever. If existence itself is "sacred", then what is not sacred? Is non-existence not also sacred? If every color is red, what other colors exist? Ditto for existence itself being a "holy experience". An example, please, of an unholy experience?


I guess that when someone close to you whom you love dies, then you will understand "the sacredness of existence."


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> The irony is, the Western equal-tempered scale was invented in Germany in the 1720s. So that is a relatively "modern" development. Before that, even "conservative" Western music was at least somewhat atonal, or microtonal, by today's standards. And what about the traditional music of the ancient, highly developed, sophisticated cultures of China, Japan, India and the Middle East, none of which used the Western scale? *All of that is to be rejected in one grand gesture of ethnocentrism? * *GMAB*.


I think you have the break you're asking for, since no one is doing the thing you're describing.

We're talking about one strange little sound(less) experiment here, not world culture.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> You see how simple reality is, SM? Everything exists, and existence is sacred, so everything is sacred. All experience is sacred experience, therefore all musical experiences are sacred experiences, therefore all music is sacred. Nothing can be "more sacred" than anything else, since every aspect of everything is sacred, and so there's nothing especially sacred about 4'33."


"Being" is sacred.



> Once we've redefined music to include everything sung and not sung, played and not played, and heard and not heard, and redefined sacredness to include everything period, all our problems are solved and we are in nirvana.


4'33" is a sacred work.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> The irony is, the Western equal-tempered scale was invented in Germany in the 1720s. So that is a relatively "modern" development. Before that, even "conservative" Western music was at least somewhat atonal, or microtonal, by today's standards. And what about the traditional music of the ancient, highly developed, sophisticated cultures of China, Japan, India and the Middle East, none of which used the Western scale? All of that is to be rejected in one grand gesture of ethnocentrism? GMAB.


I just think its a religious/cultural bias that makes conservative listeners reject modernism. Incidentally, equal temperament was an idea that was around for a long time before it was actually achieved in the early 20th century.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> There is no "bottom line" and there is no "anti -433 crowd." There are individuals with various views of this subject, a subject which raises several different questions. We are not members of a party or collective. But it's clear that some people find the discussion easier to deal with if they can turn it into a simple matter of "for or against" and can portray all those who disagree with them, for any reason, as a single disagreeable mass.


All I'm doing is generalizing. I think that there is a religious/cultural bias against modernism, and I continue to think that.



> The attempt to reduce all intellectual disagreement about an oddity like 4'33" to "prejudice" against "modern music" (whatever that is) is mere crude _argumentum ad hominem_ and an insult to every thinking person here.


Art (painting, sculpture) and music both started out under the auspices of the Church. Modernism is the result of more secular, scientific, and non-religious thought. That's my big generalization.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I think you have the break you're asking for, since no one is doing the thing you're describing.
> 
> We're talking about one strange little sound(less) experiment here, not world culture.


I think flute man is not understanding me. Modernism is the result of secular thinking, or Humanism, where Man is an independent thinker producing art for reasons outside the Church.

Plus, I think the aversion or rejection of 4'33" could be generalized into a tendency towards a rejection of modern ideas. Not always, but generally.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I think you have the break you're asking for, since no one is doing the thing you're describing.
> 
> We're talking about one strange little sound(less) experiment here, not world culture.


We're talking about John Cage, who is a famous composer, highly influential on numerous other composers. Even prominent composers who were openly critical of his forays into far eastern music and indeterminacy were nevertheless greatly influenced by them. He had a major impact on popular music stars like Frank Zappa and Thom Yorke of Radiohead, and even John Lennon of the Beatles. His 4'33", though imo far from his most important work, is (a small) part of his artistic legacy. Love his work or hate it (both positions are reasonable), it is a permanent part of our cultural fabric. So yes, we are talking about world culture, not one strange little sound(less) experiment.


----------



## arpeggio

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Why answer someone (Not you arpeggio) who implies you are prejudicist for not thinking 433 is music. Seems like someone saying if you do not think 433 you must be evil.


I am not saying that. I have never said that.

As I have stated many times before I do not think it is music either. I am just not in the mood to squabble with people who do. Everyone has a right to their opinion.

I am still waiting for an answer to my question.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> I think flute man is not understanding me. Modernism is the result of secular thinking, or Humanism, where Man is an independent thinker producing art for reasons outside the Church.
> 
> Plus, I think the aversion or rejection of 4'33" could be generalized into a tendency towards a rejection of modern ideas. Not always, but generally.


I understand you. My (tangential point) was, the equal-tempered Western scale originally was a perfect example of secular, rational (downright mathematical, actually), or modernist, pick your label, thinking. And it is ironic that it became such a sacred object of cult worship that any departure, beginning with Schoenberg's serialism, was and by some still is viewed as blasphemous.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

arpeggio said:


> I am not saying that. I have never said that.
> 
> As I have stated many times before I do not think it is music either. I am just not in the mood to squabble with people who do. Everyone has a right to their opinion.
> 
> I am still waiting for an answer to my question.


I said I was not talking about you. But is some pro 433 people will just resort to calling others names if you do not agree with them.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> I guess that when someone close to you whom you love dies, then you will understand "the sacredness of existence."


Please answer the question: an example of an unholy experience? And is not non-existence also sacred? Maybe even more sacred?


----------



## arpeggio

Woodduck said:


> _arpeggio:_
> 
> 
> There is no "bottom line" and there is no "anti -433 crowd."




There is no "anti-I_433_ crowd? You have got to be kidding me. I have been listening to people trashing this work, here and in the real world, my entire life. I have seen entire threads, here and else ware, devoted to invalidating this work.

Maybe for some there is no bottom line. Maybe for some it is an obtuse intellectual argument.

But please stop accusing me for stuff that I am not. I am getting tired of being accused of being against those who dislike _433_.

I really have no idea how to respond to your remarks. I am not that smart. Especially to the there is no "anti -433 crowd" statement.


----------



## Zhdanov

millionrainbows said:


> listeners who like Cage go to him to escape tradition, and explore new areas.


that, in itself, cannot be a valid objective.

tradition is not something to escape or defy, but is to deal with.

exploration of new areas is a political/ideological myth, because 'new' can't be sought for.

'new' appears of itself, not on anyone's will, and first passes unnoticed to be discovered only later.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

arpeggio said:


> There is no "anti-I_433_ crowd? You have got to be kidding me. I have been listening to people trashing this work, here and in the real world, my entire life. I have seen entire threads, here and else ware, devoted to invalidating this work.
> 
> Maybe for some there is no bottom line. Maybe for some it is an obtuse intellectual argument.
> 
> But please stop accusing me for stuff that I am not. I am getting tired of being accused of being against those who dislike _433_.
> 
> I really have no idea how to respond to your remarks. I am not that smart. Especially to the there is no "anti -433 crowd" statement.


Why lump every person who does not like 433 into a group. Just because they do not like 433 do they cease to be an indivudual and just a group.


----------



## arpeggio

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Why lump every person who does not like 433 into a group. Just because they do not like 433 do they cease to be an indivudual and just a group.


I have never said or believe this in all of the years I have participated in this forum. Please stop accusing me of believing in stuff that I do not believe in.


----------



## mmsbls

This thread is one of the longest discussion threads on TC. There have been a lot of interesting thoughts and comments on various sides of the issue. We really wish to keep the thread open and thriving as long as members have continued interest. Recently there have been posts commenting negatively on other members. Please refrain from such comments and focus on the issues instead. Some posts or parts of posts have been deleted.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

arpeggio said:


> I have never said or believe this in all of the years I have participated in this forum. Please stop accusing me of believing in stuff that I do not believe in.


I an not accusing you. Others not (arpeggio[


----------



## mmsbls

arpeggio said:


> Even if the naysayers are correct and _433_ is not music, so what? Even if the people who think it is music are in the minority, what is the bottom line?


I think it is an interesting exercise to try to define music or perhaps determine boundaries for music, but those definitions or boundaries do not change any works. Whether 4'33" is music or not, the work remains the same. I changed my view on that issue, but _my view of the work itself did not change_. 4'33" can have essentially no effect or a significant effect on someone independent of whether they believe it is music or not.

In another related thread I mentioned a similar situation with sports and chess. Is chess a sport? A major sports magazine believes it is and has articles on chess. I do not believe it is a sport. My view has no effect on how I feel about chess (a great, competitive game that requires significant training to excel). Chess does not change based on my or the magazine's beliefs.

Yes, 4'33" might not be performed at music concerts and chess might not be covered in sports magazines if no one believed 4'33' were music and chess a sport, but that doesn't change either 4'33" or chess.

So, arpeggio, there is very little effect of believing 4'33" is or is not music other than eliminating long discussions such as this on music forums.


----------



## millionrainbows

Whatever posts got deleted, as was announced in post #1756, must have been posted and removed before I saw them. I thought if anything, the exchanges between me & Woodduck would be gone, but they're still there. I guess we are not as bad as I thought we were. But I'll check it again tomorrow, just to make sure. 
Whew! I thought for sure that I was gonna get another six month, four point infraction for comparing someone's statement to Donald Trump.


----------



## Wood

millionrainbows said:


> Still, the fact remains that in 4'33", we are faced with the abandonment of intent, or ego, on the performer's part. All intent has been relinquished, and all vestiges of ego are gone. All we are left with is the reality which was there all along, which is perfectly in keeping with zen Buddhist concepts.
> 
> But sitting silently and receptively in the presence of a performer who is doing likewise, and listening to reality's sounds, with no intent or ego on anyone's part to get in the way, amounts to an experience of meditation.


A criticism of 4'33" I have heard is that a reasonably bright member of the audience doesn't need to be told that there are ambient sounds and that it is healthy to be silent and listen to them. This is because they already know that. John Cage doesn't need to tell them.

So how important to the appreciation of the work is it that the *performer *is also being silent?


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Please answer the question: an example of an unholy experience?


ALL experience is holy, or sacred, or "You're lucky to be alive."



> And is not non-existence also sacred? Maybe even more sacred?


BEING is sacred. If something does not exist, it is not a sentient being. This is all in a Buddhist context, by the way, not a philosophical discussion of absolutes, as in "This glass of water here, for example. Is it sacred?"


----------



## Wood

millionrainbows said:


> ALL experience is holy, or sacred, or "You're lucky to be alive."
> 
> BEING is sacred. If something does not exist, it is not a sentient being. This is all in a Buddhist context, by the way, not a philosophical discussion of absolutes, as in "This glass of water here, for example. Is it sacred?"


Do you mean that Being = Sacred ie sacred is the same thing as existence?

If so, what is the quality of existence / being that is emphasised in 4'33 which is original to classical music?


----------



## Woodduck

Zhdanov said:


> that, in itself, cannot be a valid objective.
> 
> tradition is not something to escape or defy, but is to deal with.
> 
> exploration of new areas is a political/ideological myth, because 'new' can't be sought for.
> 
> 'new' appears of itself, not on anyone's will, and first passes unnoticed to be discovered only later.


You've identified the central fallacy of "modernism." Modernism is not the same thing as modernness.

People have always enjoyed new thing, but new things have not always been valued in proportion to their difference from old things. There is no reason why they should be, and good reasons why they should not.

One of music's great innovators, Wagner, often cited as one of the fountainheads of modern music, was deeply critical of his culture and of what he regarded as the frivolousness of its entertainments. But he was no "modernist"; it was not his goal to break with music of the past. He wanted, like serious artists before him such as Gluck, to restore integrity to art (in this case opera), and in stating his artistic ideals he appealed, not to some presumptuous concept of the future, but to ancient Greece. At the height of his career he wrote a semi-autobiographical opera which dealt explicitly and eloquently with the position of the artist in society, and with the relationship of artistic innovation to tradition. The lesson of _Die Meistersinger_ is that artistic and personal fulfillment come not from scorning our cultural heritage but from assimilating it and respecting the perennial values which make us who we are, correcting or modifying them as need and conscience dictate, but never seeking to overturn them just for the sake of being (or being seen as) "original." _Die Meistersiger_ is filled with musical tributes to Wagner's great German predecessors - and, later, in preparation for his last work, _Parsifal_, he studied Palestrina. In the range of styles that _Parsifal_ assimilates and integrates into music of true originality, that work has been said virtually to sum up the history of Western tonal music. So often and glibly mocked for his arrogance, Wagner was the humble offspring of Bach and Beethoven, and never failed to pay tribute to his roots.

Novelty can be fun, but the pursuit of it rarely results in significant art. An artist can't, and shouldn't try to, perpetuate the past. But if he tries to dispense with it in the name of an unkowable future, he risks impoverishing both the present and the future.


----------



## Guest

post deleted sorry


----------



## arpeggio

mmsbls said:


> I think it is an interesting exercise to try to define music or perhaps determine boundaries for music, but those definitions or boundaries do not change any works. Whether 4'33" is music or not, the work remains the same. I changed my view on that issue, but _my view of the work itself did not change_. 4'33" can have essentially no effect or a significant effect on someone independent of whether they believe it is music or not.
> 
> In another related thread I mentioned a similar situation with sports and chess. Is chess a sport? A major sports magazine believes it is and has articles on chess. I do not believe it is a sport. My view has no effect on how I feel about chess (a great, competitive game that requires significant training to excel). Chess does not change based on my or the magazine's beliefs.
> 
> Yes, 4'33" might not be performed at music concerts and chess might not be covered in sports magazines if no one believed 4'33' were music and chess a sport, but that doesn't change either 4'33" or chess.
> 
> So, arpeggio, there is very little effect of believing 4'33" is or is not music other than eliminating long discussions such as this on music forums.


It appears to me that the one of the reasons that I clash with some of the members is because their views of classical music really clash with my experiences as a performer. I have addressed this issue in other posts before.

When I was a freshman music major in college I was so obnoxious I made ArtMusic look like a saint. One of the ideas that was beaten into me by my professors is that many times one may have to perform bad music. And no matter how bad we think that a work is there will be people in the audience that love it. So I have been trained that no matter how much I may hate a piece of music, I am obligated to perform it as if I was performing Beethoven's _Third Symphony_.

I have actually have had arguments here concerning Beethoven's _Ninth_. I know of members here who think the last movement is garbage. Well guess what? If your playing with a group that is going to perform the _Ninth_ with that attitude you will find yourself on the street.

There have been a few members who have criticized me for being against people who are expressing their opinions. Well guess what? A person does not have a right to their opinions all of the time. I am all of the time playing bad music that the audience likes. For example there is an atrocious medley we play called _Summer Fun_. It is a collection of some of the most inane beach rock music from the sixties. Including gems like "It was a teeny weeny, yellow polka dot bikini". I have had members of the audience after such a performance come up and tell me that was their favorite piece on the program. Well you do not tell them that the arrangement was junk and you wanted to barf through your horn. You say thank you and keep your opinion to yourself.

Whenever music is place in front of me I always do my best regardless of my personal feelings. This is one of the reasons that I think the accusations that I am some sort of musical bigot are unfair.

If I went into the concert hall with some of the attitudes that are displayed by some of the members, my horns would be in the closet collecting dust.

For some arguing about whether or not _433_ is a piece of music or a peanut butter and anchovy sandwich may be a worthwhile discussion. For me they are meaningless.

I apologize if my experiences and training clash with some of the members beliefs.

Maybe I should not participate in such discussions. Sorry.


----------



## Wood

> When I was a freshman music major in college I was so obnoxious I made ArtMusic look like a saint.


:lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Hey! Don't knock "Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini!" 

That, "The Purple People Eater," and "Who Wears Short Shorts?" made my generation what it is today.

Oh dear... I never thought of it that way before.


----------



## mmsbls

arpeggio said:


> A person does not have a right to their opinions all of the time.


In some places, you're correct. On TC we do think everyone has the right to express their feelings. People also have the right to be wrong.



arpeggio said:


> This is one of the reasons that I think the accusations that I am some sort of musical bigot are unfair.


Well, I think any accusation that you are a musical bigot would be unfair. I'm not sure anyone really thinks you are a musical bigot, but maybe I interpret others' comments incorrectly.



arpeggio said:


> For some arguing about whether or not _433_ is a piece of music or a peanut butter and anchovy sandwich may be a worthwhile discussion. For me they are meaningless.


Arguing may be meaningless, but I do think discussions along these lines can help some of us understand music better especially avant-garde music (and even avant-garde non-music )



arpeggio said:


> I apologize if my experiences and training clash with some of the members beliefs.
> 
> Maybe I should not participate in such discussions.


I would wish that everyone feels comfortable participating in any discussions. Clashing is fine as long as the fireworks center on the thread topics and not each other. Sometimes clashes can be fun, interesting, and stimulating.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...I see no parallel whatever with the problems of economics. But maybe you just meant that as a joke.


Actually there is a parallel. As they say, "If you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion."


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

millionrainbows said:


> I think people of any culture have absorbed a lot more of their culture than they might care to admit.
> 
> To say "I am not religious" in order to escape the influence of religion in a sacred work, and to claim one is not affected at all by religious ideas when listening to Bach's religious music, is somewhat disingenuous. The fact remains that Bach's St. Matthew Passion is a religious work in its intent and form.
> 
> There are assumptions every person of a culture has made which are not explicit. If what this 'non-religious' person said is to be taken as a completely objective, non-sacred, unbiased truth, then there would be things about certain religious works that he/she would not understand or be able to put into context: why is a choir being used, or an organ, what does the text mean, who is St. Matthew, who is God, etc.
> 
> In other words, _let's not assume that we do not implicitly understand what a religious or sacred work by Bach is._ We all know, whether we are religious or not.
> 
> Especially as members of Western culture, we all know what constitutes a religious work, and it is impossible to completely separate this knowledge from 'the music itself,' whatever that means. The St. Matthew Passion is experienced as a work with specific cultural trappings, not as some sort of 'musical abstraction' which the listener is able to swallow as somehow "non-religious." That's evasive poppycock.


I know for a fact (as much as i know myself) that I do not listen to the St.Matthew Passion or Mass in B minor, for example, for any religious experience. I would not know what that is like. I don't care why an organ is used or what the text is or who St. Matthew is. I enjoy the music for its own sake. Am I missing something only a religious person would be able to experience? I have no idea as I cannot compare the experiences but I know that for me both of these Bach works are thoroughly enjoyable without any religious aspect. If you don't understand that then it is your shortcoming in being able to see other perspectives.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> ALL experience is holy, or sacred, or "You're lucky to be alive."
> 
> BEING is sacred. If something does not exist, it is not a sentient being. This is all in a Buddhist context, by the way, not a philosophical discussion of absolutes, as in "This glass of water here, for example. Is it sacred?"


Ahh, it's all in a Buddhist context. That explains everything!


----------



## arpeggio

mmsbls said:


> Arguing may be meaningless, but I do think discussions along these lines can help some of us understand music better especially avant-garde music (and even avant-garde non-music )


I agree with 99% of your post.

Within certain situations the discussions maybe helpful to those who are undecided. I know in my case as a result of the anti-Cage animas I actually discovered some works that are interesting to me.

The reality is this. If a person believes that _433_ is music in all of these years I only recall one instance where a person changed his mind (I have stated this many times before). I know that in spite of my feelings I have never changed a person's mind on anything. (Well on a few occasions I have succeeded enlightening some members concerning concert band.)

It just appears to me that some members do not believe that there can be negative consequences to their actions. Sure having an opinion is OK. But there are situations where sometimes the best course of action is to keep your opinions to yourself. I have tried to describe some of these situations in my posts.

It is one thing to have strong opinions within the confines of this forum. But if some of the members tried to manage a community orchestra with their mindsets based on my experiences the results would be disastrous.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> How can I force anyone to consent over the internet? I have absolutely no control over your mind or ideas. That's a ridiculous accusation. Just because I present my ideas with strength and conviction doesn't mean I am "forcing" my ideas on anyone.


Well if you look carefully at the post where I first used the word, you'll also note that I was referring to the 'slippery slope' raised by Edward Bast. I then confirmed I was speaking figuratively (dare I say for humorous effect?) about being 'forced down a slippery slope'. Of course you can't force me...yet still you try...



millionrainbows said:


> I'm left with no other conclusion than prejudice. It's the same basis bias that I have always said lies at the bottom of the dislike and rejection of modernism, in deference to the earlier Judeo-Christian roots of conservative, tonal Western music.
> "We just don't like John Cage, and we don't like all this modernist crap. Get out of our town, boy."


So despite your protestation that you're not 'forcing' anyone, you conclude that my alleged dislike and rejection of 4'33" arises out of prejudice.



arpeggio said:


> I have asked this question before, even is this thread, yet I have never received an answer to it. And considering all of the above banter I will ask it again.
> 
> Even if the naysayers are correct and _433_ is not music, so what? Even if the people who think it is music are in the minority, what is the bottom line?





arpeggio said:


> To the best of my recollection I have never received an answer from the anti-_433_ crowd.


First, let's just stick to the debate going on here and now, not the history of everyone you've encountered who you would put in the anti-433 crowd. I am neither part of a crowd, nor anti 433. Try arguing directly with the individuals here who have a range of things to say both about 4'33" and about music more generally in the light of what others assert about that piece.

Now to the bottom line, by which I assume you mean, "What does it matter (either way)?"

Follow the exchanges carefully and, argumentative egos aside, you will note a number of themes emerging to do with entitlement to personal response, the notion of 'objective standards', wider implications for 'modernism', the emperors' new clothes, and even perceptions of reality. (I can expand and exemplify on these if you want me to). If you think that this argument is only about whether 4'33" is music, and that one side is desperate to claim a win on that narrow issue, then it's hardly surprising that you think you've not had an answer to your 'bottom line'.

There is no more a 'bottom line' to this question than there is to the debate about the greatest composer. What there is a vigorous exchange between a group of people who have all chosen to attach value to being here at all. If it seems to some that this is a pointless and aggravating debate, then they miss the point of internet debate.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Hey! Don't knock "Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini!"
> 
> That, "The Purple People Eater," and "Who Wears Short Shorts?" made my generation what it is today.
> 
> Oh dear... I never thought of it that way before.


I disagree. I think a much more valid question than "Is 4'33" music?" would be "Is 'Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini' music?"


----------



## millionrainbows

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I know for a fact (as much as i know myself) that I do not listen to the St.Matthew Passion or Mass in B minor, for example, for any religious experience. I would not know what that is like. I don't care why an organ is used or what the text is or who St. Matthew is. I enjoy the music for its own sake. Am I missing something only a religious person would be able to experience? I have no idea as I cannot compare the experiences but I know that for me both of these Bach works are thoroughly enjoyable without any religious aspect. If you don't understand that then it is your shortcoming in being able to see other perspectives.


There are certain unconscious aspects of the work which you take for granted, though. You know who "God" is, and you know that this Bach piece is about God, not the Devil. How can you enjoy "the music only" unless it is performed sans the singing, like one of those "Wagner without words" recordings. Who said Bach had to "give you a religious experience?" Nobody. But you are aware of the religious intent of this work, whether or not you care to admit it.

You are just trying to separate the religious aspect out of it to help prove that 4'44" is a "nothing" piece.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Ahh, it's all in a Buddhist context. That explains everything!


well, you should have already taken that into consideration, since John Cage was a Buddhist. Yes, that explains a lot.


----------



## millionrainbows

It doesn't MATTER if you think 4'33" is music or not. The more important consideration is, "Do you understand what John Cage was doing with this piece?"


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> well, you should have already taken that into consideration, since John Cage was a Buddhist. Yes, that explains a lot.


How essential, then, is it that an audience for 4'33" be informed beforehand (or afterward) of Cage's particular "intent", whether religious or not?


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> It doesn't MATTER if you think 4'33" is music or not. The more important consideration is, "Do you understand what John Cage was doing with this piece?"


This must have been cited before at some point in this long thread, but Cage himself said about the premiere:

They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn't know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began pattering the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out.

Funny thing is, I'm no profound musical genius, but I immediately grasped this point long before I ever read that quote or anything else about 4'33", probably because I was aware of the use of indeterminacy and random soundscapes as a kid. Anyone my age or a little older or younger well remembers Revolution 9 from the Beatles' White Album. You can hear the same ideas in the soundtracks for Monty Python's Flying Circus and Firesign Theater. Then came Frank Zappa, probably the greatest Cage disciple in the pop music world. For me, figures like Cage and Edgard Varese are more important for their cultural impact than for any particular work of theirs being enjoyable or a masterpiece or "great music".


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree. I think a much more valid question than "Is 4'33" music?" would be "Is 'Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini' music?"


Disagree with what? It's a joke. You know, humor. Hee hee hee.

Besides, "Itsy Bitsy" is certainly music. It has melody, harmony, rhythm, a composer, and people singing and playing.

Oh... Are you making a joke too?


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> It doesn't MATTER if you think 4'33" is music or not. The more important consideration is, "Do you understand what John Cage was doing with this piece?"


I gave this a like, but it deserves more. Whether or not one views 4'33" as music, one can still benefit from Cage's view of how sounds can be heard and listened to.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Disagree with what? It's a joke. You know, humor. Hee hee hee.
> 
> Besides, "Itsy Bitsy" is certainly music. It has melody, harmony, rhythm, a composer, and people singing and playing.
> 
> Oh... Are you making a joke too?


Yes. (laughs 433 times)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic asked: "How essential, then, is it that an audience for 4'33" be informed beforehand (or afterward) of Cage's particular "intent", whether religious or not?"



fluteman said:


> Cage himself said about the premiere:
> 
> They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, *because they didn't know how to listen,* was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began pattering the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out.


Strange magic's question is legitimate. Cage's answer is condescending. The proper answer to both is: It's very important that people know beforehand what 4'33" is about, because people at a concert confronted with a musician persistently refusing to make music are too perplexed at what's going on to seek enlightenment in the sounds of wind, rain, furnace noises, and cell phones going off.

I'm absolutely certain that many people at the premiere who were not aware of the wind nonetheless knew very well how to listen. But then, insulting one's audience was always one of the key tactics in winning friends for modernism.


----------



## mmsbls

Woodduck said:


> It's very important that people know beforehand what 4'33" is about, because people at a concert confronted with a musician persistently refusing to make music are too perplexed at what's going on to seek enlightenment in the sounds of wind, rain, furnace noises, and cell phones going off.


I agree strongly. It's a huge leap to assume all listeners will understand what 4'33" is truly about, and therefore, listen in the manner that Cage wished. Look at this thread. Even though the intent of the work has been described many times, many members still seem to think the work involves silence.

If I were to perform 4'33", I would make sure the audience knew why Cage had written it and what he wished them to "hear."


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Strange Magic asked: "How essential, then, is it that an audience for 4'33" be informed beforehand (or afterward) of Cage's particular "intent", whether religious or not?" Strange magic's question is legitimate. Cage's answer is condescending.


I think they should have been provided a description in a program for the night. Surely, any promoter who wanted this to go over successfully would have offered some sort of explanation of the piece in the program notes, provided the audience could read.



> The proper answer to both is: It's very important that people know beforehand what 4'33" is about, because people at a concert confronted with a musician persistently refusing to make music…


No, this was not a dramatic enactment. There was no "performer persistently refusing to make music" in the piece. He was simply following the instructions.



> ...are too perplexed at what's going on to seek enlightenment in the sounds of wind, rain, furnace noises, and cell phones going off.


How do you know what the audience response was, or will be? You don't.



> I'm absolutely certain that many people at the premiere who were not aware of the wind nonetheless knew very well how to listen.


It doesn't surprise me that in the 1950's when this was premiered, there were a bunch of unaware people who were not sensitive to this sort of thing. America was a pretty ignorant country back then. Racism, homophobia, etc.



> But then, insulting one's audience was always one of the key tactics in winning friends for modernism.


Cage was giving them a gift, and I'm doing you a favor by responding to such an assumption.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> I agree strongly. It's a huge leap to assume all listeners will understand what 4'33" is truly about, and therefore, listen in the manner that Cage wished. Look at this thread. Even though the intent of the work has been described many times, many members still seem to think the work involves silence.
> 
> If I were to perform 4'33", I would make sure the audience knew why Cage had written it and what he wished them to "hear."


This proves nothing. An American audience in the 1950s was not exactly "hip" to conceptual art.

You are saying that 4'33" is flawed, because it is unclear, and that this thread proves it. 
I disagree, I am on the "other side" of this argument. I'm in the "Pro-4'33" camp.

You are saying that 4'33" should come with an explanation, or a set of instructions on how to approach it. I don't think that's a good idea.

What Cage did, stands. History has already been written. You can't argue with history. Besides, John Cage was an important composer and a catalyst on the New York scene. Who cares if people in Nebraska "get it" or not? This is art, not pig farming.


----------



## millionrainbows

This is America in the 20th and 21st century. They don't care about being receptive, or being silent, or conceptual art. They want to show their booty on the internet. 4'33" was casting pearls before swine, and that's your explanation. Ignorance, just like we see now in this election.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> If I were to perform 4'33", I would make sure the audience knew why Cage had written it and what he wished them to "hear."


Oh, but 4'33" is subtle. To get them to hear "what you want them to hear" you have to be very loud, and shake a bunch of booties in their face.

And it's not about "what you want them to hear," it's about "what they want to hear." They are not capable of being passive listeners; they are too busy going on Facebook with their phones, and sending texts & making selfies. The have no time for a meditative work like 4'33", or art like Mark Rothko.

This is not 4'33"s failing; this is the failing of the "American football stadium/internet mentality." Don't forget to vote for Donald Trump.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Strange Magic asked: "How essential, then, is it that an audience for 4'33" be informed beforehand (or afterward) of Cage's particular "intent", whether religious or not?"
> 
> Strange magic's question is legitimate. Cage's answer is condescending. The proper answer to both is: It's very important that people know beforehand what 4'33" is about, because people at a concert confronted with a musician persistently refusing to make music are too perplexed at what's going on to seek enlightenment in the sounds of wind, rain, furnace noises, and cell phones going off.
> 
> I'm absolutely certain that many people at the premiere who were not aware of the wind nonetheless knew very well how to listen. But then, insulting one's audience was always one of the key tactics in winning friends for modernism.


Well, you can read all about Cage's motivations in his extensive quotes in Conversing with Cage by Richard Kostelanetz, which is where the quote comes from. He was well aware 4'33" would disturb and even anger people (the sounds of people towards the end include those of people walking out), and hesitated for four years before actually doing it. Where you and I differ profoundly in debates like this is in your readiness to attribute condescension, self-aggrandizement, or other bad-faith motive to the composer who intentionally disturbs his audience. (I also notice you quickly generalize the discussion to the insulting "tactics" of the pro-modernists.)

The whole point of art is to disturb the audience, whether gently, slightly and subtly, or massively and jarringly. To get you to see new things, or to see things in a new way, as the artist tries to get his audience to do, and which is Cage's or any artist's true motivation, he has to disturb your existing assumptions or outlook somewhat, somehow. Exactly how disturbing should he be? That's a question Cage wrestled with. Apparently, he was more sensitive in that regard than many other composers, such as Beethoven, who didn't hesitate to write things he knew would be, and were, received with jeers, puzzlement or confusion.

Anyway, it's a moot point, as Cage has had his impact on western culture, and it's been powerful enough to filter into popular culture rather quickly. In that sense, even if his motives were bad (a strange thing to say -- did you know him personally?) you have long since lost this debate, since he has achieved the ultimate success an artist can achieve.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Because of some of these posts. I Will NEVER donate to this site.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, but 4'33" is subtle. To get them to hear "what you want them to hear" you have to be very loud, and shake a bunch of booties in their face.
> 
> And it's not about "what you want them to hear," it's about "what they want to hear." They are not capable of being passive listeners; they are too busy going on Facebook with their phones, and sending texts & making selfies. The have no time for a meditative work like 4'33", or art like Mark Rothko.
> 
> This is not 4'33"s failing; this is the failing of the "American football stadium/internet mentality."


Well, I hope not. In fact, I suggest it's the artist's job in any society to help break down the complacent, unperceptive mentality. It is no accident that tyrants always persecute and censor their society's artists. Ed.: In saying this, I am making no comment about current American presidential candidates. However, don't ask me for my opinion of NASCAR.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

This is my last post in this thread.


----------



## arpeggio

Johnnie Burgess said:


> This is my last post in this thread.


Mr. Burgess,

We have been arguing to pros and cons of _433_ and modern works in general for years.

In the "Similar Threads" there is noted a thread about _433_ from September 18, 2010. There are many more than those listed below.

What is frustrating to many of us is that we have seen nothing new that has not been mentioned many times before by others. I know I have said everything I could sat about the issued. Although I try I do not think there is anything new I can say.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

arpeggio said:


> Mr. Burgess,
> 
> We have been arguing to pros and cons of _433_ and modern works in general for years.
> 
> In the "Similar Threads" there is noted a thread about _433_ from September 18, 2010. There are many more than those listed below.
> 
> What is frustrating to many of us is that we have seen nothing new that has not been mentioned many times before by others. I know I have said everything I could sat about the issued. Although I try I do not think there is anything new I can say.


This will be my last post in this thread. arpeggio it is nothing you have said. It is another person but I will not name them to follow the rules.


----------



## Strange Magic

In actuality, the only place where 4'33" has any impact whatsoever is here on this TC thread and in a few other enclosed, hothouse intellectual art circles--the rest of the world grinds on, and 4'33" is but another molecule involved in the Brownian motion that typifies the new stasis in the arts. It lives beyond its normal span only here, almost like a vampire.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> This proves nothing. An American audience in the 1950s was not exactly "hip" to conceptual art.
> What Cage did, stands. History has already been written. You can't argue with history. Besides, John Cage was an important composer and a catalyst on the New York scene. Who cares if people in Nebraska "get it" or not? This is art, not pig farming.


Unless I am reading your remarks completely wrong, it seems that both you and Cage held that 1950s audience in contempt. An interesting approach, surely, for an artist, and perhaps perfectly legitimate if he had other goals in mind than establishing a rapport....


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> .
> *How do you know what the audience response was, or will be? You don't.*
> 
> It doesn't surprise me that in the 1950's when this was premiered, there were a bunch of *unaware* people who were *not sensitive* to this sort of thing. America was a pretty *ignorant* country back then. *Racism,* *homophobia,* etc.
> 
> Cage was giving them a gift, and *I'm doing you a favor* by responding to such an assumption.


Seems like _you_ have a pretty good idea of how a bunch of insensitive, unaware, ignorant, racist, homophobic Americans would have responded.

Jeez... And all _I_ said was that they were probably perplexed by a pianist doing nothing.

I assume the favor you're doing me is an expression of sacredness. :devil:


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> John Cage was an important composer and a catalyst on the New York scene. *Who cares if people in Nebraska "get it" or not? This is art, not pig farming.*


Modernist contempt is alive and well.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Where you and I differ profoundly in debates like this is in your readiness to attribute condescension, self-aggrandizement, or other bad-faith motive to the composer who intentionally disturbs his audience. (I also notice you quickly generalize the discussion to the insulting "tactics" of the pro-modernists.)
> 
> *The whole point of art is to disturb the audience*, whether gently, slightly and subtly, or massively and jarringly. To get you to see new things, or to see things in a new way, as the artist tries to get his audience to do, and which is Cage's or any artist's true motivation, he has to disturb your existing assumptions or outlook somewhat, somehow. *Exactly how disturbing should he be? That's a question Cage wrestled with.* Apparently, he was more sensitive in that regard than many other composers, such as *Beethoven, who didn't hesitate to write things he knew would be, and were, received with jeers, puzzlement or confusion.*
> 
> Anyway, it's a moot point, as Cage has had his impact on western culture, and it's been powerful enough to filter into popular culture rather quickly. In that sense, even if his motives were bad (a strange thing to say -- did you know him personally?) *you have long since lost this debate,* since *he has achieved the ultimate success an artist can achieve.*


It is not the "whole point of art" to disturb anyone. That is pure Modernist cant. Any artist who wrestles with how disturbing he "should" be is an egotistical showman, even if his ego takes the form of "egolessness" (but I doubt that Cage wrestled with himself - and I never said his motives were "bad"). Sure, art can be challenging to an audience's expectations, but to the extent that an artist is setting out to do that he is not functioning _qua_ artist. Art is fundamentally an expression of values; only an adolescent values "disturbing" his elders whether or not he has anything worthwhile to say - and if that's his objective, the chances are good that he doesn't. If an artist is expressing genuine values, and that happens to disturb some people and expand their sense of what's possible, fine. But the idea that that should be his basic purpose in creating is ahistorical, aberrant, 20th-century nonsense. Beethoven never subscribed to such a notion.

What do you consider the ultimate success an artist can achieve? To have "disturbed" as many people as possible? Really, how much disturbance do you think Cage has created? No one I know finds him the least bit disturbing. But he is an interesting conversation piece.

I don't think you're in a position to announce that I have lost any debate, since I see no evidence that you understand any position I've taken.


----------



## mmsbls

You wrote the following two responses. Is one of them sarcastic?



millionrainbows said:


> I think they should have been provided a description in a program for the night. Surely, any promoter who wanted this to go over successfully would have offered some sort of explanation of the piece in the program notes, provided the audience could read.





millionrainbows said:


> You are saying that 4'33" should come with an explanation, or a set of instructions on how to approach it. I don't think that's a good idea.


You also wrote:



millionrainbows said:


> You are saying that 4'33" is flawed, because it is unclear, and that this thread proves it.


I don't believe that 4'33" is flawed. Of course it's unclear, and many posts in this thread are evidence of that. I think more people would understand it and possibly learn from it if Cage's intent were made clear before any performance. I don't see how that would be a bad thing even for people who may be ignorant (as we all are about a great many things).


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> It doesn't surprise me that in the 1950's when this was premiered, there were a bunch of unaware people who were not sensitive to this sort of thing. America was a pretty ignorant country back then. Racism, homophobia, etc.
> ...
> Who cares if people in Nebraska "get it" or not? This is art, not pig farming.


From where I sit, it looks like things haven't changed all that much.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> What Cage did, stands. History has already been written. You can't argue with history. Besides, John Cage was an important composer and a catalyst on the New York scene. Who cares if people in Nebraska "get it" or not? This is art, not pig farming.


NEBRASKAN LIVES MATTER!! I don't know how you can dump on the State that created Kool-Aid.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> They want to show their booty on the internet.


And what's wrong with showing booty on the internet? It can be just as entertaining as reading the interminable 4'33" discussion - and for some reason, I am fatally drawn to seeing both.  (...and no, you won't see my booty on t'internet!)

As for pig farming, I'm not drawn to that, though I'll not be as dismissive of it as you seem to be.



fluteman said:


> The whole point of art is to disturb the audience, whether gently, slightly and subtly, or massively and jarringly.


The _whole _point? The 'point' of _all _art throughout the ages?

That's quite a claim and, without any clarification or qualification, I would say erroneous.

The discussion seems to have shifted towards an acknowledgement that 4'33" was about a moment in time, or a period in history, tied to who Cage was, what he believed and what his intent was at the time of composition and performance.

What 'history' has done is give it a place in controversy. What it hasn't done is cement it in place as 'music', though it could be argued that it has a place in the 'canon' (at least of controversial curiosities).


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> The _whole _point? The 'point' of _all _art throughout the ages?
> 
> That's quite a claim and, without any clarification or qualification, I would say erroneous.


The answer to your question, is "Yes". As for clarification and qualification, I've given quite a bit in this thread. Feel free to do some research and reflection yourself. Here is a quote from an essay by the British philosopher A.C. Grayling, perhaps better worded than my posts:
When artists get to work responding and expressing, whether or not also to urge a point, entertain, distract, support a revolution and the rest, they are producing something that someone else will react to in some way. And that is what art is chiefly good for: namely, that by its relationship with its audience it can make something move in the realm of thought and emotion, where such movement is life.
Or this, a little more blunt but the same point, from the director Peter Sellars: The purpose of art is to find a way to wake people up who are going through their lives sleepwalking and say: 'Stop it. You can't walk past this. This is your life.
Remember, the word "disturb" covers a lot of ground: Riots and battles, and the ripples caused by a pebble tossed into a pond, are all disturbances.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> The answer to your question, is "Yes". As for clarification and qualification, I've given quite a bit in this thread. Feel free to do some research and reflection yourself. Here is a quote from an essay by the British philosopher A.C. Grayling, perhaps better worded than my posts:
> When artists get to work responding and expressing, whether or not also to urge a point, entertain, distract, support a revolution and the rest, they are producing something that someone else will react to in some way. And that is what art is chiefly good for: namely, that by its relationship with its audience it can make something move in the realm of thought and emotion, where such movement is life.
> [...]
> Remember, the word "disturb" covers a lot of ground: Riots and battles, and the ripples caused by a pebble tossed into a pond, are all disturbances.


The quote from Grayling is interesting, since it comes at the end of an article that begins,



> Art does not have to have a purpose - it does not exist in order to teach, to urge a moral point, to entertain, to distract, to amuse, to serve beauty, to support a revolution, to disgust, to challenge, to stimulate or to cheer; it exists chiefly for its own sake. It is the artist, not art as such, that may have an aim in mind, and his aim may be to do any of the things just listed. But equally, an artist may just make art because he feels compelled to. Because the work is its own justification, no further aim or goal is necessarily required to explain or, still less, to justify its existence.


https://www.timeshighereducation.co...urpose-is-to-elicit-a-response/408595.article

Grayling distinguishes between "what art is good for" and "what its purpose is". He is very clear that



> an artist may just make art because he feels compelled to. Because the work is its own justification, no further aim or goal is necessarily required to explain or, still less, to justify its existence.


So I disagree - and so does your Mr Grayling (with whom I am familiar). There are several points to art, only one of which might be to disturb.

As for the word 'disturb', I accept that it can imply a range of meanings, from the slight and subtle to the massive and jarring. In the context of the discussion about Cage, it seemed appropriate to take the meaning as massive and jarring. Interestingly, the penultimate paragraph in the Grayling seems even more relevant to 4'33":



> The impulse to make art, as with poetry, can result in the artist imparting a message, but the art lies not in the message but in the way it is conveyed. An interest in materials and techniques without any explicit content, as in abstract painting or contemporary dance, leads to a form of distinctively modern art that switches the focus of attention, as when people look at a frame rather than the picture within. It is still art, still an expression of a response to something within or without.


There is no doubt in my mind (never has been, despite those who might frame my scepticism as 'anti') that 4'33" is art.


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> The quote from Grayling is interesting, since it comes at the end of an article that begins,
> 
> https://www.timeshighereducation.co...urpose-is-to-elicit-a-response/408595.article
> 
> Grayling distinguishes between "what art is good for" and "what its purpose is". He is very clear that
> 
> So I disagree - and so does your Mr Grayling (with whom I am familiar). There are several points to art, only one of which might be to disturb.
> 
> As for the word 'disturb', I accept that it can imply a range of meanings, from the slight and subtle to the massive and jarring. In the context of the discussion about Cage, it seemed appropriate to take the meaning as massive and jarring. Interestingly, the penultimate paragraph in the Grayling seems even more relevant to 4'33":
> 
> There is no doubt in my mind (never has been, despite those who might frame my scepticism as 'anti') that 4'33" is art.


Well, fair enough, MacLeod. But don't hold me (or Peter Sellars) too much to task for failing to parse the distinction between what art is "good for" and what its "purpose" is. True, that distinction is an important point in Grayling's essay, but not so much in this thread, since the question here has primarily been whether 4'33" is "good for" anything, and the question of its specific purpose is secondary, though Cage certainly had one in mind from his comments about it. Ed.: And where I said "disturbance", Grayling says "movement". Not too far apart, I think.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> *Well, fair enough, MacLeod*. But don't hold me (or Peter Sellars) too much to task for failing to parse the distinction between what art is "good for" and what its "purpose" is. True, that distinction is an important point in Grayling's essay, but *not so much in this thread, since the question here has primarily been whether 4'33" is "good for" anything*, and the question of its specific purpose is secondary, though Cage certainly had one in mind from his comments about it. Ed.: And where I said "disturbance", Grayling says "movement". Not too far apart, I think.


Thanks for the acknowledgement.

I've been in this thread since the Third Day of Its Existence (Feb 2015), and what it _was _about is not as you describe. That didn't stop it turning through many degrees as it wound its way through 18 months, including taking in 'purpose' as well as 'good for'!


----------



## Wood

millionrainbows said:


> *Why do members here frequently disparage and invalidate John Cage's 4'33", which is essentially a sacred statement, while Western/Christian forms of sacred music seem to get much more respect, and have their own forum? *
> 
> Surely this implies that these *Western* forms of sacred music deserve a special degree of respect, while *4'33"* seems to be "open game" for disparaging posts, threads, and comments.


Why?

1. Christian music is bound up in the customs, traditions & ruling elite of the west, so whilst the subject matter is in many ways deserving of contempt, it receives respect and status because of these things. Western sacred classical music has been going for more than a millenia, so it is established. Westerners doing eastern mysticism is relatively new and unfamiliar. It is also used by charlatans as much as Christianity is so an element of scepticism is to be expected.

2. It is not obvious to most that the Cage piece is a sacred work. It is not obvious to me. It is not clear that people will be offended on religious grounds if this work is laughed at. Indeed, I doubt if many will be.

3. Many people are cowards. However they frame it, sneering at someone or something that is different to the norm helps to validate their inconsequential lives within an established, majority ruling framework.


----------



## Wood

I managed to last nine days before being sucked in with this post:

http://www.talkclassical.com/36315-why-433-disparaged-while-35.html

Interesting that this issue was being discussed a few posts ago and that my view in that first post is in direct opposition to everyone discussing it at this time.

Amazingly, I have seen it worthwhile to post 12 times on this thread, when like everyone else, I don't have anything to say which hasn't been discussed _ad infinitum_ on TC before the thread even began.

Now that we have started to discuss our posting history, it is self evident that this thread will be carried on in perpetuity. Given the endless possibilities of 4'33", it is kind of fitting.


----------



## Nereffid

Wood said:


> sneering at someone or something that is different to the norm helps to validate their inconsequential lives within an established, majority ruling framework.


True, but also: sneering at someone or something that is within an established, majority ruling framework helps to validate the inconsequential lives of those who are different to the norm.


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> Thanks for the acknowledgement.
> 
> I've been in this thread since the Third Day of Its Existence (Feb 2015), and what it _was _about is not as you describe. That didn't stop it turning through many degrees as it wound its way through 18 months, including taking in 'purpose' as well as 'good for'!


OK. I read the first few pages before chiming in, but not the whole darned thing. Sorry. And the specific point I was making, as well as the more general one we were just discussing, have long since been made often and in detail by those who regularly think and write about such things. They are not brand new, revolutionary insights by me. So, there was no urgent need for me to add several pages to this thread. Sorry again.


----------



## Wood

fluteman said:


> OK. I read the first few pages before chiming in, but not the whole darned thing. Sorry. And the specific point I was making, as well as the more general one we were just discussing, have long since been made often and in detail by those who regularly think and write about such things. They are not brand new, revolutionary insights by me. So, there was no urgent need for me to add several pages to this thread. Sorry again.


It would be somewhat harsh to expect a relatively new member to read, digest, understand and respond to the last 1810 posts. You are forgiven. 

So this thread is now for newer members to air their concerns about the piece, and for the old timers to put them right.

Or something.


----------



## arpeggio

This thread is only good for one type or person who is undecided. For the rest of us, pro or con, it is a waste of time.


----------



## Guest

arpeggio said:


> This thread is only good for one type or person who is undecided. For the rest of us, pro or con, it is a waste of time.


I fully agree with that.:tiphat:


----------



## mmsbls

arpeggio said:


> This thread is only good for one type or person who is undecided. For the rest of us, pro or con, it is a waste of time.


I think I understand your basic view here, but I do believe that discussing issues such as these can have benefits even to those who are not undecided. As I mentioned, when I came to TC I was decided on 4'33", but the discussions on the various related threads made me think more about the issue. Ultimately I changed my view. So even those who are decided can change their opinion.

But another useful feature for those who have decided is better understanding the other side's views and arguments. Hearing arguments and thoughts from the "other side" can actually solidify one's own view (in a good way). One can have more confidence in one's opinion after exploring contrary views because one develops better arguments for one's side.


----------



## arpeggio

mmsbls said:


> I think I understand your basic view here, but I do believe that discussing issues such as these can have benefits even to those who are not undecided. As I mentioned, when I came to TC I was decided on 4'33", but the discussions on the various related threads made me think more about the issue. Ultimately I changed my view. So even those who are decided can change their opinion.
> 
> But another useful feature for those who have decided is better understanding the other side's views and arguments. Hearing arguments and thoughts from the "other side" can actually solidify one's own view (in a good way). One can have more confidence in one's opinion after exploring contrary views because one develops better arguments for one's side.


Although I agree with you 99% of the time this one issue where we part ways.

Most of the time if a person is against _433_ reading one of their rants is rarely enlightening.

Most of the time when I read some sort of rant it reinforces in me that these individuals are close minded bigots and they get added to my ignore list (Which is very handy feature I have learned to use from the moderators).

One of the problems with some members is that they are constantly making inaccurate observations that they do not have the wherewithal to make. I live in Fairfax county and can get to the music division of the Library of Congress. I have used it in the past and it is great. One of the items that they let me look at were the original sketches of Roy Harris' _Seventh Symphony_. I could go there and do the necessary research to debunk some of the nonsense I have read. I am disabled and it would be extremely difficult now for me to do so. And I figure why bother? If I went their in order to debunk something all the SPEOES would do is create a whole new list that one would need to debunk.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> This thread is only good for one type or person who is undecided. For the rest of us, pro or con, it is a waste of time.


Why come onto a thread for the purpose of complaining about it? How would you know who's wasting his time and who isn't? People have different reasons for participating in discussion and debate. Some people join debating societies solely because they enjoy the sport. The challenge of having to think sharply on their feet may be a delight to them.

No one is hoping to save the world here. It's beyond saving. Meanwhile, let's play!


----------



## Guest

Dear mr Woodduck,you are right (off course ) ,but may I ask you if you have changed your mind a teenie wienie in this thread about the Cage piece? :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA

I cannot believe that a piece on non-music has generated 1818 posts on a music forum.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I cannot believe that a piece on non-music has generated 1818 posts on a music forum.


Well, there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, David!

(Hmmm...that didn't sound quite right...)


----------



## Woodduck

Traverso said:


> Dear mr Woodduck,you are right (off course ) ,but may I ask you if you have changed your mind a teenie wienie in this thread about the Cage piece? :tiphat:


What I have done by participating in this thread is examine the subject from every angle I and others have been able to find. The angles are numerous: art, music, philosophy, religion, culture, humor, horsepuckey...

To expand, sharpen, and deepen one's thinking is the only change of mind that matters.


----------



## Guest

arpeggio said:


> Although I agree with you 99% of the time this one issue where we part ways.
> 
> Most of the time if a person is against _433_ reading one of their rants is rarely enlightening.
> 
> Most of the time when I read some sort of rant it reinforces in me that these individuals are close minded bigots and they get added to my ignore list (Which is very handy feature I have learned to use from the moderators).
> 
> One of the problems with some members is that they are constantly making inaccurate observations that they do not have the wherewithal to make. I live in Fairfax county and can get to the music division of the Library of Congress. I have used it in the past and it is great. One of the items that they let me look at were the original sketches of Roy Harris' _Seventh Symphony_. I could go there and do the necessary research to debunk some of the nonsense I have read. I am disabled and it would be extremely difficult now for me to do so. And I figure why bother? If I went their in order to debunk something all the SPEOES would do is create a whole new list that one would need to debunk.


Let's keep up to date here. No one is ranting against 4'33".


----------



## Guest

I am reading your posts with great interest but you did not answer the question.Did you change your appreciation for the piece.
Can one Judge a so called "sacred piece" if their is only silence and one's own projections.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Seems like _you_ have a pretty good idea of how a bunch of insensitive, unaware, ignorant, racist, homophobic Americans would have responded.
> 
> Jeez... And all _I_ said was that they were probably perplexed by a pianist doing nothing.
> 
> I assume the favor you're doing me is an expression of sacredness. :devil:


I'm just responding to the account of the 1950s premier. And I'm doing you a favor by responding.


----------



## Woodduck

Traverso said:


> I am reading your posts with great interest but you did not answer the question.Did you change your appreciation for the piece.
> Can one Judge a so called "sacred piece" if their is only silence and one's own projections.


I don't understand the second question.

I wonder about your reasons for asking the first. Do you think other people's changes of mind are significant? Would changes in their thinking give you useful information? What kind of changes? Information about what? About them? About 4'33"?

I've expressed, in many posts, many ideas about this subject. If you are reading them with great interest, as you say, you'll see what I've thought about 4'33" since February 3, 2015 (post#26 of this thread). That and my subsequent posts should satisfy your curiosity.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> You wrote the following two responses. Is one of them sarcastic?


I KNEW someone would see that as a contradiction. I was waiting. No, it's not a contradiction to think THE PROMOTER should provide an explanation. But 4'33" was already published.


----------



## millionrainbows

_


millions said:



You are saying that 4'33" is flawed, because it is unclear, and that this thread proves it.

Click to expand...

_


mmsbls said:


> I don't believe that 4'33" is flawed. Of course it's unclear, and many posts in this thread are evidence of that. I think more people would understand it and possibly learn from it if Cage's intent were made clear before any performance. I don't see how that would be a bad thing even for people who may be ignorant (as we all are about a great many things).


I was responding to the following post of yours. It strongly implies that 4'33" *on its own* is flawed because it does not communicate effectively. Your solution is that the performer explain it before performing it. Although you do not implicitly state that 4'33" is flawed, that's the conclusion I came to, in the context that you are being critical of the piece.

Are you praising the work? If so, I missed that.



mmsbls said:


> I agree strongly. It's a huge leap to assume all listeners will understand what 4'33" is truly about, and therefore, listen in the manner that Cage wished...If I were to perform 4'33", I would make sure the audience knew why Cage had written it and what he wished them to "hear."


You also offer the response of this thread as "proof" of your contention, whatever it was you were trying to say.



mmsbls said:


> Look at this thread. Even though the intent of the work has been described many times, many members still seem to think the work involves silence.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> And what's wrong with showing booty on the internet? It can be just as entertaining as reading the interminable 4'33" discussion - and for some reason, I am fatally drawn to seeing both.  (...and no, you won't see my booty on t'internet!)
> 
> As for pig farming, I'm not drawn to that, though I'll not be as dismissive of it as you seem to be.
> 
> The _whole _point? The 'point' of _all _art throughout the ages?
> 
> That's quite a claim and, without any clarification or qualification, I would say erroneous.
> 
> The discussion seems to have shifted towards an acknowledgement that 4'33" was about a moment in time, or a period in history, tied to who Cage was, what he believed and what his intent was at the time of composition and performance.
> 
> What 'history' has done is give it a place in controversy. What it hasn't done is cement it in place as 'music', though it could be argued that it has a place in the 'canon' (at least of controversial curiosities).


This is typical of the argumentative minutae which these discussions devolve into.


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


> Why?
> 
> 1. Christian music is bound up in the customs, traditions & ruling elite of the west, so whilst the subject matter is in many ways deserving of contempt, it receives respect and status because of these things. Western sacred classical music has been going for more than a millenia, so it is established. Westerners doing eastern mysticism is relatively new and unfamiliar. It is also used by charlatans as much as Christianity is so an element of scepticism is to be expected.
> 
> 2. It is not obvious to most that the Cage piece is a sacred work. It is not obvious to me. It is not clear that people will be offended on religious grounds if this work is laughed at. Indeed, I doubt if many will be.
> 
> 3. Many people are cowards. However they frame it, sneering at someone or something that is different to the norm helps to validate their inconsequential lives within an established, majority ruling framework.


That's a nice, neutral post. You manage to answer some questions without committing yourself to a defense of 4'33". Your loyalty and bravery are duly noted.


----------



## Blancrocher

DavidA said:


> I cannot believe that a piece on non-music has generated 1818 posts on a music forum.


It doesn't have its own forum, but I think it's probable that 4'33'' now has more posts devoted to it than all the Western works of sacred music combined (excepting posts in Current Listening, at any rate).

That's got to count for something.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I'm just responding to the account of the 1950s premier. And I'm doing you a favor by responding.


What you responded to was my suggestion that people at the premiere would, with good reason, not have known what to make of 4'33." Cage said, insultingly, that they "didn't know how to listen." You responded by mocking my observation, but then implicitly agreeing with it by insulting (as I did not) "Americans of the 1950s," who were just too "insensitive," "unaware," "ignorant," "racist," and "homophobic" to grasp instantly the profundity of Mr. Cage's lesson in "sacredness."

It seems that you enjoy condescending to people who don't agree with you. Well, you'll have plenty of opportunities for that. But don't expect them to think you're doing them any favors.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> I cannot believe that a piece on non-music has generated 1818 posts on a music forum.


It's not just about 4'33"; most people could care less. It's about mindsets and world views. Some people can't stand it when a specialized area such as conceptual art exists as a legitimate form of art. This flies in the face of most Americans' utilitarian, literal, rational way of seeing everything. If they had their way, there would be no other music than Beethoven and Mozart, etc.


----------



## Wood

arpeggio said:


> And I figure why bother? If I went their in order to debunk something all the *SPEOES* would do is create a whole new list that one would need to debunk.


SPEOES? What does that stand for? Google doesn't seem to know.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> What you responded to was my suggestion that people at the premiere would, with good reason, not have known what to make of 4'33." Cage said, insultingly, that they "didn't know how to listen." You responded by mocking my observation, but then implicitly agreeing with it by insulting (as I did not) "Americans of the 1950s," who were just too "insensitive," "unaware," "ignorant," "racist," and "homophobic" to grasp instantly the profundity of Mr. Cage's lesson in "sacredness."
> 
> It seems that you enjoy condescending to people who don't agree with you. Well, you'll have plenty of opportunities for that. But don't expect them to think you're doing them any favors.


I just don't think what the audience thought (especially an audience from the dark ages of America), or how they responded, reflected in any way on 4'33" as a work. The failure was theirs, not John Cage's. I believe in what he did.


----------



## Balthazar

Wood said:


> SPEOES? What does that stand for? Google doesn't seem to know.


Self-Proclaimed Experts On Everything

(More commonly seen in its singular form -- SPEOE.)


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> What you responded to was my suggestion that people at the premiere would, with good reason, not have known what to make of 4'33." Cage said, insultingly, that they "didn't know how to listen."


You repeatedly return to this "insult" theme, but if you look at the Richard Kostelanetz book I cited, you'll see that Cage appeared to be a reasonably well-mannered, modest and polite guy, though confident of the worth of his work. Mozart and Beethoven, on the other hand, didn't hesitate to slam those they felt were lesser musical minds (that would include nearly everyone) and incapable of understanding their music in the rudest possible terms. Beethoven nicely observed to one of them, "What I sh#t is worth more than what you write". When a friend confessed he didn't understand the late quartets, he replied, "Those are for future generations". Even the usually shy and retiring Schubert referred to some less-talented musician colleagues as "crawling gnawing worms" and "insects" who ought to be crushed under his foot while he reached for the stars, and to the "stupid" newspapers.
If you want to point to a modernist with a snotty attitude, stick with the old Schoenberg or the young Boulez. Though, like Mozart, Beethoven, or Schubert, their rudeness seemed sincere.


----------



## mmsbls

arpeggio said:


> Although I agree with you 99% of the time this one issue where we part ways.
> 
> Most of the time if a person is against _433_ reading one of their rants is rarely enlightening.


I agree that rants against 4'33" are hardly ever enlightening. On this thread I'm more interested in those who see 4'33" as music since those people disagree with me. They may say something that resonates somewhat or something that makes me view my position differently even if I don't change my mind.

On another thread I said I thought 4'33" was a philosophical statement. some guy reminded me that it is performed and therefore is not simply a philosophical statement. I have not and will not forget that.


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> I KNEW someone would see that as a contradiction. I was waiting. No, it's not a contradiction to think THE PROMOTER should provide an explanation. But 4'33" was already published.


I see that we both misunderstood each other. I do not think that the work, 4'33", should have come with some description. I think, as apparently you do, that performances should include a description of what the work is about.

I believe 4'33' should be performed with an explanation because I think the vast majority of people would not understand it and would not listen as Cage wishes them to listen. I think, based on several of your posts, that you believe that as well.


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> I was responding to the following post of yours. It strongly implies that 4'33" *on its own* is flawed because it does not communicate effectively. Your solution is that the performer explain it before performing it. Although you do not implicitly state that 4'33" is flawed, that's the conclusion I came to, in the context that you are being critical of the piece.
> .


Based on what you have posted, I believe we both feel that people generally do not understand what Cage intended with 4'33". I believe we both think that performances should include descriptions. If you feel that 4'33" is flawed and are critical of the piece for those reasons, fine. I do not feel that way.


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> This is not 4'33"s failing; this is the failing of the "American football stadium/internet mentality."


Could you give me a slightly better sense of what the American football stadium mentality is?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I just don't think what the audience thought (especially an audience from the dark ages of America), or how they responded, reflected in any way on 4'33" as a work. The failure was theirs, not John Cage's. I believe in what he did.


OK, now that's a real statement that can be debated.

You're saying that if the audience missed the point of 4'33," they "failed." I'm asking: why should they have "succeeded"? Why should Cage have expected them to? Had it ever happened that an audience, expecting music to be played by the pianist sitting before them as normally happens at a concert, saw and heard no music? What would you expect to be going through people's minds under the circumstances? How natural would it be to be thinking, as the clock was ticking, "Mr. Cage wants me to question my ideas about what music is, pay attention to the sounds around me, realize that they are music too, and have an experience of sacredness"? How many of us, having come from home to hear people making music, are going to figure that out in four-and-a-half minutes of unexpected quiet and serious-faced immobility? How would we be "failing" if we were simply confused or uncomfortable - or amused?

More questions: To what extent should a work of art be capable of getting its essential message across without the aid of explanatory remarks? If it cannot do so, isn't that a failure on the part of the artist? And isn't that work in some sense and to some degree "flawed"? Should we blame the audience for being ignorant? Who is art directed to anyway? And if a work of "music" consists precisely of the absence of anything previously recognized as music, why is anyone to blame for not getting the message intended by the "composer"?

Can these questions be answered without insulting the pig farmers of Nebraska - or anyone else?


----------



## Strange Magic

The "problem" (actually that's too emphatic a term) I have with both 4'33" and its enthusiasts, is that it is too slender, too frail, too banal to adequately serve as some sort of revelation--musical, religious, metaphysical--for all but a few hyperventilating disciples of John Cage. It certainly provides occasion for much sprightly discourse here, which has become a tradition, and an arena for people to sharpen their debating skills. But once one considers what actually constitutes a performance of this work, the reaction will be, not epiphany, not _satori_, but, to quote a favorite expression of LBJ, "Therefore, What?" Perhaps my personal threshold for Nirvana is too high for Cage's work to surmount; perhaps I am too coarse and unsubtle an auditor to receive the revelation (won't be the first time), but I think transformation needs to be made of sterner stuff.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> The "problem" (actually that's too emphatic a term) I have with both 4'33" and its enthusiasts, is that it is too slender, too frail, too banal to adequately serve as some sort of revelation--musical, religious, metaphysical--for all but a few hyperventilating disciples of John Cage. It certainly provides occasion for much sprightly discourse here, which has become a tradition, and an arena for people to sharpen their debating skills. But once one considers what actually constitutes a performance of this work, the reaction will be, not epiphany, not _satori_, but, to quote a favorite expression of LBJ, "Therefore, What?" Perhaps my personal threshold for Nirvana is too high for Cage's work to surmount; perhaps I am too coarse and unsubtle an auditor to receive the revelation (won't be the first time), but I think transformation needs to be made of sterner stuff.


It's just a conceptual art statement. Reaching enlightenment is probably a much more involved, grueling process. Hey, it's only art!


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> OK, now that's a real statement that can be debated.
> 
> You're saying that if the audience missed the point of 4'33," they "failed." I'm asking: why should they have "succeeded"? Why should Cage have expected them to? Had it ever happened that an audience, expecting music to be played by the pianist sitting before them as normally happens at a concert, saw and heard no music? What would you expect to be going through people's minds under the circumstances? How natural would it be to be thinking, as the clock was ticking, "Mr. Cage wants me to question my ideas about what music is, pay attention to the sounds around me, realize that they are music too, and have an experience of sacredness"? How many of us, having come from home to hear people making music, are going to figure that out in four-and-a-half minutes of unexpected quiet and serious-faced immobility? How would we be "failing" if we were simply confused or uncomfortable - or amused?
> 
> More questions: To what extent should a work of art be capable of getting its essential message across without the aid of explanatory remarks? If it cannot do so, isn't that a failure on the part of the artist? And isn't that work in some sense and to some degree "flawed"? Should we blame the audience for being ignorant? Who is art directed to anyway? And if a work of "music" consists precisely of the absence of anything previously recognized as music, why is anyone to blame for not getting the message intended by the "composer"?
> 
> Can these questions be answered without insulting the pig farmers of Nebraska - or anyone else?


Hey, it's only art, Woodduck! There's no money-back guarantee. Either you like its message, or not. I'm not here to debate how successful it is. It was only one statement of many that Cage made. I see his entire output as being along the same lines, though. All of it is designed to do something different to your mind than most music.


----------



## Bulldog

Blancrocher said:


> It doesn't have its own forum, but I think it's probable that 4'33'' now has more posts devoted to it than all the Western works of sacred music combined (excepting posts in Current Listening, at any rate).
> 
> That's got to count for something.


It's a testament to verbosity and repetition.


----------



## Pugg

Balthazar said:


> Self-Proclaimed Experts On Everything
> 
> (More commonly seen in its singular form -- SPEOE.)


Now, who could that be: a he or a she  
I guess the first.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> It's a testament to verbosity and repetition.


It's a testament to the fact that new members come along and pick up where older ones left off and, as for all controversial threads, some feel they should participate to ensure a balanced perspective or to make sure that those things about which they feel strongly are defended.

In the same way that there's no obligation on me to come by and perpetuate a debate with millionrainbows, there's no obligation on anyone to come by and marvel that we're still arguing.

But I note that we both do it.


----------



## Woodduck

I suspect a lot of us "old-timers" wander back here just out of curiosity or astonishment that the thing is still kicking, see something funny, absurd, outrageous, offensive, or, less probably, enlightening, and get snared again when our guard is down, possibly before our morning coffee has roused us from torpor. If we end up inducing torpor in others it's not our fault.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I suspect a lot of us "old-timers" *wander *back here just out of curiosity or astonishment that the thing is still kicking, see something funny, absurd, outrageous, offensive, or, less probably, enlightening, and get snared again when our guard is down, possibly before our morning coffee has roused us from torpor. If we end inducing torpor in others it's not our fault.


Wander? Wander?? Excuse me but I'll have you know I march purposefully and determinedly back here on a regular basis to see if it's been settled and if its hasn't, spout my two penn'orth. These things take dogged commitment don't you know and I won't have my commitment trivialised. And, since we all know that the questions raised here will never be settled, I need to be committed for life! 

...that is...er...


----------



## millionrainbows

Pugg said:


> Now, who could that be: a he or a she
> I guess the first.


…except opera, of course. I guess that would be a she...


----------



## Zhdanov

MacLeod said:


> the questions raised here will never be settled,


it will be, though, and not in favor of the subject, trust me.


----------



## Pugg

Zhdanov said:


> it will be, though, and not in favor of the subject, trust me.


Famous last words you think?


----------



## Strange Magic

One could say, with perfect accuracy, that both the work itself and this discussion, have been "Much Ado About Nothing".


----------



## Zhdanov

Pugg said:


> Famous last words you think?


its first words.


----------



## EdwardBast

Zhdanov said:


> it will be, though, and not in favor of the subject, trust me.


I've been hearing that rhetorical flourish ("trust me") at the end of numerous dubious statements of late, but I can't remember who keeps saying it. A politician I think?


----------



## Ingélou

Strange Magic said:


> One could say, with perfect accuracy, that both the work itself and this discussion, have been "Much Ado About Nothing".


Or another Shakespeare (alternative) title: 'What You Will'...


----------



## Wood

I was thinking more of The Tempest, or maybe Comedy of Errors


----------



## Guest

Zhdanov said:


> it will be, though, and not in favor of the subject, trust me.


You mean _you've_ already decided.


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> it will be, though, and not in favor of the subject, trust me.


Funny to see what I suspect are a bunch of late middle-aged or older guys (based, for example, on the general familiarity with Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini) pronouncing the cultural verdict on the most famous example of Cage's indeterminacy experiments. If many of you were at least a little younger, you would have grown up in the late 60s, 70s and/or 80s with pop cultural icons who were significantly influenced by Cage: Monty Python's Flying Circus, the Beatles, Firesign Theater, Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, Brian Eno, Thom Yorke and Radiohead, and Uri Caine, to name a few.
Many of you likely know and care nothing of these names, which is fine, but keep in mind most younger people have never heard of Brian Hyland. Nowadays even the icons of the late 60s, 70s and 80s are gradually fading into history, but their contribution has been made, and their influence lingers on. Our culture is a mighty river, with many feeder streams along the way, each one making its unique contribution to the currents and eddies. I say, don't be Afraid To Come Out Of The Water, and enjoy the scene.


----------



## tortkis

EdwardBast said:


> I've been hearing that rhetorical flourish ("trust me") at the end of numerous dubious statements of late, but I can't remember who keeps saying it. A politician I think?


Hatoyama to Obama on protracted Futenma base relocation: Just trust me


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> a bunch of late middle-aged or older guys [...]. If many of you [...]
> Many of you


That sounds like quite a gang. You might have to name names so we know just who is in this gang.


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> That sounds like quite a gang. You might have to name names so we know just who is in this gang.


I already did: The people who are familiar with Brian Hyland and Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini. (I wasn't around back when it was a hit, but I'm a music history student.) You see, unlike some debaters here, I can define my terms.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> I already did: The people who are familiar with Brian Hyland and Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini. (I wasn't around back when it was a hit, but I'm a music history student.) You see, unlike some debaters here, I can define my terms.


Insufficiently precisely though. I'm familiar with both Hyland and Itsy Bitsy, and Eno and Radiohead.


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> Insufficiently precisely though. I'm familiar with both Hyland and Itsy Bitsy, and Eno and Radiohead.


My definition couldn't be more precise. And it includes you. I never said that nobody old enough to remember Brian Hyland could also be astute enough about later cultural trends to appreciate Cage's influence. My point was, those from earlier generations are less likely to have that appreciation.


----------



## arpeggio

MacLeod said:


> That sounds like quite a gang. You might have to name names so we know just who is in this gang.


We can not mention members who fit this description. That would probably violate the TOS and earn us infraction points.

My orchestra members are pretty open minded about this.

I can provide a list a members from the community bands that fit this description. Many of them are female as well as male.

In one group I play with it would include one flute player (the rest of the flute section rolls their eyes when this one opens her mouth), one E-flat clarinet player, a few sax players, most of the Euphonium and Trumpet Sections. Many others scattered around that group. They all tend to be older members.

The hotbed of those who appreciate contemporary music include the double reeds, the bass clarinets and most of the horn and flute sections.

The clarinet, trombone and tubas appear to be pretty split about this.

I have no idea what the percussionists think. They are off in their own little world banging things.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> My definition couldn't be more precise. And it includes you.


OK, clarity at last. I just wanted to be clear that you were including me (though I think only a couple of others have pronounced a verdict and who are also familiar with the IBTWYPDB, but I've not really been counting.)

So let's look at what you said about me and others.



fluteman said:


> Funny to see what I suspect are a bunch of late middle-aged or older guys (based, for example, on the general familiarity with Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini) pronouncing the cultural verdict on the most famous example of Cage's indeterminacy experiments. If many of you were at least a little younger, you would have grown up in the late 60s, 70s and/or 80s with pop cultural icons who were significantly influenced by Cage: Monty Python's Flying Circus, the Beatles, Firesign Theater, Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, Brian Eno, Thom Yorke and Radiohead, and Uri Caine, to name a few.
> Many of you likely know and care nothing of these names, which is fine, but keep in mind most younger people have never heard of Brian Hyland. Nowadays even the icons of the late 60s, 70s and 80s are gradually fading into history, but their contribution has been made, and their influence lingers on. Our culture is a mighty river, with many feeder streams along the way, each one making its unique contribution to the currents and eddies. I say, don't be Afraid To Come Out Of The Water, and enjoy the scene.


Actually, I'm not sure what you are saying. So, I've provided my verdict on 4'33" (it's art but it's not music) but...but what? I need to remember Cage's legacy? I haven't.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Funny to see what I suspect are a bunch of late middle-aged or older guys (based, for example, on the general familiarity with Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini) pronouncing the cultural verdict on the most famous example of Cage's indeterminacy experiments. If many of you were at least a little younger, you would have grown up in the late 60s, 70s and/or 80s with pop cultural icons who were significantly influenced by Cage: Monty Python's Flying Circus, the Beatles, Firesign Theater, Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, Brian Eno, Thom Yorke and Radiohead, and Uri Caine, to name a few.
> Many of you likely know and care nothing of these names, which is fine, but keep in mind most younger people have never heard of Brian Hyland. Nowadays even the icons of the late 60s, 70s and 80s are gradually fading into history, but their contribution has been made, and their influence lingers on. Our culture is a mighty river, with many feeder streams along the way, each one making its unique contribution to the currents and eddies. I say, don't be Afraid To Come Out Of The Water, and enjoy the scene.


Well, the old guy who brought up "Itsy Bitsy" didn't pronounce any verdict on anything except this discussion itself, in which he tells us we are wasting our time and participates rather often in order to do so. The old guy who responded to him - me - hasn't pronounced any cultural verdicts, only personal, philosophical ones.

The kind and degree of cultural significance 4'33" has had to this point is a matter of objective fact, even if no one can say exactly what it is. Its exact future significance is unknown. The only thing I would note is that its significance depends on who you are and what culture you belong to. Talk of any general "cultural verdict," like talk of what "history" has "decided," is thus pretty meaningless.

But, if we must get into such judgments, I don't notice that young people are any more likely to perform or talk about 4'33," or to exhibit its influence on their own cultural expressions (and how would that be manifested?), than people my age. I don't see many of them putting blown-up comic strips and giant giant soup cans in art galleries either, or staging "happenings" on street corners, and if they _are_ doing such things it's likely to be billed as "post-" or "neo-" or "meta-" something and considered either a charming exercise in nostalgia or a sign that the grand ocean voyage of western culture is now doggy paddling in the shallow end of the pool. Your "pop icons" of the 70s and 80s? Old or dead. I was here, young fella!

4'33" was a "happening" which a few people will no doubt revisit for some time to come. But "culture" has moved on. If guessing whether, and how often, 4'33" will be performed in the future constitutes pronouncing a "cultural verdict" on it, I'll pronounce and venture to say that in the context of Western music it will be an itsy bitsy teeny weeny bikini at best, and in the context of world culture it will invoke ordinances concerning public nudity. But that day is already here, isn't it?


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> OK, clarity at last. I just wanted to be clear that you were including me (though I think only a couple of others have pronounced a verdict and who are also familiar with the IBTWYPDB, but I've not really been counting.)
> 
> So let's look at what you said about me and others.
> 
> Actually, I'm not sure what you are saying. So, I've provided my verdict on 4'33" (it's art but it's not music) but...but what? I need to remember Cage's legacy? I haven't.


OK, but you should be careful before concluding what legacy you remember and what you don't. In the old days, one could show people who thought they knew and cared nothing about classical music that they were actually quite familiar with certain pieces by Beethoven, Chopin, Rachmaninov, etc. Later, you could do the same with John Cage, and now you can do the same with Philip Glass and Arvo Part. I was with my kids at the movies not long ago, and the trailer for the latest Ice Age movie included Part's Spiegel im Spiegel, which has already been included in the soundtrack of other movies. These things seep into the general soundscape and into our ears whether or not we realize and acknowledge it.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> OK, but you should be careful before concluding what legacy you remember and what you don't.


OK? What does that mean? You understand and accept my rejection of your posts about this middle-aged gang? Or just that I might belong to it?

You seem rather too keen to make generalised pronouncements about what other members here should and shouldn't do, and to make inferences about our musical experiences and attitudes without foundation.

Have a care, young man!


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Well, the old guy who brought up "Itsy Bitsy" didn't pronounce any verdict on anything except this discussion itself, in which he tells us we are wasting our time and participates rather often in order to do so. The old guy who responded to him - me - hasn't pronounced any cultural verdicts, only personal, philosophical ones.
> 
> The kind and degree of cultural significance 4'33" has had to this point is a matter of objective fact, even if no one can say exactly what it is. Its exact future significance is unknown. The only thing I would note is that its significance depends on who you are and what culture you belong to. Talk of any general "cultural verdict," like talk of what "history" has "decided," is thus pretty meaningless.
> 
> But, if we must get into such judgments, I don't notice that young people are any more likely to perform or talk about 4'33," or to exhibit its influence on their own cultural expressions (and how would that be manifested?), than people my age. I don't see many of them putting blown-up comic strips and giant giant soup cans in art galleries either, or staging "happenings" on street corners, and if they _are_ doing such things it's likely to be billed as "post-" or "neo-" or "meta-" something and considered either a charming exercise in nostalgia or a sign that the grand ocean voyage of western culture is now doggy paddling in the shallow end of the pool. Your "pop icons" of the 70s and 80s? Old or dead. I was here, young fella!
> 
> 4'33" was a "happening" which a few people will no doubt revisit for some time to come. But "culture" has moved on. If guessing whether, and how often, 4'33" will be performed in the future constitutes pronouncing a "cultural verdict" on it, I'll pronounce and venture to say that in the context of Western music it will be an itsy bitsy teeny weeny bikini at best, and in the context of world culture it will invoke ordinances concerning public nudity. But that day is already here, isn't it?


Yes, indeed: pop icons get old and die. And of course, each generation wants their own, not their parents'. But we don't erase our cultural history completely and start from scratch every year, do we? James Brown had an influence on Michael Jackson, who had an influence on many pop singers of today. Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor had an influence on stand up comedians that continues to this day. The same can be said of Sid Caesar and Mel Brooks and their influence on comedy in TV and movies. Alfred Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergman, Sam Peckinpaugh, John Carpenter and Martin Scorsese all had their influence on later movie directors. The influences can be subtle, and other influences are mixed in over time, but they are there. Kids today may have no idea who most of these older guys were. I meet young people today who have never heard of the Beatles, much less Jack Kerouac, Alan Ginsburg or John Cage. It won't be long before I meet kids who never heard of Monty Python. But that doesn't mean they haven't made their permanent contribution to our cultural landscape.


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> OK? What does that mean? You understand and accept my rejection of your posts about this middle-aged gang? Or just that I might belong to it?
> 
> You seem rather too keen to make generalised pronouncements about what other members here should and shouldn't do, and to make inferences about our musical experiences and attitudes without foundation.
> 
> Have a care, young man!


No, I intended no disrespect. And your experiences and attitudes are as valid and worthwhile as anyone's. I was only trying to say, our culture follows its many various paths, whether we appreciate, like or pay any attention to them or not. There is certainly much about modern popular culture that I would pronounce not worthwhile for me and my tastes, regardless of what its roots and causes may be. But as much as I dislike it, I wouldn't go so far as to pretend it isn't there. Some comments here (I'm not necessarily referring to yours) remind me a bit of Orwell's 1984: "We are at war with East Asia! We've always been at war with East Asia!"
You said you haven't remembered the legacy of 4'33" and don't need to. I essentially responded, fine, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And, I'm sorry to say, I find your response to that disrespectful and offensive.


----------



## Guest

Eh? Ah! I spy a typo. I meant I haven't forgotten the legacy, not that I haven't remembered. My bad.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Yes, indeed: pop icons get old and die. And of course, each generation wants their own, not their parents'. But we don't erase our cultural history completely and start from scratch every year, do we? James Brown had an influence on Michael Jackson, who had an influence on many pop singers of today. Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor had an influence on stand up comedians that continues to this day. The same can be said of Sid Caesar and Mel Brooks and their influence on comedy in TV and movies. Alfred Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergman, Sam Peckinpaugh, John Carpenter and Martin Scorsese all had their influence on later movie directors. The influences can be subtle, and other influences are mixed in over time, but they are there. Kids today may have no idea who most of these older guys were. I meet young people today who have never heard of the Beatles, much less Jack Kerouac, Alan Ginsburg or John Cage. It won't be long before I meet kids who never heard of Monty Python. But that doesn't mean they haven't made their permanent contribution to our cultural landscape.


All true. One can trace back the influences on John Cage to 1915 (and even earlier, if you try), to Dada and to Marcel Duchamp's urinal. Cage's contribution as a neo-Dada artist was to apply Dadaist principles to musical performance. The question to be determined by the passage of time is to what extent Cage's efforts were uniquely important. In another thread, the works of PDQ Bach and the signature Hoffnung Music Festivals have been discussed. Are not these phenomena, along with the art of the Pythons, Victor Borge, Ernie Kovacs, and the earlier Goon Show, examples of the wave of much-needed silliness that followed in the wake of two World Wars, a paralyzing Great Depression, and the Cold War? Viewed this way, Cage and 4'33" are just another experiment in 20th century silliness, with no special claim to profundity or even influence. We certainly need a bit of silliness, now more than ever, as we are now confronted with global problems truly unprecedented in human history.


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> Eh? Ah! I spy a typo. I meant I haven't forgotten the legacy, not that I haven't remembered. My bad.


OK. But please keep in mind I would never presume to tell others what their attitudes, opinions or tastes ought to be. All of the names I've listed are, or at least were, relatively famous in their particular fields. But that doesn't mean anyone has to kneel down and worship any of them as great artists. They've had a significant cultural impact, for better or worse. I for one am not necessarily enthusiastic about all of them, or many other well-known artists I might have mentioned. John Cage, Jackson Pollack, Alan Ginsberg and many others I could list are not among my favorites, but I think their cultural contributions are undeniable, and that is all I have said.


----------



## fluteman

Yes, I almost mentioned Ernie Kovacs in my post, I was very impressed with him. As a little kid, I was brought to one of PDQ Bach's earliest concerts, and was unimpressed at first, since I had come for a real, grownup concert and seemed to be getting only a comedy routine. Later I began to appreciate not only his supreme cleverness, but also his gleefully subversive anarchy. And even at that first concert, when, in the middle of conducting the Concerto for Horn and Hardart, Peter Schickele took a quarter out of his pocket, put it in the Hardart and took out a sandwich, I was impressed. And hungry. Talk about conceptual art!


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> I say, don't be Afraid To Come Out Of The Water, and enjoy the scene.


when young i was in a band that played punk, on Moscow scene back in Soviet days, and was into Throbbing Gristle stuff.






so don't be naive, i know what's what.



fluteman said:


> John Cage, Jackson Pollack, Alan Ginsberg and many others I could list are not among my favorites, but I think their cultural contributions are undeniable,


deniable alright.


----------



## Zhdanov

one of my past faves too -


----------



## Strange Magic

While here, let's not forget Jimmy Carroll's Percussion Ensemble and his Music to Speed the Parting Guest.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> All true. One can trace back the influences on John Cage to 1915 (and even earlier, if you try), to Dada and to Marcel Duchamp's urinal. Cage's contribution as a neo-Dada artist was to apply Dadaist principles to musical performance. The question to be determined by the passage of time is to what extent Cage's efforts were uniquely important. In another thread, the works of PDQ Bach and the signature Hoffnung Music Festivals have been discussed. Are not these phenomena, along with the art of the Pythons, Victor Borge, Ernie Kovacs, and the earlier Goon Show, examples of the wave of much-needed silliness that followed in the wake of two World Wars, a paralyzing Great Depression, and the Cold War? Viewed this way, Cage and 4'33" are just another experiment in 20th century silliness, with no special claim to profundity or even influence. We certainly need a bit of silliness, now more than ever, as we are now confronted with global problems truly unprecedented in human history.


Yes. However, Strange Magic, never underestimate silliness, or more generally, humor. It was there before the 20th century, and is still here after it. And Monty Python didn't come about just to cheer things up. I once saw a great interview of John Cleese, in which he pointed out that Python's material was carefully organized and structured. What could be more Dada or classic theater of the absurd than The Argument Sketch? The link to Cage's indeterminacy is much more in the animated short subjects of Terry Gilliam, and only occasionally surfaced in the acted sketches. There was also political and social parody aplenty, the British establishment and BBC in particular were major targets. And they and the others you mention have much in common with Aristophanes, Voltaire, Mark Twain, and humorists from many other eras. Humor actually does play a profound role in every culture, these folks included.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Yes. However, Strange Magic, never underestimate silliness, or more generally, humor. It was there before the 20th century, and is still here after it.


Absolutely true. And you'll never catch me underestimating silliness. Try the books of Stephen Potter if you're in need of a fix of silly. I'm still howling at them 60-plus years later. :lol:


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> never underestimate silliness, or more generally, humor.


neither overestimate it.



fluteman said:


> Humor actually does play a profound role in every culture,


it didn't play that significant role in Ancient Greek & Roman cultures.

humor & satire is a boorish and low method to attack someone.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Zhdanov said:


> it didn't play that significant role in Ancient Greek & Roman cultures.
> 
> humor & satire is a boorish and low method to attack someone.


1. Incorrect

2. Incorrect, quite the contrary, actually.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> [Humor] didn't play that significant role in Ancient Greek & Roman cultures.
> 
> humor & satire is a boorish and low method to attack someone.


Actually, humor, satire, comedy makes its first appearance in the cultures of Greece and Rome. But you are correct if you say that humor and satire can be a boorish and low method to attack someone. It is a tool, dependent upon the skill of its practitioner.


----------



## Balthazar

Strange Magic said:


> All true. One can trace back the influences on John Cage to 1915 (and even earlier, if you try), to Dada and to Marcel Duchamp's urinal. Cage's contribution as a neo-Dada artist was to apply Dadaist principles to musical performance. The question to be determined by the passage of time is to what extent Cage's efforts were uniquely important. In another thread, the works of PDQ Bach and the signature Hoffnung Music Festivals have been discussed. Are not these phenomena, along with the art of the Pythons, Victor Borge, Ernie Kovacs, and the earlier Goon Show, examples of the wave of much-needed silliness that followed in the wake of two World Wars, a paralyzing Great Depression, and the Cold War? Viewed this way, Cage and 4'33" are just another experiment in 20th century silliness, with no special claim to profundity or even influence. We certainly need a bit of silliness, now more than ever, as we are now confronted with global problems truly unprecedented in human history.


Another way to look at it is to view 4'33" in the context of the the totality of Cage's works and writings, and specifically as an outgrowth of his studies of Suzuki and Coomaraswamy.

As an expression of the embrace by a Westerner of Eastern philosophical concepts, 4'33" holds its place in a line from Schopenhauer through Wagner and Maugham, leading to the burgeoning recognition of the value of mindfulness in all aspects of life which is experiencing a burst of popularity in today's culture.


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> when young i was in a band that played punk, on Moscow scene back in Soviet days, and was into Throbbing Gristle stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so don't be naive, i know what's what.
> 
> deniable alright.


My only complaint is, it took 1876 posts for you to bring up Throbbing Gristle? Please post links to such masterpieces first, and only when you're done with that, turn to saying everything I've posted is wrong (which shouldn't be such a lengthy task -- I just did it in part of one sentence).


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Actually, humor, satire, comedy makes its first appearance in the cultures of Greece and Rome. But you are correct if you say that humor and satire can be a boorish and low method to attack someone. It is a tool, dependent upon the skill of its practitioner.


That may be the first appearance you and I are familiar with, due to our educational backgrounds. I read some cave paintings were discovered in France showing evidence of caricatures, so I wouldn't bet that recorded humor and satire don't date much earlier. And even though the Greeks and Romans pretty much invented Western culture, there was plenty of input from the Egyptians, Phoenecians, etc.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> That may be the first appearance you and I are familiar with, due to our educational backgrounds. I read some cave paintings were discovered in France showing evidence of caricatures, so I wouldn't bet that recorded humor and satire don't date much earlier. And even though the Greeks and Romans pretty much invented Western culture, there was plenty of input from the Egyptians, Phoenecians, etc.


--
If there is recorded evidence of humor in earlier cultures--Egypt, Phoenicia, Assyria, Sumeria, Harappa--I'd love to know of it.


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> --If there is recorded evidence of humor in earlier cultures--Egypt, Phoenicia, Assyria, Sumeria, Harappa--I'd love to know of it.


I remember from many years ago a passage in Homer where somebody (Odysseus?) was whacking an old cripple on the beach with his staff, raising welts and making him cry out in pain. His men were all having a good laugh at that. Not just comedy, but comedic relief!

Nowadays the best we can do is the Simpsons.


----------



## Funny

Interesting discussion on 4'33" as humor or satire. I don't see it, nor believe it was intended, as such. It is quite simply a piece which provides a frame to be able to enjoy ambient noise as music, which we can shorthand as "hearing music in the silence when musicians stop playing." 

I believe this was an important point to be made and that Cage made it eloquently. However, it's not quite as revolutionary as many think, as Haydn made same point, and got the same effect, of "hearing music in the silence when musicians stop playing," with the end of his string quartet op. 33, no. 2, where he adds silence in between phrases in a careful pattern to the point that when he starts a new phrase you are listening for the next part to come, still listening to the "music" he's written, when in fact the whole piece is already over. Yes, it's funny, it's witty, it's satirical, but it also makes a significant point about the role of the listener in creating what we consider music, much the same as the point Cage would make some 153 years later.


----------



## arpeggio

Funny said:


> Interesting discussion on 4'33" as humor or satire. I don't see it, nor believe it was intended, as such. It is quite simply a piece which provides a frame to be able to enjoy ambient noise as music, which we can shorthand as "hearing music in the silence when musicians stop playing."
> 
> I believe this was an important point to be made and that Cage made it eloquently. However, it's not quite as revolutionary as many think, as Haydn made same point, and got the same effect, of "hearing music in the silence when musicians stop playing," with the end of his string quartet op. 33, no. 2, where he adds silence in between phrases in a careful pattern to the point that when he starts a new phrase you are listening for the next part to come, still listening to the "music" he's written, when in fact the whole piece is already over. Yes, it's funny, it's witty, it's satirical, but it also makes a significant point about the role of the listener in creating what we consider music, much the same as the point Cage would make some 153 years later.


Thanks. I do not recall anyone making this point before.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> My only complaint is, it took 1876 posts for you to bring up Throbbing Gristle?


???



fluteman said:


> Please post links to such masterpieces first, and only when you're done with that, turn to saying everything I've posted is wrong


i still don't understand your point... as for mine, it was there aren't some old farts posting on these forums here, we're all active internet users, not your conservative type of folks you might think we are. 4'33 gets disliked not for being new, but for being *not new enough*.


----------



## KenOC

Quote: On today's date in 1952, at the aptly named Maverick Concert Hall in Woodstock, New York, pianist David Tudor premiered two new works by the American composer John Cage.

The first, titled "Water Music," was scored for a "prepared piano" - a piano into whose metal strings various items had been inserted to alter its sound - plus a duck call and transistor radio. For the second work, Tudor simply closed the lid of the piano, set a stopwatch for the length of the work's four sections - 4 minutes and 33 seconds to be exact - and then sat quietly on the piano bench. The composition consisted of whatever sounds occurred in that amount of time at that particular moment in time, including any breathing, coughing or snickering from the audience. 

Some likened the piece to the all-white canvases of the avant-garde painter Robert Rauschenberg, on which accidental aspects of dust or bumps in the canvas created an arbitrary texture. Others thought it an outrageous affront at worst, or a bad joke at best. Whatever else one might think of it, as pianist David Tudor put it, "Cage's 4:33 is one of the most intense listening experiences one can have." 

Cage once said: "I'm interested in making sounds that I don't understand," and insisted that random, unplanned sounds were as welcome to his ears as those he organized himself.


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> Cage once said: "I'm interested in making sounds that I don't understand," and insisted that random, unplanned sounds were as welcome to his ears as those he organized himself.


Is there not some "danger", using that term very loosely, for an artist to become famous/notorious/celebrated/endlessly discussed by the cognoscenti, not for his/her art in itself, but rather for the novelty and brashness of his/her utterances? One hundred years hence, will audiences gather in concert halls or will solitary listeners apply their headphones and lose themselves in the magic and mystery of the Musical Art of John Cage? Just asking. It could happen?


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> ???
> 
> i still don't understand your point... as for mine, it was there aren't some old farts posting on these forums here, we're all active internet users, not your conservative type of folks you might think we are. 4'33 gets disliked not for being new, but for being *not new enough*.


Well, John Cage is old, in fact he died nearly 24 years ago aged 79, so his ideas are not new. I will try to explain. First, listen to Throbbing Gristle at full, earsplitting volume. Good. Now, turn the volume down very slightly. Now, a little bit more. Now, more. Now, even more. Now, yet more, until it is as a distant, faint echo in a large canyon. Now, all the way down, until it cannot be heard at all. Pause. Pause. There.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Is there not some "danger", using that term very loosely, for an artist to become famous/notorious/celebrated/endlessly discussed by the cognoscenti, not for his/her art in itself, but rather for the novelty and brashness of his/her utterances? One hundred years hence, will audiences gather in concert halls or will solitary listeners apply their headphones and lose themselves in the magic and mystery of the Musical Art of John Cage? Just asking. It could happen?


So you, and perhaps I and others here if you're being generous, are the "cognoscenti"? You flatter us. Jackson Pollack, Alan Ginsberg, John Cage -- they're long gone, and they've long since made their mark, whatever that may be. Others have long since come along. Jeff Koons has sculpted a giant puppy covered with flowers. There's a hip hop Alexander Hamilton. All of this is part of the scene, for better or worse. All of it has resonated with enough people to have had some kind of impact.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> First, listen to Throbbing Gristle at full, earsplitting volume. Good. Now, turn the volume down very slightly. Now, a little bit more. Now, more. Now, even more. Now, yet more, until it is as a distant, faint echo in a large canyon. Now, all the way down, until it cannot be heard at all. Pause. Pause. There.


yup, to hell with TG as well as with John Cage.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> So you, and perhaps I and others here if you're being generous, are the "cognoscenti"? You flatter us. Jackson Pollack, Alan Ginsberg, John Cage -- they're long gone, and they've long since made their mark, whatever that may be. Others have long since come along. Jeff Koons has sculpted a giant puppy covered with flowers. There's a hip hop Alexander Hamilton. All of this is part of the scene, for better or worse. All of it has resonated with enough people to have had some kind of impact.


Very poetical! Reminds me of Omar Khayyam, the Old Tentmaker himself:

Think, in this batter'd Caravanserai
Whose portals are alternate Night and Day,
How Sultan after Sultan with his Pomp
Abode his destined Hour, and went his way.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> So you, and perhaps I and others here if you're being generous, are the "cognoscenti"?


Can I be in the cognoscenti? Can-a-can !??


----------



## Strange Magic

Here's a name and a talent that will be remembered for eternity::tiphat:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Pétomane


----------



## pmsummer

Silent Song
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/05/silence-overtakes-sound-for-the-wandelweiser-collective

P. Michael Summer
simul justus et peccator

This message has been typed by thumbs on a mobile device.


----------



## Nereffid

Strange Magic said:


> Here's a name and a talent that will be remembered for eternity::tiphat:
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Pétomane


His performance of 4'33" was silent but deadly.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Is there not some "danger", using that term very loosely, for an artist to become famous/notorious/celebrated/endlessly discussed by the cognoscenti, not for his/her art in itself, but rather for the novelty and brashness of his/her utterances? One hundred years hence, will audiences gather in concert halls or will solitary listeners apply their headphones and lose themselves in the magic and mystery of the Musical Art of John Cage? Just asking. It could happen?


I think the trend in America, and most of the West, will be to more awareness in a Buddhistic sense, of the environment, lifestyle, etc, and this will lead them naturally to John Cage's quiet, introspective works as a reflection of that mindset.



Balthazar said:


> Another way to look at it is to view 4'33" in the context of the the totality of Cage's works and writings, and specifically as an outgrowth of his studies of Suzuki and Coomaraswamy.
> 
> As an expression of the embrace by a Westerner of Eastern philosophical concepts, 4'33" holds its place in a line from Schopenhauer through Wagner and Maugham, leading to the burgeoning recognition of the value of mindfulness in all aspects of life which is experiencing a burst of popularity in today's culture.


----------



## pmsummer




----------



## millionrainbows

Then, again, Industrial music might make a comeback...


----------



## Zhdanov

millionrainbows said:


> Industrial music


----------



## Mahlerite555

Look at all these atonal bashers. I will have it played at my funeral, perfect for getting the more distant relatives crying.


----------



## millionrainbows

Zhdanov: "Industrial music" ha haaa!!! That's good.

Maybe Nine Inch Nails will do a version Wagner someday.

Some of John Cage's works used large sheets of thin metal, which he suspended and hit. It was really noisy, according to a story I heard from a guy who went to the University of Illinois when Cage was there.

Hey, I just realized: ILLI*NOIS.*


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Zhdanov: "Industrial music" ha haaa!!! That's good.
> 
> Maybe Nine Inch Nails will do a version Wagner someday.
> 
> Some of John Cage's works used large sheets of thin metal, which he suspended and hit. It was really noisy, according to a story I heard from a guy who went to the University of Illinois when Cage was there.
> 
> Hey, I just realized: ILLI*NOIS.*


I'm afraid Mosolov beat John Cage to the punch with the large sheet of thin metal--Iron Foundry, one of my favorite mind-clearers, was scored for Eisenblech-Bogen, u.a.

http://www.sikorski.de/475/en/0/a/0/orchestral_music/1005824_the_iron_foundry_for_orchestra.html


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> I'm afraid Mosolov beat John Cage to the punch with the large sheet of thin metal--Iron Foundry, one of my favorite mind-clearers, was scored for Eisenblech-Bogen, u.a.


And Alphonse Allais beat Cage to the punch with his _Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man _(1897). Twenty-four blank measures. He wrote: "Great sorrows being mute, the performers should occupy themselves with the sole task of counting the bars, instead of indulging in the kind of indecent row that destroys the august character of the best obsequies."


----------



## Blancrocher

KenOC said:


> And Alphonse Allais beat Cage to the punch with his _Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man _(1897). Twenty-four blank measures. He wrote: "Great sorrows being mute, the performers should occupy themselves with the sole task of counting the bars, instead of indulging in the kind of indecent row that destroys the august character of the best obsequies."


I've seen many concerts featuring the work, to the point where I can now tell when a performer misses a measure. Incidentally, from the point of view of performance I think it must be more challenging than 4'33'', since performers are personally responsible for keeping the time. This is not meant to suggest that either work is "better" than the other, of course.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerite555 said:


> Look at all these atonal bashers.


Where? In the interests of balance, I feel obliged to observe that I've come across or only one or two members in my time here who have 'bashed atonal' with any consistency, and a mere handful who have showed up, bashed and then left.


----------



## Zhdanov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseny_Avraamov











https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Mosolov


----------



## Zhdanov




----------



## Strange Magic

Here's the recording of Iron Foundry by Riccardo Chailly and the Concertgebouw where you can revel in the full glory of the sound. The same disk it's from also provides Varese's _Arcana_ and the Prokofiev 3rd Symphony. Plenty of sound, fury, and excitement.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> I'm afraid Mosolov beat John Cage to the punch with the large sheet of thin metal--Iron Foundry, one of my favorite mind-clearers, was scored for Eisenblech-Bogen, u.a.
> 
> http://www.sikorski.de/475/en/0/a/0/orchestral_music/1005824_the_iron_foundry_for_orchestra.html


Thank you for that clip. It seems like a perfect, though perhaps unsubtle, example of how composers in the industrial and post-industrial eras acknowledge and react to society's changing and ever louder sound environments. And maybe it's because that environment has become increasingly mechanical, and more recently, electronic, that consonance, which ruled almost unchallenged for centuries, now shares the stage not only with dissonance, but with silence, indeterminate sounds, and a much wider range of rhythms and timbres, which are often mechanical or electronic themselves. I think this industrial/technological influence stands with non-western influences as one of the main markers of the post-romantic era of western music. Again, thanks for the great example.


----------



## scratchgolf

4'33" makes perfect sense. Only sheep do not see this. I am a lion. I eat sheep. Like this post. Steal this book. Call me crazy. You will never stop me. Ban me Taggart. Ban me.


----------



## millionrainbows

I can hear the "zen" in almost all of Cage's works, forget 4'33'. I've been listening to Etudes Australes, and it is absolutely transcendent. It does wonderful things for my nervous system.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> I'm afraid Mosolov beat John Cage to the punch with the large sheet of thin metal--Iron Foundry, one of my favorite mind-clearers, was scored for Eisenblech-Bogen, u.a.





KenOC said:


> And Alphonse Allais beat Cage to the punch with his _Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man _(1897). Twenty-four blank measures. He wrote: "Great sorrows being mute, the performers should occupy themselves with the sole task of counting the bars, instead of indulging in the kind of indecent row that destroys the august character of the best obsequies."


But I bet Cage could beat both of them in arm-wrestling.


----------



## millionrainbows

If you don't like 4'33", then try The Freeman Etudes. These are the polar opposite of 4'33," being almost humanly impossible to play until Irvine Arditti came along to save the day.


----------



## Varick

KenOC said:


> Some likened the piece to the all-white canvases of the avant-garde painter Robert Rauschenberg, on which accidental aspects of dust or bumps in the canvas created an arbitrary texture. Others thought it an outrageous affront at worst, or a bad joke at best. Whatever else one might think of it, as pianist David Tudor put it, "Cage's 4:33 is one of the most intense listening experiences one can have."
> 
> Cage once said: "I'm interested in making sounds that I don't understand," and insisted that random, unplanned sounds were as welcome to his ears as those he organized himself.


Just throwing this out there but... could 4 33 possibly, just POSSIBLY, be a pretentious load of [email protected]?? Could much of Cage's works be the same? Could HE have just been a pretentious @$$????

Just asking.

V


----------



## ArtMusic

I think so, the work in spirit is superficial. The concept is hardly profound. Vocal music for example can be so much more profound if there are messages to be made. That's what Cage should have done if he wanted to say something about musical sounds, not the negation of sound (by silence). Hence a deeply flawed piece.


----------



## cimirro

Varick said:


> Just throwing this out there but... could 4 33 possibly, just POSSIBLY, be a pretentious load of [email protected]?? Could much of Cage's works be the same? Could HE have just been a pretentious @$$????
> 
> Just asking.
> 
> V


Inspired in Cage I just make my new composition
the name is "4 hours and 33 minutes for Cage listeners"
(it is dedicated to all Cage fans and lovers)

to "experience" this "work", you sit down anywhere you are and keep silent
the piece is made of 3 completely different parts:
- the first part takes 4 hours (like "in the mood" by Glenn Miller)
- the second part takes 32 minutes (like "turkish march" by Volodos/Wang/Lang-Lang/Bad-Bad/Bismark/Strauss/Say/do-not-say/Sand/Seikilos/Arg-&-rich/Barenboin/Meinders/Jenkins/Beethoven in Mozart's version"
- the third takes only 1 minute (like Sorabji's little pieces)

each movement end with an "attaca subito" to the next
but there is something special about this "new and revolutionary work of art" - there is a ritornello in each movement! 
You need start it again each time you hear ANY sound (including your own breath).
After experiencing this total silence for 4 hours and 33 minutes without breathing (ok, one breath between movements is ok) I welcome you (fans of Cage) back here in the Forum to discuss about Cage's qualities as great composer.
Now, time to enjoy the result of the inspiration on Cage's geniality and stop to breath for a while!

Ho... I just noticed Beethoven already knew my composition... well, he was years ahead we all... the internet critics were right about it all the time!


----------



## lifetweet

ArtMusic said:


> I think so, the work in spirit is superficial. The concept is hardly profound. Vocal music for example can be so much more profound if there are messages to be made. That's what Cage should have done if he wanted to say something about musical sounds, not the negation of sound (by silence). Hence a deeply flawed piece.


I agree. The lyrics of music is one of the most important things that people remembered.


----------



## Pugg

lifetweet said:


> I agree. The lyrics of music is one of the most important things that people remembered.


And you do find 4'33" lyrics of music?


----------



## Bettina

Pugg said:


> And you do find 4'33" lyrics of music?


If people are talking while "listening" to 4'33", I suppose that their conversation would be the lyrics for that performance of the piece.


----------



## Pugg

Bettina said:


> If people are talking while "listening" to 4'33", I suppose that their conversation would be the lyrics for that performance of the piece.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Varick said:


> Just throwing this out there but... could 4 33 possibly, just POSSIBLY, be a pretentious load of [email protected]??


Depends on the interpretation. I once heard performance that was so laden with _rubato_ that it lasted a full five minutes.


----------



## Gordontrek

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Depends on the interpretation. I once heard performance that was so laden with _rubato_ that it lasted a full five minutes.


I saw Lang Lang do it once. He drooled everywhere!


----------



## mmsbls

ArtMusic said:


> I think so, the work in spirit is superficial. The concept is hardly profound. Vocal music for example can be so much more profound if there are messages to be made. That's what Cage should have done if he wanted to say something about musical sounds, not the negation of sound (by silence). Hence a deeply flawed piece.


Cage did want to say something about musical sounds. He wanted to draw attention to the ambient sounds present when musicians do not play. He did not want to use silence because that would have created a flawed piece. How can you use silence to make a point about actual sounds? His piece is exactly what it should be to make Cage's point.

Let me ask a simple question: Do you believe 4'33" is about silence or about sounds?


----------



## cimirro

mmsbls said:


> Cage did want to say something about musical sounds. He wanted to draw attention to the ambient sounds present when musicians do not play. He did not want to use silence because that would have created a flawed piece. How can you use silence to make a point about actual sounds? His piece is exactly what it should be to make Cage's point.
> 
> Let me ask a simple question: Do you believe 4'33" is about silence or about sounds?


I'm sorry
This work is about a terrible sciolist, a charlatan who wanted to use any stupid thing to be remembered by other sciolists.
Of course, to any serious artist it is also good to remember him, so we can give his name as a "bad example" of the use of the word art.

And this speech about "ambient sounds" is only a lame excuse!
Aka "conceptual art", when you are not talented enough to be an artist and you find speech to justify why your laziness and lack of work (I mean, yes they work, they are trying to find the next lame excuse for not working seriouly) must be rewarded by idiots who call it art. All you need is someone's money for living like this.
Each place and moment will present its own "ambient sounds", Cage is not the composer of these ambient sounds
Cage is not the composer of the silence, I'm sorry if some people have not noticed the silence in other pieces
he is not the composer of one opera where you play any operas by other composers and none by Cage.
he is just a charlatan trying to find a solution to be famous using stupid people to make his propaganda

It is SO difficult to show the musical art to a big public today and we need to deal with people still making propaganda of charlatans like Cage ... 
it makes me sad ...


----------



## millionrainbows

Since the Western classical tradition is based on Western religious concepts, then this is automatically exclusive of Eastern religious concepts, which are diametrically opposed. What Westerners take as objective, the East sees as subjective.

This sets up a dialectic which will never be resolved to either's satisfaction.

4'33" is about reversing the role of composer/performer and listener, in which the listener becomes an active creator of musical meaning via ambient sounds. The piece will not make sense until one deals with this reversal, which brings with it numerous other obstacles to the literal Western mindset.


----------



## millionrainbows

cimirro said:


> I'm sorry
> ...we can give his name as a "bad example" of the use of the word art.





> And this speech about "ambient sounds" is only a lame excuse!
> Aka "conceptual art", when you are not talented enough to be an artist and you find speech to justify why your laziness and lack of work (I mean, yes they work, they are trying to find the next lame excuse for not working seriouly) must be rewarded by idiots who call it art. All you need is someone's money for living like this.


No, this was only one piece. The Freeman Etudes disproves this; every note is pre-determined and notated precisely.



> Each place and moment will present its own "ambient sounds", Cage is not the composer of these ambient sounds…


But that's missing the point. Cage was putting the role of "composer" into the hands of the listener. A basic misunderstanding on your part. If we understand the parameters of the piece, your points become irrelevant, just by logic, not opinion. You must be able to engage in philosophical speculation if this discussion is to be credible.



> ...he is just a charlatan trying to find a solution to be famous using stupid people to make his propaganda…


No, this is not true. History has proven that John Cage was very sincere in his musical endeavors. To say otherwise does not pass muster as a valid argument, historically.



> It is SO difficult to show the musical art to a big public today and we need to deal with people still making propaganda of charlatans like Cage ...
> it makes me sad ...


I'm sure that many Chinese Communist officials would agree with this.

Meanwhile, we are discussing art which originated in The United States of America, where people are educated and art is made freely. What fascist regime do these sorts of anti-art sentiments come from?


----------



## cimirro

millionrainbows said:


> Since the Western classical tradition is based on Western religious concepts, then this is automatically exclusive of Eastern religious concepts, which are diametrically opposed. What Westerners take as objective, the East sees as subjective.
> 
> This sets up a dialectic which will never be resolved to either's satisfaction.
> 
> 4'33" is about reversing the role of composer/performer and listener, in which the listener becomes an active creator of musical meaning via ambient sounds. The piece will not make sense until one deals with this reversal, which brings with it numerous other obstacles to the literal Western mindset.


Men play flutes made of bones since 45.000 years ago, before any religion's proves we already found.
Since then: 
the one who plays is the player
the one who listen is the listener
no religion of west or east can change it.

"reversing" is another "lame excuse"
no composer is unable to listen just because he is a composer.
on the other hand, not necessarily every listener can be a composer.
and by the way, the "sounds" of a place are not "music"
"music" is made of "sounds", not the opposite.

There is no dialectic about it, there is sophism in favor of a market of charlatans.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## cimirro

millionrainbows said:


> No, this was only one piece.


I see how much work he do in his "Europeras" and several other "works"



millionrainbows said:


> Cage was putting the role of "composer" into the hands of the listener.


wow, he must be a god... what a power... no listener was able to be a composer before Cage...



millionrainbows said:


> No, this is not true. History has proven that John Cage was very sincere in his musical endeavors. To say otherwise does not pass muster as a valid argument, historically.


Impressive! if an idiot without any acknowledgement write a book, then it is proved by history! fantastic. And then we have our hero Mr.Cage on the top.
Well, good for you if this is ok for your mind. Unfortunately I still can't find any sincere musical endeavor while reading his music. And yes, I read his music - do you read them carefully?



millionrainbows said:


> I'm sure that many Chinese Communist officials would agree with this.


Well, I'm not speaking about Chinese Communist officials, what they do in their country is their business, not mine. 
I'm not communist nor I like their system, but it seems you are a great fan of the old McCarthyism.



millionrainbows said:


> Meanwhile, we are discussing art which originated in The United States of America, where people are educated and art is made freely.


I just would like to remember you that ART exists long before the McDonalds... So no matter how free USA is... art is art, not "Happy meal" just because someone did it and decided to change its name.

Art IS made freely with or without Cage. The problem is calling 4'33'' ART when there is no art work on it - just some "ideas" without any real useful sense.



millionrainbows said:


> What fascist regime do these sorts of anti-art sentiments come from?


Please take some time to read about politics, because using the words "fascist" and "communist" to attack the same person sounds completely silly from your part - specially after reading your comments "The United States of America, where people are educated": that sounds extremely fascist and you probably even don't know it... you will find "ultra nationalism" among the fascist characteristics.

Dear Mr.Millionrainbowns, I make art, I live art, I breathe art, I work with art, I teach art, I watch, speak and listen to art, and I prove it and you have my name signed everywhere here - easy to check. Unfortunately I do not know you personally, but I really hope you also do more than only watch, listen and speak about art.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## millionrainbows

cimirro said:


> the one who plays is the player
> the one who listen is the listener
> no religion of west or east can change it.


I think you're missing what is really going on. Haven't you ever listened to the sounds around you, perhaps as night falls and you are enjoying a good cigar and a beverage, and heard them as "music" because of the way you connect them? I'm sure many have.



> ...and by the way, the "sounds" of a place are not "music"


I think they can be, as described above. It's very easy to do this exercise. In fact, Mick Underwood, in his book "The Advancing Guitarist" talks about doing mental exercises this way.



> ..."music" is made of "sounds", not the opposite.


If that is true, then any sound can be. The problem is, too often, "music" is made to be something we have a preconceived idea about. Cage's goal is to overcome these preconceptions.



> There is no dialectic about it, there is sophism in favor of a market of charlatans.


I guess I'm a "charlatan," then, because I've been buying John Cage recordings for many years.


----------



## millionrainbows

cimirro said:


> I see how much work he do in his "Europeras" and several other "works"


I have "Europera," and I enjoy it.



> Well, good for you if this is ok for your mind. Unfortunately I still can't find any sincere musical endeavor while reading his music. And yes, I read his music - do you read them carefully?


All this talk of "sincerity" is better applied to old-fashioned notions of music, not John Cage, who purposely tried to remove his "sincerity" and ego-driven ideas from his work. The result is beautiful music.



> I'm not communist nor I like their system…


You do sound like a totalitarian at times, because you are so critical of Cage, who is already enshrined by history.



> I just would like to remember you that ART exists long before the McDonalds... So no matter how free USA is... art is art, not "Happy meal" just because someone did it and decided to change its name.


That's a cheap shot, at putting down America. We Americans love our country. The only thing we need from Brazil is their women and their food and coffee.



> Art IS made freely with or without Cage. The problem is calling 4'33'' ART when there is no art work on it - just some "ideas" without any real useful sense.


Is IS art, man... 4'33" is conceptual art. Get a book about it and read it. There's a good one on Yoko Ono. What a great artist and feminist.



> Please take some time to read about politics, because using the words "fascist" and "communist" to attack the same person sounds completely silly from your part - specially after reading your comments "The United States of America, where people are educated": that sounds extremely fascist and you probably even don't know it... you will find "ultra nationalism" among the fascist characteristics.


Oh, I just meant that in America, we are open to all sorts of ideas, like gay marriage. Not like in certain other countries.



> Dear Mr.Millionrainbowns, I make art, I live art, I breathe art, I work with art, I teach art, I watch, speak and listen to art, and I prove it and you have my name signed everywhere here - easy to check. Unfortunately I do not know you personally, but I really hope you also do more than only watch, listen and speak about art….All the best...Artur Cimirro


So do I. I suppose I'm supposed to list my credentials. Not here, not now.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

millionrainbows said:


> So do I. I suppose I'm supposed to list my credentials. Not here, not now.


Yes please........................................................


----------



## cimirro

millionrainbows said:


> (...)
> I think you're missing what is really going on. Haven't you ever listened to the sounds around you, perhaps as night falls and you are enjoying a good cigar and a beverage, and heard them as "music" because of the way you connect them? I'm sure many have.
> 
> (...)
> I think they can be, as described above. It's very easy to do this exercise. In fact, Mick Underwood, in his book "The Advancing Guitarist" talks about doing mental exercises this way.
> 
> (...)
> If that is true, then any sound can be. The problem is, too often, "music" is made to be something we have a preconceived idea about. Cage's goal is to overcome these preconceptions.


Music is not something created by a God or by the Universe or by a cat or dog, it is just something made by humans as far as we can prove - this is what history proves.
And the humans who enjoyed the sounds around them, yes, they made music with these sounds - 
The concept of "music" is selections of sounds and silence made by someone. 
If you change the name "sounds" to "music", it is your problem, not a problem of the art.



millionrainbows said:


> I guess I'm a "charlatan," then, because I've been buying John Cage recordings for many years.


No, Cage is. Anyway you are free to enjoy his charlatanism, and as a professional musician I'm free to mention everywhere he was not this wonderful composer some people want the other people to believe.
He is the result of a market made by/to pseudo-intellectuals who never cared for art, that's all.



millionrainbows said:


> I have "Europera," and I enjoy it.


Good for you. Anyway it is just an opinion. 
By the way, do you have the score?



millionrainbows said:


> All this talk of "sincerity" is better applied to old-fashioned notions of music, not John Cage, who purposely tried to remove his "sincerity" and ego-driven ideas from his work. The result is beautiful music.


YOU wrote "History has proven that John Cage was very sincere in his musical endeavors"
You read some books and quotes about Cage and it seems now you know him in person - or maybe you are Cage back from the death. 
I'm not sure you know history, how do you deal with the small 3000 years before Cage?



millionrainbows said:


> The result is beautiful music.


it is just an opinion. It does not rule art. 
I'm not speaking MY opinion - 4'33'' is not art. It is a "fake work" in art.
You can call it "concept", that is all. Go back to school.



millionrainbows said:


> You do sound like a totalitarian at times, because you are so critical of Cage, who is already enshrined by history.


A lot of idiots are enshrined by Media Culture, I don't bloody care.
If you ask a doctor for a nose surgery, you can choose what you want in your nose, but you can not teach the doctor how to do your surgery. And if you decide to put your nose in your arm, I supose you will be very angry when he tells you: No it is not a possible surgery! - you probably will shout: PICASSO TOLD ME IT WAS POSSIBLE.
I study art. I'm not speaking about opinion. there is a long time people are claiming 4'33'' is art because they accepted the "given text". The problem is that 4'33'' is a "concept", which has no importance to the world. It can be funny the first time your hear about it - but it becomes a problem when people speak like fanatics without any aknowledgement (and sometimes even some musicians who never cared to think about what they are doing).

It is nice to use words like "totalitarian", I just ask you to learn them before discussing them, this is the biggest problem today with internet discussions.



millionrainbows said:


> That's a cheap shot, at putting down America. We Americans love our country. *The only thing we need from Brazil is their women* and their food and coffee.
> (...)
> There's a good one on Yoko Ono. What a great artist and feminist.


Hahaha The first sentence is very feminist! I'm sure Ms. Yoko Ono would be proud of your words.

And I'm happy that Americans love their country and I'm sad the americans deslike their woman - that's a quite weird feminism in my opinion...
I don't like my country, I do not agree with Brazilian corrupted system.
I do not need to smile silently to make all believe everything is ok around. 
I also do not agree with this hypocrisy where you must not touch these ridiculous "pseudo-gods" otherwise people will call you "nonintellectual".



millionrainbows said:


> Oh, I just meant that in America, we are open to all sorts of ideas, like gay marriage. Not like in certain other countries.


Again I'm speaking about the art of music, Not about the sexual options of the people, not about the politics, nor about racism or any other american "taboo".
If you have nothing to say about music, ok, don't try to justify your musical opinions because of your views on politics, sex, or anything else.



millionrainbows said:


> So do I. I suppose I'm supposed to list my credentials. Not here, not now.


No you don't need to give credentials if you do not want or if you are afraid of being known by someone (I'm not). But since internet is a free place to write anything you want, you must be ready to read also the things you do not want.
If you think it is good to use this sophism trying to make people believe you have any acknowledgement, ok for you. 
The problem is to try to speak, with someone who study a lot, about something you do not understand and you believe you can "rule" because your read a few best-sellers who claimed to have answers about what is the "new concept of art".
I can not tell you to think about it, because I was not born in America, and I'm not a brazilian woman...

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

and in the Beginning there was 4'33"...................................


----------



## cimirro

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> and in the Beginning there was 4'33"...................................


Yes! and 4'34 after one second... and no Cage around...

ahh, probably there is a nice conceptual book saying: And God said: WHERE IN THE HELL IS CAGE? :lol:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

If 4'33'' is art then I am the queen of England (for the record, I am not the queen of England).


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^Ask the creator....................


----------



## cimirro

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> ^Ask the creator....................


yes, please give me His number! :devil:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

cimirro said:


> yes, please give me His number! :devil:


666 433 666............................


----------



## cimirro

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> 666 433 666............................


I just call the number and I heard only a childish voice saying "seven days"


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

cimirro said:


> I just call the number and I heard only a childish voice saying "seven days"


Oops wrong number should have been 362436


----------



## Guest

cimirro said:


> Music is not something created by a God or by the Universe or by a cat or dog, it is just something made by humans as far as we can prove - this is what history proves.


This is a not-so-useful statement. First, you haven't defined "God" or "universe" and so this assertion could simply be wrong. Then you haven't proven that dogs or cats don't create music. Flutes are very ancient instruments--maybe even the earliest. What was the human trying to do when he or she blew in one? My guess is that he was seeking to imitate birds. Maybe humans elevated the concept or maybe it just naturally evolves in more complex species, but music appears to be inherent in animals and those sounds they make MEAN something to us. Perhaps in some ancient pre-human past we not only understood those as plainly as you can understand the words you're reading but, in that past, we MADE those very sounds. it has never left us. Just as animal sounds are modes of communication, so is music. If it is not, explain the phenomenon of the musical savant and the autistic musical genius, both of which use music as language. Musical savants prove that music has nothing to do with the intellect. It is something else altogether. It is not simply "art." I am a beekeeper and Arabs were and still are expert beekeepers and the wax was used for their bowed instruments. When I hear that warbling tone in Arabic music in their bowed music, it is SO obvious to me that it was borrowed from the sound of bees which I listen to intently year after year. When I mentioned this in another online forum, a stupid Muslim idiot flew into a rage and attacked me for daring to compare the glorious music of his people with a dirty, little, worthless insect. He was too stupid to know that the ancient Arabs venerated the bee (as do I). Music is animal sounds re-imagined. That doesn't mean only humans create music, it means we have a capacity to understand it at a much higher level than the other animals but it would indicate just as the presence of DNA does, that music is inherent in all life forms.



> And the humans who enjoyed the sounds around them, yes, they made music with these sounds -


What sounds?



> The concept of "music" is selections of sounds and silence made by someone.


But chirruping of a cricket or a cicada is no different. It is selections of sounds and silence. It has harmony, rhythm and an inherent need to synchronize. Choruses and orchestras are inherent in nature.















What's cool about the fireflies is that they can be stimulated by a single small blinking light and will time themselves with it. So it is very much like a conductor leading an orchestra.

But even stranger, is that it is not just living creatures. Even inanimate objects synchronize. It is an inherent property of the universe. It just naturally wants to harmonize and dance to one beat. Music is inherent in the universe.








> If you change the name "sounds" to "music", it is your problem, not a problem of the art.


It is not a problem at all except for those who choose to make it one.



> No, Cage is. Anyway you are free to enjoy his charlatanism, and as a professional musician I'm free to mention everywhere he was not this wonderful composer some people want the other people to believe.
> He is the result of a market made by/to pseudo-intellectuals who never cared for art, that's all.


I too am a professional musician (alright, semi-professional), classically trained, play several instruments and have been at it since I was 8 years old taking drum lessons (I still play drums). I have listened to a great deal of Cage and read several books on him and his ideas. I find no chicanery in him. I find instead a man who wants to recreate the moment when homo sapien sapien first _heard_ music. It surprises me that so many people have such a problem with 4'33". I would rather be more surprised had no one ever come up with the idea. What I took from it was that Cage was demonstrating that there is no such thing as silence except as an abstract concept. By listening to 4'33" of silence, he wants you to hear the universe around you because that is the source of music. He is, in a manner of speaking, bringing you closer to God or, more properly, the Great Void or Sunyata from which all things spring.

Cage was very intrigued by Zen koans and he tried to musically express them. So he wants us to hear the sound of one hand clapping. Cage was a close friend of Buddhist scholar D.T. Suzuki. He once asked him, "Sensei, what is the difference between being enlightened and not being enlightened?"

Suzuki said, "Before a man is enlightened, men seem to be men and mountains seem to be mountains. But when he studies Buddhism, everything is turned on its head. Men become mountains, mountains become men. But once he gains enlightenment, everything falls into place and men once again become men and mountains once again become mountains."

Cage shrugged and said, "So what's the difference between the first time around and the second?"

"Essential nothing," said Suzuki, "except the second time around, you're a bit taller."

Let's look at some koans and see if any apply to music or, better yet, to your conception of it:

-_Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind.
One said, "The flag moves."
The other said, "The wind moves."
They argued back and forth but could not agree.
Hui-neng, the sixth patriarch, said: "Gentlemen! It is not the flag that moves. It is not the wind that moves. It is your mind that moves."
The two monks were struck with awe._

-_What is your original face before you were born?_

-_Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"_

-_When the many are reduced to one, to what is the one reduced?_

-_One day Banzan was walking through a market. He overheard a customer say to the butcher, "Give me the best piece of meat you have."
"Everything in my shop is the best," replied the butcher. "You can not find any piece of meat that is not the best."
At these words, Banzan was enlightened._

-_One day, sensei was resting peacefully, eyes closed. A student approached and said, "Sensei, can you tell me what enlightenment is?" Sensei, eyes closed, replied, "I will answer your question when you go down to the river and swallow every drop in one gulp." The student said, "But I have already done that, sensei." Sensei, eyes still closed, replied, "Then I have already answered your question."_

-_Master [Hui-an] asked [Huai-jang], "Where are you coming from?"
Huai-jang said, "Mount Sung."
The Master said, "What sort of thing comes here like this?"
Huai-jang said, "To call it a 'thing' is to miss the mark."
The Master said, "Can it be cultivated or experienced?"
Huai-jang said, "It's not that it isn't cultivated or experienced, but rather that it isn't corrupted or defiled."
The Master said, "It's just because it isn't corrupted or defiled that it's treasured by all buddhas. You're like this. And I'm like this."_

-_Suddenly, from nothing, springs mind._

-_When the universe becomes as clear as it can be, that's often when it's hardest to tell._


----------



## cimirro

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Oops wrong number should have been 362436


I was expecting something like 666 7-13 or 4-8-15-16-23-42 
Anyway the video proves 4'10'' can be better than 4'33''...


----------



## Pugg

In this tempo we are running toward page 4'33"


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Pugg said:


> In this tempo we are running toward page 4'33"


Looks like it,from now on there needs to be a post every 4'33"

Call it a 4'33" Ring Cycle if you like


----------



## Myriadi

No idea if this has already been mentioned in these huge 4'33'' threads, but Taoism provides a more illustrative example of Cage's approach than Zen. There's a famous legend about a Tao scholar and musician from some 2000 years ago - a certain Chao in one translation - who was a formidable guqin (zither) player. The story goes that when Chao realized that his preferences for certain tones, motifs, tempi, etc. were not in accord with nature, but with his own passions only, he decided to never again touch the instrument so as to not disrupt the natural flow of things and sounds. This is exactly Cage's reasons for turning to chance, if I remember his interviews correctly. The Zhuangzi has this story referenced in one of the first chapters, and also mentions "the piping of the Earth" and "the piping of Heaven", as in, music produced without human input. A translation I found online goes:

"_...ten thousand hollows begin crying wildly. Can't you hear them, long drawn out? In the mountain forests that lash and sway, there are huge trees a hundred spans around with hollows and openings like noses, like mouths, like ears, like jugs, like cups, like mortars, like rifts, like ruts. They roar like waves, whistle like arrows, screech, gasp, cry, wail, moan, and howl, those in the lead calling out yeee!, those behind calling out yuuu! In a gentle breeze they answer faintly, but in a full gale the chorus is gigantic. And when the fierce wind has passed on, then all the hollows are empty again._"

When I listen to Tudor's recordings of _Variations I_ and _Music of Changes_, or Sultan's _Etudes Australes_, this is exactly the impression I get. Revill's biography of Cage was aptly titled "The Roaring Silence".

So anyway, that one chapter from the Zhuangzi covers the essential basics of Cage's approach to music. The difference is that while ancient Chinese philosophers had the I Ching, they never realized they could make chance-controlled music with it. They were content listening to "the piping of the Earth", their old version of 4'33''. And a few centuries later they were creating their _pezzi su una nota sola_, but that's another story.


----------



## cimirro

Victor Redseal said:


> This is a not-so-useful statement. First, you haven't defined "God" or "universe" and so this assertion could simply be wrong. Then you haven't proven that dogs or cats don't create music.


Gosh, a sensei...
No I don't need to define "God" nor "Universe", everyone able to read who do not understand what I wrote is in the wrong place.
My discussion is not about concepts of God, Universe, religion, etc.



Victor Redseal said:


> Then you haven't proven that dogs or cats don't create music.


Cats/Dogs can make music for their own pleasure without human contact? please answer "YES" or "NO"
If yes, well, please show me these dogs and cats who makes music without the human contact; 
(and please remember the "Catcerto" is made by a man!)



Victor Redseal said:


> Flutes are very ancient instruments--maybe even the earliest. What was the human trying to do when he or she blew in one? My guess is that he was seeking to imitate birds.


No doubts. And after some time he decided to make more than just the same sounds - and then the human made the "music". Music is an human "thing".
The sounds of the animals are their communication system.

I'm not against what you wrote, but you are confused with religion concepts - I'm speaking about art, not religion.
Animals made several sounds no doubts, and we are all related to sounds in a lot of ways.



Victor Redseal said:


> "Music is animal sounds re-imagined."


When you write this you are saying the opposite of what you already wrote



Victor Redseal said:


> That doesn't mean only humans create music,
> (...)
> But chirruping of a cricket or a cicada is no different. It is selections of sounds and silence. It has harmony, rhythm and an inherent need to synchronize. Choruses and orchestras are inherent in nature.


A cat does not make a sound because it is "music", "harmony", "rhythm" to him, nor a cricket does it, only humans make music because they want to listen to it.
I ask you again to prove if you know any animal who can do it. Because your theory is religious "you can not prove I do not have a God, so I have one proved"
I have never seen your "God", can you understand it? I don't need to prove something I have never seen!
So, I have never seen these musical animals playing for their own pleasure. Would you kindly show me one at least who have never been trained by an human?



Victor Redseal said:


> But even stranger, is that it is not just living creatures. Even inanimate objects synchronize.


The synchronization video is not something impressive for someone who know physics from school (and I'm from Brazil.. not an American education). And please remember that metronomes are not "part of the nature", it is a creation of a man. If you change the metronomes to cats, well, I'm afraid there will be no synchronization in any part of the universe.



Victor Redseal said:


> Music is inherent in the universe.


can I ask you how can you make the sound propagate in space?



Victor Redseal said:


> I too am a professional musician (alright, semi-professional), classically trained, play several instruments and have been at it since I was 8 years old taking drum lessons (I still play drums).


can I ask you how can you make the sound propagate in space?



Victor Redseal said:


> I have listened to a great deal of Cage and read several books on him and his ideas. I find no chicanery in him. I find instead a man who wants to recreate the moment when homo sapien sapien first heard music. It surprises me that so many people have such a problem with 4'33".


So I'm afraid he made it in a very wrong way, there were no concert halls when "homo sapiens sapiens" first heard sounds (no music yet) and I'm not sure, but the premiere of the work didn't happen in a wild jungle as far as I know... am I wrong?



Victor Redseal said:


> What I took from it was that Cage was demonstrating that there is no such thing as silence except as an abstract concept.


can I ask you how can you make the sound propagate in space?



Victor Redseal said:


> By listening to 4'33" of silence, he wants you to hear the universe around you because that is the source of music.


still sounds like "lame excuse" for a "wanna-be-art concept".



Victor Redseal said:


> He is, in a manner of speaking, bringing you closer to God or, more properly, the Great Void or Sunyata from which all things spring.


This is your faith, I'm not against it, just remember I'm free to do not believe that charlatans like Cage are able to access a God better then people who work hard.
If you believe in Buddha, Ok, If I believe in Elvis, Ok.



Victor Redseal said:


> Cage was very intrigued by Zen koans... (etc)


Ok, I'm not against Buddhism nor any religion - But I prefer speak with God when I die (if there is life after this) or when God decides to speak with me (if God decides so at some point). 
No religion and no man or woman will make me believe the true about God is in a book you can buy.
I live in the earth, each book, and each word we use is a creation by an human.
While I'm here I prefer discuss what is possible, God is not possible to prove if exists or not. So no religion please.

And one last thing, you asked me to prove things. 
Can I ask you what is proved by Suzuki? I assume he speak things based in his experience, right?
Why do you respect his experience and not mine? is it because he is a monk? Someone living decided he is better than you and me because he has no hair and decided to have a different life? or did you heard God himself saying this?
Just curious about...



Myriadi said:


> No idea if this has already been mentioned in these huge 4'33'' threads, but Taoism provides a more illustrative example of Cage's approach than Zen. (...)


Myriadi, that is a beautiful story. Very nice indeed. 
My "problem" with Cage is that he was lucky to find a lot of "lame excuses" like this to do not work, and later be called "great".
While the most people speak about their feelings, I speak about the work.
I do not use your feelings, as I do not use the feelings of someone who cry when see Justin Bieber - these feelings does not rule what art is.

I'm just saying: technically 4'33'' is not art. It is only "concept". And Cage is result of a market, not someone who made any difference to art.

All the best
Artur


----------



## Myriadi

cimirro said:


> I'm just saying: technically 4'33'' is not art. It is only "concept". And Cage is result of a market, not someone who made any difference to art.


There is no universal definition of "art" or "music". You're free to say Cage's work doesn't fit into your definitions, of course. As for the "market" comment, that's interesting. I've loved Cage's music from the very first time I've heard it, as a teenager, even if I knew nothing about how it was made. I guess my sensibilities aren't as good as those of a trained musician. But you're a professional pianist, aren't you? What do you think of your colleagues who play and record Cage? People like Sabine Liebner, Yuji Takahashi, Markus Hinterhauser, Joanna MacGregor, Margaret Leng Tan, and many others. Do you think they were all brainwashed by the media? I find that hard to believe, all of them are superb musicians who have recorded much other music with impeccable results, surely they know a thing or two about music and hold their own opinions? It's equally hard to believe record labels would enforce Cage on those performers, when it would be much more profitable to enforce something much less divisive.

As another interesting fact, I know a couple of conservatory professors who give Cage's early pieces to their beginner-to-intermediate level piano students. According to them the pieces are good for developing finger technique, and provide perfect motivation because most students adore "In a Landscape" and "Dream" when they hear them for the first time. Those are students who are raised on a Classical diet of Bach, Mozart, Chopin et al.


----------



## cimirro

Myriadi said:


> There is no universal definition of "art" or "music".


This is what the pseudo-artists want you to believe.
The conceptualists - people who do not study art because it is easier to claim "I'm a great artist" than to study - they decided that there is no universal definition...
The problem is when you try to speak seriously with these pseudo-artists about the different forms of art made during the last 300 years, Their acknowledgement is nothing more than "abstracts" from wikipedia - and the rest is a collection of quotes from wikiquotes manipulated by them to creat their "art concepts". this is not enough to make an artist.

The basic sense of art of music means the combination of "sounds and silence" - In no other moment in the history someone was so stupid to try to say it is wrong like now.
Just silence or just sound without crafting is not art.
the rest is "lame excuses".

If I decide I'm the new Pope, that is only craziness from my head.
No matter if I say "there is no universal definition of Pope".



Myriadi said:


> As for the "market" comment, that's interesting. I've loved Cage's music from the very first time I've heard it, as a teenager, even if I knew nothing about how it was made. I guess my sensibilities aren't as good as those of a trained musician.


Good, but that is your taste - I'm not speaking about anyone's taste...



Myriadi said:


> But you're a professional pianist, aren't you? What do you think of your colleagues who play and record Cage?


If they are talented, I think they are wasting time with unnecessary music. And they are free to do so. And I'm free to do not listen such recordings - because I have the scores and read them, and I already waste my time trying to find something good in there.



Myriadi said:


> People like Sabine Liebner, Yuji Takahashi, Markus Hinterhauser, Joanna MacGregor, Margaret Leng Tan, and many others.


I don't know them... sorry



Myriadi said:


> Do you think they were all brainwashed by the media?


Yes. by the "pseudo-artists media".



Myriadi said:


> I find that hard to believe, all of them are superb musicians who have recorded much other music with impeccable results, surely they know a thing or two about music and hold their own opinions?


Everyone is able to "hold own opinions". that doesn't mean these opinions are based in any acknowledgement around the history of the art.



Myriadi said:


> It's equally hard to believe record labels would enforce Cage on those performers, when it would be much more profitable to enforce something much less divisive.


Of course, you are right. Cage is not the most loved composer, so you will not find one new CD yearly by a big label with his music.
But there is a special market made by the "conceptual artists" which does not represent art nor rules it - it represents the "counterculture" which is part of the media culture - not the classical (aka "erudite") art.



Myriadi said:


> As another interesting fact, I know a couple of conservatory professors who give Cage's early pieces to their beginner-to-intermediate level piano students. According to them the pieces are good for developing finger technique, and provide perfect motivation because most students adore "In a Landscape" and "Dream" when they hear them for the first time. Those are students who are raised on a Classical diet of Bach, Mozart, Chopin et al.


Yes, and some students will be happy to study Justin Bieber too. Maybe in the future Bieber music will be the standard in every conservatoire. Anyway I do not respect such kind of institution nor such teachers. 
I don't think one needs to study Czerny or Hanon.
One can study Bartok, Hindemith, etc (or even Stockhausen, Boulez, Messiaen, etc) and find quite interesting ways to study piano.
I love modern and contemporary music. There are a lot of composers who made piano pieces which any student can enjoy easily and which are useful for student days. But Cage is not a good example.
The problem is that many people are unable to know the piano repertoire because they are always waiting for the recording market.
Ok with public doing so, of course. Anyway a musician who needs a recording to know repertoire is with a big problem - and this is the greatest part in the world now.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## mmsbls

cimirro said:


> The basic sense of art of music means the combination of "sounds and silence" - In no other moment in the history someone was so stupid to try to say it is wrong like now.
> Just silence or just sound without crafting is not art.
> the rest is "lame excuses".


We've had several threads which discussed issues related to the definition of music. Generally a clear definition which most agree to has been hard to develop. Do you have one you think is clear and would receive overwhelming agreement from composers, conductors, and musicians?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Organised and unorganised noise........................


----------



## cimirro

mmsbls said:


> We've had several threads which discussed issues related to the definition of music. Generally a clear definition which most agree to has been hard to develop. Do you have one you think is clear and would receive overwhelming agreement from composers, conductors, and musicians?


Maybe it had been hard to develop an answer because people often discuss their opinions and tastes. Not the real meaning of the things concerning its history based in a deep study on it.

Actually what I wrote (and you quoted) is an answer to your question (and it is not my opinion - it is what it is)
I would be very scared if any professional conductor, professional composer or professional musician will disagree with this.

"Art of music" (or "music" if you prefer) means the combination of sounds and silence.

These combinations are made because you studied these sounds (classical music) or because you listen too much to these sounds and use similar combinations (popular music). In the first you do what you want, and in the second you do what your luck gives you.
So this is an human act, unless someone show me an animal without any human contact doing this as I mentioned before.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese




----------



## cimirro

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


>


*... unless someone show me an animal without any human contact doing this as I mentioned before.*.
It is not the case yet...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

cimirro said:


> *... unless someone show me an animal without any human contact doing this as I mentioned before.*.
> It is not the case yet...


How about something non-animal?? and non-Human?? does that count?


----------



## cimirro

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> How about something non-animal?? and non-Human?? does that count?










... maybe


----------



## mmsbls

cimirro said:


> "Art of music" (or "music" if you prefer) means the combination of sounds and silence.


I'm rather interested in this subject and don't mean to be simply argumentative here. Isn't that definition somewhat incomplete? Isn't Cage's 4'33" a combination of sounds and silence? Isn't every spoken comment a combination of sounds and silence?

I have argued that music must involve intention on the part of the composer or performers. So music could be the intentional combination of sounds and silence, but that would still include spoken words. We had a thread here that addressed this issue and members worked towards a definition which some viewed as a bit awkward:



> Non-linguistic sounds that are not primarily communicative organized to stimulate psychologically.


Do you have thoughts on making these definitions better?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese




----------



## cimirro

mmsbls said:


> Isn't that definition somewhat incomplete?


why?



mmsbls said:


> Isn't Cage's 4'33" a combination of sounds and silence?


Boulez is a combination of sounds and silence
There is no indication in Cage's 4'33'' score mentioning it must be performed in a place where there are people speaking or making sounds.
There is no sound written by Cage, so as "composer of a silent concept" he did not made music. His "concept" can be "experienced" in space, and then... no sounds...



mmsbls said:


> Isn't every spoken comment a combination of sounds and silence?


Yes it is. And speech is also used as a musical tool in composition.



mmsbls said:


> I have argued that music must involve intention on the part of the composer or performers. So music could be the intentional combination of sounds and silence, but that would still include spoken words. We had a thread here that addressed this issue and members worked towards a definition which some viewed as a bit awkward:


What is the problem? a speech can be a musical idea you just need to use in in a musical way. How about a Fugue for a 3 people speech? 
Wasn't something like this the "idea of North" by Glenn Gould?

The use of it is normal, see the middle section of this (and I hope you can find a good translation to english of the text, so it will be better to understand the musical idea too) :







mmsbls said:


> Non-linguistic sounds that are not primarily communicative organized to stimulate psychologically.
> Do you have thoughts on making these definitions better?


Well, music not necessarily needs to "stimulate psycologically"

"Organized non-linguistic sounds and silence that are not primarily communicative." could work fine, but I still prefer my simple version.



EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


>


Have you ever heard about sonic boom?
No, not Guile's one... read this please:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasas-juno-spacecraft-enters-jupiters-magnetic-field
it is "sound", not "music", and it happens because there is something made by an human being flying in the space.

All the best
Artur


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

cimirro said:


> why?
> 
> Boulez is a combination of sounds and silence
> There is no indication in Cage's 4'33'' score mentioning it must be performed in a place where there are people speaking or making sounds.
> There is no sound written by Cage, so as "composer of a silent concept" he did not made music. His "concept" can be "experienced" in space, and then... no sounds...
> 
> Yes it is. And speech is also used as a musical tool in composition.
> 
> What is the problem? a speech can be a musical idea you just need to use in in a musical way. How about a Fugue for a 3 people speech?
> Wasn't something like this the "idea of North" by Glenn Gould?
> 
> The use of it is normal, see the middle section of this (and I hope you can find a good translation to english of the text, so it will be better to understand the musical idea too) :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, music not necessarily needs to "stimulate psycologically"
> 
> "Organized non-linguistic sounds and silence that are not primarily communicative." could work fine, but I still prefer my simple version.
> 
> Have you ever heard about sonic boom?
> No, not Guile's one... read this please:
> https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasas-juno-spacecraft-enters-jupiters-magnetic-field
> it is "sound", not "music", and it happens because there is something made by an human being flying in the space.
> 
> All the best
> Artur


I sure if you set foot on Jupiter you would hear something, if only for a nano second.................


----------



## cimirro

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I sure if you set foot on Jupiter you would hear something, if only for a nano second.................


Well, I have never been there
anyway, if I hear something, it is probably because I made a noise...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

cimirro said:


> Well, I have never been there
> anyway, if I hear something, it is probably because I made a noise...


Hopefully not inside your space suit.................


----------



## Guest

cimirro said:


> Gosh, a sensei...
> No I don't need to define "God" nor "Universe", everyone able to read who do not understand what I wrote is in the wrong place.
> My discussion is not about concepts of God, Universe, religion, etc.


Then don't bring them up in a discussion.



> Cats/Dogs can make music for their own pleasure without human contact? please answer "YES" or "NO"
> If yes, well, please show me these dogs and cats who makes music without the human contact;
> (and please remember the "Catcerto" is made by a man!)


I can't answer yes or no. And my point is--neither can you. What I said was that music may be inherent in all creatures but that humans would have a higher understanding of it. Does it inspire animals? Yes. I had a cat that recognized a certain song I would play. At the end, he would mewl as if to say he enjoyed it. Even after not playing the song in front of him for weeks, I would then play it and he would come into the room towards the end of the song and mewl at the ending. This happened consistently and he showed no interest in any other song I played. He definitely recognized it and always mewled at the end as his way of applauding. I can think of no other way to account for it. But it showed to my satisfaction that animals DO have an appreciation for music and so it must be innate in them. But their conception of music as they are capable of understanding it is below ours and so we don't think of it as music even though our music is a but distant echo of theirs but reimagined on a higher plane of understanding.





Here's a guy who reimagined the primitive music of the bees into something on a higher plane and it doesn't sound especially different than any other music.



> No doubts. And after some time he decided to make more than just the same sounds - and then the human made the "music". Music is an human "thing".
> The sounds of the animals are their communication system.


Music is also a communication system:

Providing music therapy for children with autism can be a rewarding career. "What is exciting is that music is often 'the thing' that reaches a child with autism, and connects him or her to others," states Dr. Tracy Richardson. "It is not just a way to shape or control 'behaviors' but it is a way to reach in to the essence of that child and say 'Here I am! Let's be together in the music!'"
According to Richardson, professor and director of Music Therapy at Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College, "Children with autism often have an affinity for music. A child might have a song that he sings to calm himself or perhaps he has a type of music (such as Disney songs) that he is drawn to. Because of this, music therapists have a natural and often non-threatening avenue for communication with that child. A child may sing words that she will not speak, which then is the start of communication between the child and music therapist.

http://majoringinmusic.com/music-therapy-for-children-with-autism/



> I'm not against what you wrote, but you are confused with religion concepts - I'm speaking about art, not religion.
> Animals made several sounds no doubts, and we are all related to sounds in a lot of ways.


Yeah and?

I notice with the two cats I have now that they will come into my room when I am playing something ambient or if it's some soft classical. They lay down and sleep to it. If they don't like the music, they leave the room immediately. So, again, the music relaxes them so much then when they are in another room and hear it start playing, they come in, lay down and sleep. And yes, many people listen to music to relax or sleep also. Of course, I listen to other types of music to experience other emotions also. But a cat or dog generally likes to relax and exhibit no problem doing that if the right type of music is playing. Likewise animals exhibit different sounds when they are relaxed or when they are excited or when they are angry or when they are sad.



> When you write this you are saying the opposite of what you already wrote


You can think that if you wish.



> A cat does not make a sound because it is "music", "harmony", "rhythm" to him, nor a cricket does it, only humans make music because they want to listen to it.


Of course not. They don't have the intellect to understand those concepts. But as I explained earlier, music has no connection to the intellect or severely retarded people who can't tell you how they are or tell you their last name wouldn't be able to play Beethoven or Chopin or Duke Ellington with incredible technique and proficiency. When crickets chirp in synchrony and harmony, it's not because they are thinking about synchrony and harmony, they do it because it feels right. We play and compose music for exactly the same reason--the concepts of harmony and melody and such are mere afterthoughts that help us to remember what we have created. Animals don't have any need to re-create their music precisely. They're rather like jazz musicians in that respect--every performance is improv.



> I ask you again to prove if you know any animal who can do it. Because your theory is religious "you can not prove I do not have a God, so I have one proved"


Once again, animals have no need to do that. Their music is at a lower level than ours. Perhaps they make music for recreation at times. I don't know. But neither do you.



> I have never seen your "God", can you understand it? I don't need to prove something I have never seen!


I imagine this was said to Democritus many times and perhaps to whoever first theorized that sicknesses are often caused by tiny, tiny organisms that invade our bodies. They thought it was bad air. That's where we get the word "malaria"--bad air. So they went on burning their bonfires to destroy the badness in the air and they kept on dying because they refused to believe tiny, little organisms were entering their bodies and damaging them.



> So, I have never seen these musical animals playing for their own pleasure. Would you kindly show me one at least who have never been trained by an human?






Before you say they are not playing music for their own pleasure, that's precisely what they are doing. Any beekeeper can tell you that bees take great pleasure in their work. They spend their whole day singing, even at night in their hive, they ventilate by vibrating their wings and keeping the air flowing and it is a wonderfully relaxing sound. In the summer, I often sit by my apiary with a book and listen to the bees coming and going. You can tell when they are happy and content and there is no better sound. When they are disturbed, you hear that too. They want whatever is upsetting them to go away and they know the intruder can hear them. They know they make sound.





My apiary (which I co-own with my older brother) is out in the woods near his house (I'm a city boy and have to drive way out there). I often spend the night out there with a sleeping bag. We built a nice little cabin. And my favorite time of day is the crack of dawn. As soon as the sun starts to come up--the birds go off. It's a beautiful chorus that lasts for about a half an hour. The entire woods reverberate to the birds as the rising sun floods it with light. They are greeting the sun and enjoying its warmth. They sing out of pure pleasure and nothing more.



> The synchronization video is not something impressive for someone who know physics from school (and I'm from Brazil.. not an American education). And please remember that metronomes are not "part of the nature", it is a creation of a man.


I don't know what craziness they teach in Brazil but EVERYTHING is part of nature and I mean EVERYTHING including men and metronomes. NOTHING can exist outside nature. We are enclosed in it and perhaps only escape in death but probably not even then.



> If you change the metronomes to cats, well, I'm afraid there will be no synchronization in any part of the universe.


I don't understand what that means but you certainly sound sincere about it.



> can I ask you how can you make the sound propagate in space?


Sound doesn't propagate in space. Vibration does. Sound is something that takes place in your brain when the vibrations enter into your ears. Sound doesn't exist without an observer to hear it.



> can I ask you how can you make the sound propagate in space?


Sound doesn't propagate in space. Vibration does. Sound is something that takes place in your brain when the vibrations enter into your ears. Sound doesn't exist without an observer to hear it.



> So I'm afraid he made it in a very wrong way, there were no concert halls when "homo sapiens sapiens" first heard sounds (no music yet) and I'm not sure, but the premiere of the work didn't happen in a wild jungle as far as I know... am I wrong?


Of course you're wrong. There is no greater concert hall than a jungle or rain forest. Sure you're from Brazil?



> can I ask you how can you make the sound propagate in space?


Sound doesn't propagate in space. Vibration does. Sound is something that takes place in your brain when the vibrations enter into your ears. Sound doesn't exist without an observer to hear it.



> still sounds like "lame excuse" for a "wanna-be-art concept".


There's nothing I can say to that. That's your belief and you're entitled to it.



> This is your faith, I'm not against it, just remember I'm free to do not believe that charlatans like Cage are able to access a God better then people who work hard.
> If you believe in Buddha, Ok, If I believe in Elvis, Ok.


I am not a Buddhist as anyone here can tell you. I have never preached Buddhism here to anybody. I bring it up only because Cage was a Zen practitioner and you can't understand his music without an understanding of Zen. If he was a Sufi, we'd be talking about that instead.



> Ok, I'm not against Buddhism nor any religion - But I prefer speak with God when I die (if there is life after this) or when God decides to speak with me (if God decides so at some point).
> No religion and no man or woman will make me believe the true about God is in a book you can buy.
> I live in the earth, each book, and each word we use is a creation by an human.
> While I'm here I prefer discuss what is possible, God is not possible to prove if exists or not. So no religion please.


Then we can't have this discussion because Cage was a Zen practitioner and he used Zen to write his music. We HAVE to discuss Zen ideas if we're going to discuss Cage or there is no point.



> And one last thing, you asked me to prove things.


I asked you rhetorically. You can can't prove anything you've asserted because you are making dogmatic statements of what animals think. We don't know enough about animals to say these things. True, I too am being dogmatic but it's based on my own experiences that point to the idea that music is inherent in all creatures. The more complex the creature, the more complex the music that creature produces.



> Can I ask you what is proved by Suzuki? I assume he speak things based in his experience, right?


Friend, I don't know. I've never met him and I am not a Buddhist of any type. I only know what I read.



> Why do you respect his experience and not mine?


I don't know what either of you experiences and i don't care. I know what mine are. Experiences are first person only. Your experiences cannot be mine. I can only go by what I know or think I know not what you know or think you know.



> is it because he is a monk?


Is he a monk?



> Someone living decided he is better than you and me because he has no hair and decided to have a different life? or did you heard God himself saying this?
> Just curious about...


I don't anything about Mr. Suzuki other than he was a Zen sensei that taught John Cage. I like some of his ideas. I'm sure he had ideas I wouldn't like--I don't know. I guess I need to clear this up--I am a hardcore atheist. I have no belief in religions. The only thing sacred to me is the music that you could say "touches my soul." The rest I discard as so much trash. We all have different trash. Cage is not among my trash. His ideas and music are valuable to me. His music is a koan. 4'33" is not a piece of music anymore than a koan is a detailed rational explanation. A koan is designed to give the one who hears it a flash of illumination which does not occur in a rational way. So Cage created a musical koan which is designed to cause that flash in those who are attuned to it. To everyone else, it's pretentious garbage. And that flash having been attained cannot be communicated to anyone else--it is necessarily first person only.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Much ado about (4'33'' of) nothing.


----------



## cimirro

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Much ado about (4'33'' of) nothing.


Shakespeare already know it...
Well, here I already have part of my future book against Cage :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Keep going guys I'm waiting for the longest post of all time.......................


----------



## cimirro

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Keep going guys I'm waiting for the longest post of all time.......................


i'll try very hard! I'll call it "Epilogue"


----------



## Pugg

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Much ado about (4'33'' of) nothing.


THE very best post so fare.


----------



## Haydn70

TresPicos said:


> It always amazes me how people cannot see the conceptual importance of 4'33'', or Duchamp's Fountain, for that matter. You may ridicule them all you want, but you're only revealing your own ignorance.


It always amazes me that some people can take 4'33" seriously from any angle and on any level.


----------



## Nereffid

ArsMusica said:


> It always amazes me that some people can take 4'33" seriously from any angle and on any level.


Seriously enough to revive a thread that ended 15 months ago?


----------



## Haydn70

Nereffid said:


> Seriously enough to revive a thread that ended 15 months ago?


Well I wasn't here 15 months ago. I didn't realize there was some type of time limit on responding. I hope my posting didn't put you out.


----------



## Nereffid

ArsMusica said:


> Well I wasn't here 15 months ago. I didn't realize there was some type of time limit on responding. I hope my posting didn't put you out.


Not at all! :tiphat: But if you don't take an idea seriously, why draw attention to it?


----------



## Guest

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I sure if you set foot on Jupiter


Come, come, surely _everyone_ knows that Jupiter is a gas giant and so lacks a well-defined solid surface.


----------



## fluteman

ArsMusica said:


> It always amazes me that some people can take 4'33" seriously from any angle and on any level.


John Cage was a real composer who wrote very good music, but he was also a provocateur and conceptual artist who did some things, to put it colloquially, just to pull your chain. That is, provoke you (the audience). That is, make you reconsider your assumptions about the act of performance, or at least think about them. In this case, to think about silence, and notice that it really isn't that silent. That so many are still discussing it so much so many years later only shows that he succeeded, no doubt beyond his wildest dreams.
I wouldn't have thought there was all that much to it, but the length of this thread indicates otherwise.


----------



## millionrainbows

we all need to quit thinking about John Cage so much. That's co-dependent. You need to focus on your own experience of music.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ So think outside the Cage you mean


----------



## Capeditiea

I really think this needs to be up to 433 pages then closed


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Capeditiea said:


> I really think this needs to be up to 433 pages then closed


So only 300 to go to the magic 433 pages, easy


----------



## Capeditiea

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> So only 300 to go to the magic 433 pages, easy


we got this.


----------



## Nereffid

Maybe if one person takes it upon themselves to repeatedly post no interesting thoughts on the subject, it would save all the others from having to post no interesting thoughts.


----------



## Room2201974

Nereffid said:


> Maybe if one person takes it upon themselves to repeatedly post no interesting thoughts on the subject, it would save all the others from having to post no interesting thoughts.


Wait, wait! That's not silence I hear. Nope, it's the unmistakable sound of a TC challenge. Can we go 4500 posts saying something interesting about 4'33"? Or course, we would spend 2000 posts arguing about what we mean by the concept of interesting thoughts.

I should think we would count our compositional powers cheaply if 4500 theme and variations seem out of reach!


----------



## Thomyum2

I haven't read all 133 pages of this thread so don't know if this has been brought up before or not, but thought I'd throw it out there. I see 4'33" as kind of Charles Ives' _The Unanswered Question_ on steroids, if you will, music distilled to its ultimate essence.

As a musician, I had always considered _The Unanswered Question_ a bit of a joke or concept piece too, but was stunned recently when I played it for a friend who had no formal musical training and didn't know the background or common narrative of what the piece is 'about' and he reacted in a very unexpected way, describing it as very moving and as a sort of 'requiem for the dead'. Which struck me because I realized in a new way that a lot of what you hear in a piece of music is what you bring to it. 4'33" is no exception, in fact really just the inevitable next step after _The Unanswered Question_.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Thomyum2 said:


> ...a lot of what you hear in a piece of music is what you bring to it.


Mais oui. Just so.


----------



## Capeditiea

I have yet to hear 4:33 in full...


----------



## Guest

TurnaboutVox said:


> Mais oui. Just so.


Especially those with boiled sweets in rustly wrappers.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I bet fewer people cough at a performance of 4'33" than at a Bruckner concert. That John Cage was onto something.


----------



## Biffo

eugeneonagain said:


> I bet fewer people cough at a performance of 4'33" than at a Bruckner concert. That John Cage was onto something.


I wouldn't be too sure of that, dedicated coughers have their cues marked in the score and practice for weeks in advance.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

eugeneonagain said:


> I bet fewer people cough at a performance of 4'33" than at a Bruckner concert. That John Cage was onto something.


And there would be fewer people at the concert of 4'33' than at a concert of Bruckner's.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Johnnie Burgess said:


> And there would be fewer people at the concert of 4'33' than at a concert of Bruckner's.


Fewer old, ill people at any rate.


----------



## fluteman

cimirro said:


> Just silence or just sound without crafting is not art.
> the rest is "lame excuses".


Wouldn't you think, Mr. Cimirro, that Mr. Cage was well aware of that? Have you read any of the books written by or about him, or his essays, lectures or interviews? Have you heard any of his music that isn't silent?
As I said above, Mr. Cage was not just a composer, he was a provocateur. He wants you to rethink some of your basic assumptions about art. And 4'33" does have at least one element of craft: duration. So you can't dismiss it quite that easily. Think it over. That's all he wanted from you.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Johnnie Burgess said:


> And there would be fewer people at the concert of 4'33' than at a concert of Bruckner's.


I don't know, you know in this fast paced modern world where people barely have time to Tweet. 4'33" is just the classical music experience they are looking for - why, they can tell there friends that they attended a classical musical recital last night and still have plenty of time to do what ever hipsters and Yuppies do................... and still be able to watch some TV


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> As I said above, Mr. Cage was not just a composer, he was a provocateur. He wants you to rethink some of your basic assumptions about art. And 4'33" does have at least one element of craft: duration. So you can't dismiss it quite that easily.


It would challenge more basic assumptions if it had no duration.


----------



## ahinton

Thomyum2 said:


> I see 4'33" as kind of Charles Ives' _The Unanswered Question_ on steroids, if you will


Steroids can sometimes cause unpleasant and unwelcome side effects.


----------



## ahinton

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I don't know, you know in this fast paced modern world where people barely have time to Tweet.


There's at least one person whom one might well wish would "barely have time to Tweet", but that's another story...


----------



## Room2201974

Johnnie Burgess said:


> And there would be fewer people at the concert of 4'33' than at a concert of Bruckner's.


I believe I'm historically correct in saying that there have been fuhrer people at Bruckner concerts than Cage's.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> It would challenge more basic assumptions if it had no duration.


If it had no duration, it would still be going on now. And unfortunately, I have to get to work this morning.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> If it had no duration, it would still be going on now.


I suspect that's a profound paradox which will require all the thought I will not give it.


----------



## Thomyum2

fluteman said:


> If it had no duration, it would still be going on now.


Interesting commentary on this idea in the Wikipedia entry for 4'33" (the full article is worth a read):

_According to Cage, duration is the essential building block of all of music. This distinction is motivated by the fact that duration is the only element shared by both silence and sound. As a result, the underlying structure of any musical piece consists of an organized sequence of "time buckets".[29] They could be filled with either sounds, silence or noise; where neither of these elements is absolutely necessary for completeness. In the spirit of his teacher Schoenberg, Cage managed to emancipate the silence and the noise to make it an acceptable or perhaps even integral part of his music composition. 4′33″ serves as a radical and extreme illustration of this concept, asking that if the time buckets are the only necessary parts of the musical composition, then what stops the composer from filling them with no intentional sounds?_


----------



## Woodduck

Thomyum2 said:


> Interesting commentary on this idea in the Wikipedia entry for 4'33" (the full article is worth a read):
> 
> _According to Cage, duration is the essential building block of all of music. This distinction is motivated by the fact that duration is the only element shared by both silence and sound. As a result, the underlying structure of any musical piece consists of an organized sequence of "time buckets".[29] They could be filled with either sounds, silence or noise; where neither of these elements is absolutely necessary for completeness. In the spirit of his teacher Schoenberg, Cage managed to emancipate the silence and the noise to make it an acceptable or perhaps even integral part of his music composition. 4′33″ serves as a radical and extreme illustration of this concept, asking that if the time buckets are the only necessary parts of the musical composition, then what stops the composer from filling them with no intentional sounds?_


Jeez, what a load of...


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I suspect that's a profound paradox which will require all the thought I will not give it.


I meant no _specific, finite_ duration, of course. But your point is still a good one.


----------



## Room2201974

I've always thought there was a real musical world application to the concept of silence and _4'33"_. As a young comp student decades ago I was familiar with _Silence_ and 4'33". But I didn't "grok" it in its entirety until I learned the Segovia Method. Named for the legendary musician who pretty much single handedly brought the classical guitar into the concert hall, the Segovia Method has at its core some very important musical concepts. Through the constant repetition of preparation, attack and release, the player:

1. Plucks the string to create the note
2. Controls that attack to produce quality tone 
3. Seeks to control the *silence* between the notes (once a string is set in motion it continues to ring until decay, or until the player stops it - preparation.)

In fact, the are no great classical players who do not control the silence between the notes. Playing polyphony properly on the instrument is impossible without doing so. So is tremolo.

Before the music begins there is silence. When a piece of music stops there is silence. But also during the music there are silences. And the silences during the music are every bit as important as the notes played. That's the concept that Cage and the Segovia Method taught me. YMMV!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Maybe Silence with interspersed with random audience sounds to a drum machine backbeat could be the next big thing.

You know hooked on 4'33"


----------



## Capeditiea

On a philosophical outlook of 4:33 

one could imagine the beauty of anticipation. where the performers could simply almost play causing an edge of your seat performance which then bursts into Cage's ASLSP. Which would be an extraordinary second movement to the performance... later, much later... Twenty Three. 
This is when the performance gets popping, which finally we get to HPSCHD.


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky

Late to this interesting thread. I have a question for you to help sort this 4 33 thing out. I'm a composer too, though if I told you my real name you wouldn't recognize it since I'm not famous or even known as a composer, but that's beside the point. I too have composed a piece called 5'44". Much like Cage's piece I mean to draw attention to silence as an element of music. My work though has an extra movement. 

Now answer me this: I'm thinking of putting on a debut concert of my composition. The concert ticket will cost say $75. Hopefully it will be performed by a prominent symphony orchestra. No other pieces will be performed other than, following mine, they'll perform Cages. Would you attend?


----------



## Art Rock

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> Late to this interesting thread. I have a question for you to help sort this 4 33 thing out. I'm a composer too, though if I told you my real name you wouldn't recognize it since I'm not famous or even known as a composer, but that's beside the point. I too have composed a piece called 5'44". Much like Cage's piece I mean to draw attention to silence as an element of music. My work though has an extra movement.
> 
> Now answer me this: I'm thinking of putting on a debut concert of my composition. The concert ticket will cost say $75. Hopefully it will be performed by a prominent symphony orchestra. No other pieces will be performed other than, following mine, they'll perform Cages. Would you attend?


I'm sure the lawyers of the Cage estate would attend and sue. They have done so before (Cage versus Batt).


----------



## Capeditiea

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> Late to this interesting thread. I have a question for you to help sort this 4 33 thing out. I'm a composer too, though if I told you my real name you wouldn't recognize it since I'm not famous or even known as a composer, but that's beside the point. I too have composed a piece called 5'44". Much like Cage's piece I mean to draw attention to silence as an element of music. My work though has an extra movement.
> 
> Now answer me this: I'm thinking of putting on a debut concert of my composition. The concert ticket will cost say $75. Hopefully it will be performed by a prominent symphony orchestra. No other pieces will be performed other than, following mine, they'll perform Cages. Would you attend?


I probably would. I mean our local concert hall (which has a group 2 orchestra.) have five levels of cost. (75USD is the middle or upper mid level seating.) so i would probably go if this was the case. (the concert hall is big here... if i remember correctly it can hold 2000 folk. i shall look it up... hold on... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha_Symphony_Orchestra (although they don't tell us the amount of folk...(edited: they do say 2005 seat in the Holland Performing Arts Center) they usually are at the local concert hall. i was trying to get to the official site... but my data is low and cannot effectively look it up...)


----------



## Capeditiea

Capeditiea said:


> I probably would. I mean our local concert hall (which has a group 2 orchestra.) have five levels of cost. (75USD is the middle or upper mid level seating.) so i would probably go if this was the case. (the concert hall is big here... if i remember correctly it can hold 2000 folk. i shall look it up... hold on... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha_Symphony_Orchestra (although they don't tell us the amount of folk... they usually are at the local concert hall. i was trying to get to the official site... but my data is low and cannot effectively look it up...)


I mean i am sure they would play my first symphony when i write the official first symphony... Op. 13, but studying is priority for me currently.


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky

Art Rock said:


> I'm sure the lawyers of the Cage estate would attend and sue. They have done so before (Cage versus Batt).


Ok but would you?


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky

Capeditiea said:


> I probably would. I mean our local concert hall (which has a group 2 orchestra.) have five levels of cost. (75USD is the middle or upper mid level seating.) so i would probably go if this was the case. (the concert hall is big here... if i remember correctly it can hold 2000 folk. i shall look it up... hold on... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha_Symphony_Orchestra (although they don't tell us the amount of folk...(edited: they do say 2005 seat in the Holland Performing Arts Center) they usually are at the local concert hall. i was trying to get to the official site... but my data is low and cannot effectively look it up...)


Ok, disregarding the cost, which isn't the point of the question, would you attend?


----------



## KenOC

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> Ok, disregarding the cost, which isn't the point of the question, would you attend?


Let me respond. I generally attend concerts of (a) music that (b) I want to hear. In the case of 4'33", the first is a falsity and the second an impossibility.

Since you lack even a famous name, the likelihood of my attending your concert is necessarily somewhat less than Cage's, which is zero.


----------



## Woodduck

Art Rock said:


> I'm sure the lawyers of the Cage estate would attend and sue. They have done so before (Cage versus Batt).


And well they should. If there's a storm during the performance of your piece, you'll be stealing Cage's thunder.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> And well they should. If there's a storm during the performance of your piece, you'll be stealing Cage's thunder.


OK, I think you may be getting a little too smug and comfortable here, Wagneroperaman. Let's check out what might happen at 4'34":


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> OK, I think you may be getting a little too smug and comfortable here, Wagneroperaman. Let's check out what might happen at 4'34":


A charming montage.

Cage's quote about returning all the operas to Europe brings to mind Boulez saying he wanted to burn all the opera houses to the ground. They're probably either comforting each other in their disappointment or laughing about how seriously they were taken.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I'll offer to bootleg the concert and sell the tapes at an enormous amount


----------



## Guest

Art Rock said:


> I'm sure the lawyers of the Cage estate would attend and sue. They have done so before (Cage versus Batt).


They didn't. The controversy was a spoof.


----------



## Larkenfield

John wrote numerous soundworks before he ever came up with the surprise of 4:33 - he had artistic leverage as a composer to try it - and it wasn't the focus of attention for an entire concert or recital. So it's already been done with all the controversy, perhaps because people can't sit still for that brief length of time and they angrily blame him for it. Anyone who tries to do something similar is likely to suffer by comparison and damage their reputation as a serious composer. One has to get in the front door of any decent symphony orchestra by actually writing something of merit, and even with that, it's usually impossible "not" to be heard performing the silence of something that reminds others of 4:33. There is an infinite number of ways that silence can be incorporated into a composition and it's really an indispensable part of music because it's the background to all music, only rarely if ever fully acknowledged except by someone like John Cage. It was a huge acknowledgment that some still do not accept or understand because they haven't considered the role of silence in music, ever, while others are consciously listening for it. _"Music is the wine that fills the cup of silence."_


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> A charming montage.
> 
> Cage's quote about returning all the operas to Europe brings to mind Boulez saying he wanted to burn all the opera houses to the ground. They're probably either comforting each other in their disappointment or laughing about how seriously they were taken.


Well, according to operabase, Cage is 31st among American composers and 325th out of all composers worldwide in opera performances this season. (Verdi leads all composers, Bernstein is the leading American and 39th overall.) And that's with no help from you, KenOC, or a number of other posters here. So I'm betting Cage, at least, is laughing.


----------



## KenOC

fluteman said:


> Well, according to operabase, Cage is 31st among American composers and 325th out of all composers worldwide in opera performances this season. (Verdi leads all composers, Bernstein is the leading American and 39th overall.) And that's with no help from you, KenOC, or a number of other posters here. So I'm betting Cage, at least, is laughing.


Hmmm... I can't even _name _31 American opera composers!

Somehow that reminds me of the supposed Soviet reporting of a Soviet-American two-man foot race. The Soviet runner came in second, the American second to last...


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

fluteman said:


> Well, according to operabase, Cage is 31st among American composers and 325th out of all composers worldwide in opera performances this season. (Verdi leads all composers, Bernstein is the leading American and 39th overall.) And that's with no help from you, KenOC, or a number of other posters here. So I'm betting Cage, at least, is laughing.


Could you list the other 29 who beat Cage? And how many Americans were behind Cage?


----------



## mmsbls

Go to Operabase opera statistics. Scroll down to Composers and select United States from the drop down menu that says "World". Finally select "Top 50". You can read off those above and below Cage.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

mmsbls said:


> Go to Operabase opera statistics. Scroll down to Composers and select United States from the drop down menu that says "World". Finally select "Top 50". You can read off those above and below Cage.


Thanks, found the list and have not heard of over half of the one's who ranked over Cage. Nice to see a lot of them are still living.


----------



## fluteman

KenOC said:


> Hmmm... I can't even _name _31 American opera composers!
> 
> Somehow that reminds me of the supposed Soviet reporting of a Soviet-American two-man foot race. The Soviet runner came in second, the American second to last...


And yet, most of the top 30 are well-known, not necessarily as composers of opera primarily. I wonder if Cage considered himself an opera composer at all.


----------



## KenOC

Just to note that Cage edged Gordon Getty in the opera standings. That is praiseworthy indeed.

However, he is edged in turn by luminaries such as Czernowin and Hubay.


----------



## Woodduck

Who knew Cage wrote an opera? Is that the one where the cast stands silent onstage for four hours and thirty-three minutes and it's all over when the fat lady doesn't sing?


----------



## Larkenfield

John Cage's first opera, written at the age of 75, was "Europera," the first of five Europeras. I would like to have seen it in Frankfurt where it was a big success: https://mobile.nytimes.com/1988/07/10/arts/music-john-cage-s-first-opera-written-by-the-numbers.html



> The Frankfurt performances were such a success that theaters around the world have asked to restage it. Mr. Cage's music publisher, Don Gillespie, considers it the ''quintessential Cagean piece.'' And ''Europera'' has already inspired critical literature. [unquote]


----------



## JosefinaHW

Woodduck said:


> A charming montage.
> 
> Cage's quote about returning all the operas to Europe brings to mind Boulez saying he wanted to burn all the opera houses to the ground. They're probably either comforting each other in their disappointment or laughing about how seriously they were taken.


Why did Boulez want to burn all the opera houses?


----------



## Woodduck

JosefinaHW said:


> Why did Boulez want to burn all the opera houses?


It was a metaphorical way of saying that the culture of the past needed to be obliterated so that people could accept the necessity of serialism. Was he serious? Maybe it was like the Trump supporter who said that he should be taken seriously but not literally. Of course one has the option of doing the reverse. Nobody cares now (about what Boulez said, I mean).


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> It was a metaphorical way of saying that the culture of the past needed to be obliterated so that people could accept the necessity of serialism.


The truth is more prosaic. Boulez had taken out sizable fire insurance policies on those opera houses naming himself as beneficiary.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ Ah, did they use that cladding again?


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky

Hmmm, I guess the point of my question / musical thought experiment was missed. My point was, it's easy to SAY Cage's piece is something. But what if you actually had to do more than just talk about it? In other words, if you had to pay to go to a concert where that's all that was being played (plus my fictional work which was just to spice things up a bit and make it a concert). So if you had to get dressed, travel to the concert hall, wait for the piece to begin, pay the ticket price of course, etc. I.e. you had to get some skin in the game, not just talk. My guess is most people would NOT do this for a concert of pieces like Cage's, all silence.


----------



## Larkenfield

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> Hmmm, I guess the point of my question / musical thought experiment was missed. My point was, it's easy to SAY Cage's piece is something. But what if you actually had to do more than just talk about it? In other words, if you had to pay to go to a concert where that's all that was being played (plus my fictional work which was just to spice things up a bit and make it a concert). So if you had to get dressed, travel to the concert hall, wait for the piece to begin, pay the ticket price of course, etc. I.e. you had to get some skin in the game, not just talk. My guess is most people would NOT do this for a concert of pieces like Cage's, all silence.


Cage's work has never been performed within the context you described, and really, you telegraphed way in advance where you were headed with your proposed concert for $75 of an unknown composer of one work only, lasting about 5 minutes of silence, and it obviously wasn't going to be complementary to John Cage.


----------



## fluteman

> The Frankfurt performances were such a success that theaters around the world have asked to restage it. Mr. Cage's music publisher, Don Gillespie, considers it the ''quintessential Cagean piece.'' And ''Europera'' has already inspired critical literature. [unquote]





Larkenfield said:


> Cage's work has never been performed within the context you described, and really, you telegraphed way in advance where you were headed with your proposed concert for $75 of an unknown composer of one work only, lasting about 5 minutes, and it obviously wasn't going to be complementary to the composer.


Yes, I already posted a link to that video about a German production of Europera 1&2 prior to making my cheeky comment about the rankings in operabase. Naughty me, the latter was mainly a jape at many here who seem excessively concerned with statistics and rankings, a couple of whom have obediently risen to the bait.
IIRC, the actual performance of 4'33", or the first one at any rate, took place circa 1952 at a summer music festival in bucolic upstate New York, so the silence would be taken up not only by audience noises but by birds twittering, tree branches rustling in the breeze, and other sounds of nature. I don't know if there was thunder, as Woodduck suggests.


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky

Larkenfield said:


> Cage's work has never been performed within the context you described, and really, you telegraphed way in advance where you were headed with your proposed concert for $75 of an unknown composer of one work only, lasting about 5 minutes, and it obviously wasn't going to be complementary to the composer.


I guess I didn't pose my musical thought experiment correctly. My fictional composition just muddied the thing. So did the cost part. And I wasn't actually telegraphing anything, was just interested in seeing how folks would respond. From experience in other non-music forums I know talk is cheap about so many things. So when you add in some kind of real context, the "skin in the game", it often brings out people's true opinions. Oh well, experiment over.


----------



## Nereffid

I wouldn't travel more than a few hundred yards or pay more than a few cents if all I was getting for the trouble was 5 minutes of music, regardless of who the composer was or what the music was.

I will say that if there were a full program of music that mostly appealed to me, then the addition of _4' 33"_ would make the program a little more appealing, because I'm curious to experience it in a concert setting.

A slightly longer "version" composed by someone else? Just sounds like messing, and I see no reason to support it. "Here's my Symphony in C minor. It's Beethoven's 5th but I've added five extra chords at the end. Aren't I clever!"


----------



## Norman Gunston

I want to hear the Wagnerian ring cycle version of 4' 33"


----------



## eugeneonagain

It may interest some readers of this thread to know that prior to Cage's infamous opus (33 years in fact) Erwin Schulhoff (who sadly perished in a Nazi camp in 1942) included a piece in his _Fünf Pittoresken_ of 1919 - In Futurum - which consists entirely of rests, with a duration of about 1 minute 30 seconds. It was a Dadaist work.

Here is a performance. Note that the 'music' is notated rhythmically and the tempo indication 'zeitmaß zeitlos' or 'Timeless tempo'. The piece should start at 8:08 if you click on the hyperlink version:











So our John isn't so original after all.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ Nice, another composer to add to my list of favourites and what a 3rd movement.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> It may interest some readers of this thread to know that prior to Cage's infamous opus (33 years in fact) Erwin Schulhoff (who sadly perished in a Nazi camp in 1942) included a piece in his _Fünf Pittoresken_ of 1919 - In Futurum - which consists entirely of rests, with a duration of about 1 minute 30 seconds... So our John isn't so original after all.


There are actually quite a few pre-Cage pieces of "silent music" going back to "Alphonse Allais's 1897 _Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man_, consisting of twenty-four blank measures."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″#Precursors

The idea started out as a joke and, like most jokes, grows less funny as it's repeated more often.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ A joke repeated is a joke shared


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> There are actually quite a few pre-Cage pieces of "silent music" going back to "Alphonse Allais's 1897 _Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man_, consisting of twenty-four blank measures."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″#Precursors
> 
> The idea started out as a joke and, like most jokes, grows less funny as it's repeated more often.


I didn't know about the Allais. Even though Cage wasn't original in using the silence, I still believe (as that Wiki link says) that his intention in his piece is original and not meant to be merely a joke.

You're right though, after Cage, and the infamy of 4'33", it really wouldn't work now if someone were to do it. Not unless it had some sort of twist.


----------



## Room2201974

"It is better to make a piece of music than perform one, better to perform one than to listen to one, better to listen to one than misuse it as a means of distraction, entertainment, or acquisition of "culture." ~ JC


----------



## znapschatz

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> ^ A joke repeated is a joke shared


..............!


----------



## Larkenfield

It would be easy to do a twist on 4:33. Have the audience be the silence and the musicians on stage get to squirm, wheeze, and cough. Turn the tables.


----------



## RogerExcellent

Could you cough in a rhythmic manner during a 4'33" performance


----------



## Ivan Smith

I never knew that 4'33 was disparaged, it's one of the most inspiring 'pieces' I know. It _changed_ the way I see the world - and that I can't say much for anything else!


----------



## RogerExcellent

and I've just heard it for the first time


----------



## Ivan Smith

Newbies hey, I've got the box set


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> It may interest some readers of this thread to know that prior to Cage's infamous opus (33 years in fact) Erwin Schulhoff (who sadly perished in a Nazi camp in 1942) included a piece in his _Fünf Pittoresken_ of 1919 - In Futurum - which consists entirely of rests, with a duration of about 1 minute 30 seconds. It was a Dadaist work.
> 
> Here is a performance. Note that the 'music' is notated rhythmically and the tempo indication 'zeitmaß zeitlos' or 'Timeless tempo'. The piece should start at 8:08 if you click on the hyperlink version:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So our John isn't so original after all.


I mentioned Schulhoff in a "Wagner and the Nazis" thread. It's funny that he reappears in a discussion of yet another of the "permanent running topics" here, 4'33". For the Triple Crown, we need to discuss him in the context of how Schoenberg and/or atonalism ruined 20th century music. The problem is, his music generally isn't atonal, and imo more similar to Bartok's than Schoenberg's. But he does seem to have shared John Cage's offbeat sense of humor and taste for absurdity, and he was pretty much forgotten after he was murdered by the Nazis. So, two out of three.


----------



## Cosmic Cowboy

I give silent thanks every day to John Cage for having written 4'33"...


----------



## Room2201974

Ivan Smith said:


> I never knew that 4'33 was disparaged, it's one of the most inspiring 'pieces' I know. It _changed_ the way I see the world - and that I can't say much for anything else!


Post # 2006 in this thread!


----------



## millionrainbows

Cage broke the old paradigm of music, and showed that one could be quite productive using new approaches. 4'33" was just one tiny aspect of what he accomplished. This is really where "music" becomes sound, a material to be used artistically. Of course, things get confused because the old paradigm devices (instruments, musicians) are used to accomplish this new paradigm. A lot of resentment resulted because the old devices were still used, and this seemed like torture to the old-paradigmers. Why couldn't he have just taken his sheet metal and gone off to play in the corner? I suppose this is because he was somewhat of a mischievous 'upsetter.' He wanted to shake things up, but this was not his sole purpose by any means.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> Cage broke the old paradigm of music, and showed that one could be quite productive using new approaches. 4'33" was just one tiny aspect of what he accomplished. This is really where "music" becomes sound, a material to be used artistically. Of course, things get confused because the old paradigm devices (instruments, musicians) are used to accomplish this new paradigm. A lot of resentment resulted because the old devices were still used, and this seemed like torture to the old-paradigmers. Why couldn't he have just taken his sheet metal and gone off to play in the corner? I suppose this is because he was somewhat of a mischievous 'upsetter.' He wanted to shake things up, but this was not his sole purpose by any means.


Interesting comment. In another thread, I mentioned that one problem with some progressive contemporary music is not only that it is performed by musicians with instruments, but by musicians in black ties or gowns playing traditional acoustic instruments of the 19th century symphony orchestra on a stage in a traditional concert hall. This context is almost like a cathedral for many listeners, and many can actually be offended by the sacrilegious new sounds in that setting. I've noted before that many genres of contemporary music, including atonal genres, are accepted without question when heard on the internet or TV or in the movie theater.


----------



## Dan Ante

fluteman said:


> I've noted before that many genres of contemporary music, including* atonal genres*, are accepted without question when heard on the internet or TV or in the movie theater.


Not by me or my musical friends!


----------



## fluteman

Dan Ante said:


> Not by me or my musical friends!


Thanks for that comment. Me and my musical friends disagree with all 827 of your posts here at talkclassical. Interestingly, my friends who hate all music and/or have no musical ability whatsoever agree with your posts! I'm glad to have been able to help you out with this constructive and worthwhile post.


----------



## Dan Ante

fluteman said:


> Thanks for that comment. Me and my musical friends disagree with all 827 of your posts here at talkclassical. Interestingly, my friends who hate all music and/or have no musical ability whatsoever agree with your posts! I'm glad to have been able to help you out with this constructive and worthwhile post.


Steady on fluteman I was just pointing out a slight error in your assumption


----------



## fluteman

Dan Ante said:


> Steady on fluteman I was just pointing out a slight error in your assumption


I never made any assumption about you and your musical friends. And you are always free to disagree with anything I say here (obviously!). The point I was making was that simply saying "I disagree" adds nothing to the discussion. This is my biggest pet peeve with this or any other internet forum. If you are familiar with Monty Python's Flying Circus, perhaps you know The Argument Sketch, one of their best bits. One of the lines there is something like, "An argument is more than just simple contradiction!" with the rejoinder, "No it isn't!"
As for the long standing pervasiveness of contemporary music in TV and movies (at least in the US), including atonal and minimalist, I've discussed that in other threads. I'm always amused that many who respond say that such music somehow doesn't count, or even that it isn't really music but rather "sound effects". I suppose this is because it isn't performed at Carnegie Hall, the Concertgebouw, La Scala or the Musikverein Wien or another of the sacred music cathedrals by musicians wearing black costumes and playing 19th century acoustic instruments.


----------



## st Omer

The reason 4'33" is disparaged as music is because it is not music. It may qualify as a religious experience if somebody takes 4'33" to meditate. This meditation could be done at a piano, with a harmonica in your mouth, or a whistle in your nose but it still wouldn't be music. Listening to the sounds of nature and meditating can be a worthwhile experience but putting a title to it and a gimmick of sitting at a piano, or in front of an orchestra, doesn't make it a musical composition. I wouldn't expect 4'33" of meditation to reveal any deep secrets of the universe but it may have a similar effect as a yoga session, meditation, or a prayer all of which are beneficial.


----------



## fluteman

st Omer said:


> The reason 4'33" is disparaged as music is because it is not music. It may qualify as a religious experience if somebody takes 4'33" to meditate. This meditation could be done at a piano, with a harmonica in your mouth, or a whistle in your nose but it still wouldn't be music. Listening to the sounds of nature and meditating can be a worthwhile experience but putting a title to it and a gimmick of sitting at a piano, or in front of an orchestra, doesn't make it a musical composition. I wouldn't expect 4'33" of meditation to reveal any deep secrets of the universe but it may have a similar effect as a yoga session, meditation, or a prayer all of which are beneficial.


OK, but what does it matter whether something is or is not music? That's a definition question, and why people here are so obsessed with definitions (and rankings) I'll never know. To me, your far more interesting point concerns the "gimmick" about someone sitting in front of a concert grand piano or standing in front of a full symphony orchestra. Isn't there always an element of gimmickry, or at least pageantry, in someone wearing black tie and tails, standing on the stage in the grand Carnegie Hall in New York or the Musikverein in Vienna, and holding a 300-year old violin that cost 16 million dollars, regardless of what music, or non-music, results?


----------



## millionrainbows

st Omer said:


> The reason 4'33" is disparaged as music is because it is not music. It may qualify as a religious experience if somebody takes 4'33" to meditate. This meditation could be done at a piano, with a harmonica in your mouth, or a whistle in your nose but it still wouldn't be music. Listening to the sounds of nature and meditating can be a worthwhile experience but putting a title to it and a gimmick of sitting at a piano, or in front of an orchestra, doesn't make it a musical composition. I wouldn't expect 4'33" of meditation to reveal any deep secrets of the universe but it may have a similar effect as a yoga session, meditation, or a prayer all of which are beneficial.


Well, the whole point Cage was making is that "music" is what we define it as being. Since your definition is obviously not flexible enough to accommodate this degree of freedom, than of course, to you, 4'33" is not "music" as you define it.

I'm not talking to myself; I'm trying to point out what the truth is.


----------



## st Omer

The question that the discussion creator had was why 4'33" was disparaged and why western forms of religious music get their own forums. I think I answered the question, 4'33" is not music so the question is based on a false premise to begin with. Show me evidence that 4'33" is music and then maybe the question has some validity. Music is defined by the Miriam Webster dictionary as follows:

a : the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity
b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony

I don't see that 4'33" meets that definition. Cage's 4'33" was an idea. Whether it was a good idea or a some goofy gimmick is up for debate. I don't even think it is art. It is an idea and a gimmick. Maybe you can sit for 4'33" and hear sounds of some sort. Some of those sounds may be musical. Maybe you will hear a jackhammer on the street (not music), your own flatulence (probably not music because it doesn't meet the Miriam Webster definition stated above unless you are skilled in the manipulation of your rear orifice and can control the sound coming fourth arranging them to fit the Miriam Webster definition), birds singing (certainly pleasant music), but 4'33" is not a composition regardless of the fact that Cage took some sheet music and wrote 4'33" on it. An examination of the original score shows no notes. The concept that there is no such thing as silence may be true but it doesn't make 4'33" music. Maybe Paul Simon understood the idea of the non existence of silence and wrote a really good tune about it, "Sounds of Silence". His tune about silence was actually music and not some abstract idea pseudo-intellectuals confuse themselves over. He made a lot of money off that tune and I noted you can actually pay for the score to 4'33" so somebody is making money off it so that may be another good thing about it.


----------



## Haydn70

st Omer said:


> Cage's 4'33" was an idea. Whether it was a good idea or a some goofy gimmick is up for debate. I don't even think it is art. It is an idea and a gimmick.


It was a gimmick...Cage's whole life was a gimmick. And it (4'33") certainly wasn't art.


----------



## San Antone

st Omer said:


> The question that the discussion creator had was why 4'33" was disparaged and why western forms of religious music get their own forums. I think I answered the question, 4'33" is not music so the question is based on a false premise to begin with. Show me evidence that 4'33" is music and then maybe the question has some validity. Music is defined by the Miriam Webster dictionary as follows:


Whether 4'33" is music or not, according to a dictionary definition, is irrelevant. Also, no one needs to prove anything to you about 4'33". John Cage desired to create four minutes of "silence" in order to highlight how potentially beautiful the sounds around us are if we listen to them with a receptive mind.

What 4'33" has to do with sacred music is a mystery to me.


----------



## Blancrocher

Perhaps instead of creating another subforum, the site owner should create a whole forum--another sister forum for TC--devoted wholly to 4'33''. All discussion of this work could then be moved to that place and be disallowed here.


----------



## millionrainbows

st Omer said:


> The question that the discussion creator had was why 4'33" was disparaged and why western forms of religious music get their own forums. I think I answered the question, 4'33" is not music so the question is based on a false premise to begin with. Show me evidence that 4'33" is music and then maybe the question has some validity.


The point we must acknowledge, if we are to get past an impasse, it that 4'33" is essentially a "sacred" work.

It is a work by a composer in the field of music, because it deals with the framing and contextualization of sounds (not visual colors, etc).

*This seems to be the obstacle to most: 4'33" has no "content" except when it is performed.* The "content" (sounds) of the work, which are to be listened to as if they were music, *are not pre-determined;* they only exist within the framework of the work _as it is performed in the now.

_4'33" is simply a conceptual framework, with an invitation to "listen" to the sounds which occur within that framework.
This is not rocket science; this should be simple and straightforward enough to grasp for any reasonably logically-thinking listener.

As I stated in my opening post, I consider 4'33" to be a sacred work because it is "sacred" in nature, i.e. we listen to the sounds around us as if they were music. This in itself is an exercise in awareness. Since Cage was a Buddhist, I consider this to be coming from that sacred tradition.

What's the problem? It seems simple enough, unless we want to complicate and over-analyze it, subject it to strict definitions of music, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows

Blancrocher said:


> Perhaps instead of creating another subforum, the site owner should create a whole forum--another sister forum for TC--devoted wholly to 4'33''. All discussion of this work could then be moved to that place and be disallowed here.


I see your point, Blancrocher: this thread has reached a glorious 138 pages!

But instead of that, an easier and quicker method would be to simply derail the thread and get it closed down.


----------



## Bulldog

I think that one of Cage's major goals with 4'33'' was to ask the audience to put aside all extraneous thoughts and pre-conceptions and concentrate fully on the sounds around us. Is it music? Well, it is if that's what you hear. Unfortunately, most of us pay little attention to the sounds we hear on a daily basis, but I'm confident that sightless individuals have an entirely different view of the matter.

As for dictionary definitions of music, that's fine as a beginning but dictionaries don't tend to think out of the box.


----------



## fluteman

Blancrocher said:


> Perhaps instead of creating another subforum, the site owner should create a whole forum--another sister forum for TC--devoted wholly to 4'33''. All discussion of this work could then be moved to that place and be disallowed here.


I've already suggested that. There could also be separate fora devoted to the topics, "Contemporary (or modern, or 20th/21st century, or atonal, or serial) music is no good", "Wagner was (or was not) a Nazi", and "Why can't composers write like Mozart?". None of these topics even occurred to me before the internet. Online, they seem to be self-sustaining phenomena. I would add a forum for people who want to post, "I don't like ____ music", filling in the blank any way they choose.


----------



## Dan Ante

fluteman said:


> *I never made any assumption* about you and your musical friends. And you are always free to disagree with anything I say here (obviously!). The point I was making was that simply saying "I disagree" adds nothing to the discussion. This is my biggest pet peeve with this or any other internet forum. If you are familiar with Monty Python's Flying Circus, perhaps you know The Argument Sketch, one of their best bits. One of the lines there is something like, "An argument is more than just simple contradiction!" with the rejoinder, "No it isn't!"
> As for the long standing pervasiveness of contemporary music in TV and movies (at least in the US), including atonal and minimalist, I've discussed that in other threads. I'm always amused that many who respond say that such music somehow doesn't count, or even that it isn't really music but rather "sound effects". I suppose this is because it isn't performed at Carnegie Hall, the Concertgebouw, La Scala or the Musikverein Wien or another of the sacred music cathedrals by musicians wearing black costumes and playing 19th century acoustic instruments.


fluteman You said:
_I've noted before that many genres of contemporary music, including atonal genres, are accepted without question when heard on the internet or TV or in the movie theater._

So where have you noted it and did you conduct a poll? If not how do you come to that conclusion? The way you have worded the above indicates an assumption that applies to everyone, well it does not hence my post.
Any music used for a film sound track is usually edited quite a bit and as far as I am concerned does not come under the label of 'classical music' but rather 'sound track based on e.g LvB 3rd sym' 
I am not going to comment on "atonal" as it would be negative. 
May the force be with you!


----------



## Blancrocher

millionrainbows said:


> I see your point, Blancrocher: this thread has reached a glorious 138 pages!
> 
> But instead of that, an easier and quicker method would be to simply derail the thread and get it closed down.


Usually the best way to derail a thread and get it shut down is to mention 4'33''--I really don't know how one would do it in this particular case.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Blancrocher said:


> Usually the best way to derail a thread and get it shut down is to mention 4'33''--I really don't know how one would do it in this particular case.


True but would it be ok to play 4'33" while another performance of 4'33" was being performed.........


----------



## fluteman

Dan Ante said:


> fluteman You said:
> _I've noted before that many genres of contemporary music, including atonal genres, are accepted without question when heard on the internet or TV or in the movie theater._
> 
> So where have you noted it and did you conduct a poll? If not how do you come to that conclusion? The way you have worded the above indicates an assumption that applies to everyone, well it does not hence my post.
> Any music used for a film sound track is usually edited quite a bit and as far as I am concerned does not come under the label of 'classical music' but rather 'sound track based on e.g LvB 3rd sym'
> I am not going to comment on "atonal" as it would be negative.
> May the force be with you!


Nothing applies to everyone, Dan Ante. And I don't need to conduct a poll. I know what sorts of music have routinely been on TV and in movies since the 1960s. If it wasn't generally accepted, it wouldn't be there. In America, some of the earliest atonal music to become an iconic standard on TV was the theme from The Twilight Zone, a show that ran from 1959 to 1964. That was derived from music previously recorded for use by the TV network and composed by Marius Constant. And yes, that and TV and movie music in general is usually heavily edited. And no, you don't have to consider it "classical music" if you don't want to, though movie scores by John Williams, for example, have become standard repertoire for many symphony orchestras.
Why are polls and definitions such major things here? Sigh.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Is the force Tonal or Atonal?


----------



## Dan Ante

fluteman said:


> Why are polls and definitions such major things here? Sigh.


I am surprised you have to ask
You made a wild assumption without any proof at all
Polls are needed to substantiate wild claims made by some people and definitions make order out of chaos


----------



## RogerExcellent

But its 4'33' just nothing?


----------



## fluteman

Dan Ante said:


> I am surprised you have to ask
> You made a wild assumption without any proof at all
> Polls are needed to substantiate wild claims made by some people and definitions make order out of chaos


I did not make any assumption at all. The pervasiveness of certain styles of music on TV and in movies for the past 50 years is conclusive proof of my point, or as close to conclusive as one can ever get. Even the best polls are constructed with imperfect and arbitrary choices, usually substantiate very little, and substantiate nothing conclusively. Definitions and any "order" they impose are arbitrary. They are like fire: good servants and bad masters.


----------



## st Omer

I would suggest that 4'33" may be a good thing, whatever it is. It is good to shut out everything and concentrate on the sounds around us from time to time. Some of those sounds may be music and some not music. All sound is not music and some of it is just noise that is of no benefit. An exercise where we shut everything out and listen to the sounds around us does not make that exercise music. Nearly everybody who has heard music for any length of time knows what it is and 4'33" isn't music, furthermore not all sounds are music. 

Those who try to convince us that 4'33" is music are just engaging in sophistry whether intentionally or not. If the idea of 4'33" is valuable then so be it but don't try to pass it off as a musical composition. 

Cage apparently wrote a lot of real music but I wonder how relevant it is today since about the only thing the average person ever hears about is 4'33". In fact 4'33" is the only composition of Cage's that I have neither seen, smelled, tasted, felt, nor heard but have an imperfect misunderstanding of which puts me in the same company as 95% of everybody who has never heard it.


----------



## San Antone

st Omer said:


> I would suggest that 4'33" may be a good thing, whatever it is. It is good to shut out everything and concentrate on the sounds around us from time to time. Some of those sounds may be music and some not music. All sound is not music and some of it is just noise that is of no benefit. An exercise where we shut everything out and listen to the sounds around us does not make that exercise music. Nearly everybody who has heard music for any length of time knows what it is and 4'33" isn't music, furthermore not all sounds are music.
> 
> Those who try to convince us that 4'33" is music are just engaging in sophistry whether intentionally or not. If the idea of 4'33" is valuable then so be it but don't try to pass it off as a musical composition.
> 
> Cage apparently wrote a lot of real music but I wonder how relevant it is today since about the only thing the average person ever hears about is 4'33". In fact 4'33" is the only composition of Cage's that I have neither seen, smelled, tasted, felt, nor heard but have an imperfect misunderstanding of which puts me in the same company as 95% of everybody who has never heard it.


Why do you care so much about 4'33" or if/how people try to "pass it off" as music? There's so much music out there that you probably love - go with that.

There is plenty of music by John Cage I have enjoyed (the late number pieces especially), but 4'33" is one about which it is the idea that I enjoy. I've never had the opportunity to hear it in concert, but I do listen to ambient sounds often. So, I suppose I am performing 4'33" on my own when I do that.


----------



## st Omer

San Antone said:


> Why do you care so much about 4'33" or if/how people try to "pass it off" as music? There's so much music out there that you probably love - go with that.
> 
> There is plenty of music by John Cage I have enjoyed (the late number pieces especially), but 4'33" is one about which it is the idea that I enjoy. I've never had the opportunity to hear it in concert, but I do listen to ambient sounds often. So, I suppose I am performing 4'33" on my own when I do that.


I don't care about it! I think it is fine that people benefit from it in some way. It isn't music, that's all. I will repeat that point until I get bored from the entertainment I get from reading the posts filled with mental gymnastics people indulge in trying to convince people that it is music.


----------



## San Antone

st Omer said:


> I don't care about it! I think it is fine that people benefit from it in some way. It isn't music, that's all. I will repeat that point until I get bored from the entertainment I get from reading the posts filled with mental gymnastics people indulge in trying to convince people that it is music.


It's not music as you understand it. But we are far beyond that definition of music you posted.


----------



## st Omer

San Antone said:


> It's not music as you understand it. But we are far beyond that definition of music you posted.


Whatever! I get that Merzbow's Woodpecker works were music, you can hear it (one hearing was enough for me but I could hear that they fit the definition). I get that the theme from the Twilight Zone is music. Webern, Schoenberg, and others composed music outside the box but 4'33" is a gimmick that makes for good conversation, that's all.


----------



## San Antone

st Omer said:


> Whatever! I get that Merzbow's Woodpecker works were music, you can hear it (one hearing was enough for me but I could hear that they fit the definition). I get that the theme from the Twilight Zone is music. Webern, Schoenberg, and others composed music outside the box but 4'33" is a gimmick that makes for good conversation, that's all.


I love it when people who have no control over how something is perceived make a statement like "4'33" is a gimmick that makes for good conversation, that's all".

:lol:


----------



## st Omer

Perception is often not reality!!!


----------



## San Antone

st Omer said:


> Perception is often not reality!!!


Funny that _you_ should say that.


----------



## Dan Ante

fluteman said:


> I did not make any assumption at all. The pervasiveness of certain styles of music on TV and in movies for the past 50 years is conclusive proof of my point, or as close to conclusive as one can ever get. Even the best polls are constructed with imperfect and arbitrary choices, usually substantiate very little, and substantiate nothing conclusively. Definitions and any "order" they impose are arbitrary. They are like fire: good servants and bad masters.


Well in your world things are completely different to my world.
If I say people accept surveillance cameras I mean all people, so it is me making an assumption which is obviously wrong, but if I say according to a recent poll taken by "The pole research company" of 10,000 people in London shows that 80% of people polled had no concerns with surveillance cameras it adds some credence to my statement.
I can't believe you are serious in your attitude to definitions; the world would be in total disarray without them and *you use them in all your posts on TC.* in case you missed it that is me making an assumption.
There is no point in derailing this thread any further.


----------



## Larkenfield

4:33 was not a "gimmick" or people wouldn't be talking about it today. It struck a deep chord about the importance of Silence, which is at the beginning and the end of all music, all sound-within the music as well, written as rests within the score. No conductor starts until it's silent enough, and after a great performance, what is there but a few moments of silence before the applause? Cage simply pointed out the importance of Silence on its own and he's been misunderstood and misinterpreted ever since because the critics who think they know him cannot sit still or be inwardly silent for 4 minutes and 33 seconds and realize how difficult it is for the mind to be quiet for that relatively short length of time, though it can seem like an eternity. Cage made a point of Silence as a result of his studies of Zen meditation with D.T. Suzuki in NY during the early 1950s. It happened.

http://wheretheheartbeatsbook.com/where-the-heart-beats/


----------



## Dan Ante

Would it mean the same if it was 4:33 of silence in a Factory as opposed to an orchestra?


----------



## Prat

Dan Ante said:


> Would it mean the same if it was 4:33 of silence in a Factory as opposed to an orchestra?


Yes, sure, whatever you like


----------



## Guest

Dan Ante said:


> Would it mean the same if it was 4:33 of silence in a Factory as opposed to an orchestra?


The possibility of true silence was, I think, dealt with on about page 37.


----------



## Guest

This may be an interminable thread (ironically, given the precise timing set for the composition it is about) but obviously, with new members arriving and discovering it, interest in the discussion is renewed, and should not be lightly dismissed just because some of us have been round the block with it a few times.

Perhaps this has been posted already somewhere upstream, but it might merit rereading anyway.

http://rosewhitemusic.com/piano/writings/silence-taught-john-cage/


----------



## Strange Magic

This thread is actually an _homage_ to Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing.


----------



## San Antone

Cage did not write 4'33" in an attempt to create silence. He knew there was no such thing after visiting a sensory deprivation studio in which he discovered that even without any outside sounds he could still hear his bodily functions. He also wrote that he was in an office building, or somewhere, and was aware of the Muzak playing and thought how he would like to write four minutes of silence to insert in their playlist. He had thought about putting the piece out there for two years at least before he did. But it was only after he went to a Robert Rauschenberg show of White Paintings that he decided the time was ripe.

There were a lot of reasons why he created 4'33" - to raise our consciousness about the world around us, to break through the noise of our culture with near silence, or the idea of silence, to ask questions about the nature of perception, of art, especially asking the question "what is music?" or "what are the limits of what we think of as music?" Cage was about asking questions, not providing answers.

People who think 4'33" is a gimmick just don't get it, or John Cage, at all. But you know what? He would be fine with that, and just smile and go on with his work. Any response is okay, and right.


----------



## steph01

It sure is art but it sure ain't music.


----------



## Thomyum2

steph01 said:


> It sure is art but it sure ain't music.


Much to the contrary, it is the ultimate music. When one reaches the point where you can sit and listen and hear music regardless of what is being 'played', then your life is filled with music whenever and wherever you are. Consider that Beethoven continued to experience and compose music even after he was completely deaf.


----------



## st Omer

Lark,

I like your comment and see your point, however, the thread title implied 4'33" is a sacred musical composition. My point is that 4'33", whatever it is, is not a musical composition.


----------



## steph01

Thomyum2 said:


> Much to the contrary, it is the ultimate music. When one reaches the point where you can sit and listen and hear music regardless of what is being 'played', then your life is filled with music whenever and wherever you are. Consider that Beethoven continued to experience and compose music even after he was completely deaf.


Following your logic, he needn't have bothered composing anything.


----------



## Thomyum2

steph01 said:


> Following your logic, he needn't have bothered composing anything.


Not at all - music is an interaction, much like a conversation is both speaking and listening. Music is both the act of creating and the act of receiving that creation. Although we experience music in the world of sound, music transcends sound and exists and continues beyond and outside the world of sound.


----------



## st Omer

Steph, 

You are correct. The post you are quoting is exactly why I say those who try to say 4'33" is a musical composition are engaging in sophistry whether intended or not.


----------



## millionrainbows

st Omer said:


> I would suggest that 4'33" may be a good thing, whatever it is. It is good to shut out everything and concentrate on the sounds around us from time to time. Some of those sounds may be music and some not music. All sound is not music and some of it is just noise that is of no benefit. An exercise where we shut everything out and listen to the sounds around us does not make that exercise music. Nearly everybody who has heard music for any length of time knows what it is and 4'33" isn't music, furthermore not all sounds are music.
> 
> Those who try to convince us that 4'33" is music are just engaging in sophistry whether intentionally or not. If the idea of 4'33" is valuable then so be it but don't try to pass it off as a musical composition.
> 
> Cage apparently wrote a lot of real music but I wonder how relevant it is today since about the only thing the average person ever hears about is 4'33". In fact 4'33" is the only composition of Cage's that I have neither seen, smelled, tasted, felt, nor heard but have an imperfect misunderstanding of which puts me in the same company as 95% of everybody who has never heard it.


Alan, I see your point about 4'33" not really being "music" per se, but it IS art. The "art" of 4'33" is conceptual: it asks us to listen to sounds AS IF they were music. So, technically, you're correct; 4'33" is not music. It's art.

As far as Cage's other works, the first one I ever heard was Fontana Mix, on a Vox/Turnabout LP. I got it from a cut-out bin, as I did most of my other electronic music. I remember getting Stockhausen albums on high-quality DG vinyl for $2.99. Ahh, those were good days...


----------



## st Omer

Millions, 

I see your point and will concede that it is art. Good to converse with you again after all these years. I remember the old Amazon days. I had a lot of fun there. I like your thread and it is a success as evidenced by the discussion it generates.


----------



## DeepR

"Music" with nothing but silence / rests had been done a few times before. Just in a different context, it appears. So what remains is Cage's philosophy behind the piece. I guess that was something "new". Far from impressive though. And the rest is just controversy. So yeah, a whole lot to do about very little.


----------



## millionrainbows

DeepR said:


> "Music" with nothing but silence / rests had been done a few times before. Just in a different context, it appears. So what remains is Cage's philosophy behind the piece. I guess that was something "new". Far from impressive though. And the rest is just controversy. So yeah, a whole lot to do about very little.


Music with nothing but silence? DeepR, apparently you haven't been listening, so to speak.


----------



## Prat

millionrainbows said:


> Music with nothing but silence? DeepR, apparently you haven't been listening, so to speak.


Sounds like a Cowboy to me


----------



## Roger Knox

*My fears concerning 4'33"*

As a teenager I was intrigued by Cage (late '60's/early '70's). After a couple of years I moved on. Two concerns about 4'33": (1) my sense is (without evidence, to be sure) that when the piece was created in 1952 the existence of nuclear weapons made "nothingness" a real, frightening prospect, and that this might connect to what Cage was doing; (2) now in 2018, I am afraid about the future of classical music, that it is being reduced and replaced slowly and steadily -- not to "nothingness" but to marginalization - and I connect Cage's activities to this situation though I'm not asserting direct causality. 4'33" depresses me because it reminds me of both of these concerns.


----------



## DeepR

millionrainbows said:


> Music with nothing but silence? DeepR, apparently you haven't been listening, so to speak.


*long, drawn-out sigh.... *


----------



## Dan Ante

dogen said:


> The possibility of true silence was, I think, dealt with on about page 37.


 Dogen I had a look at page 37 and could not find the post you were referring me to but no matter, I saw very interesting post = Post #550 by spokanedaniel which I thought was pretty spot on IMO but I am a bit biased. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

Dan Ante said:


> Dogen I had a look at page 37 and could not find the post you were referring me to but no matter, I saw very interesting post = Post #550 by spokanedaniel which I thought was pretty spot on IMO but I am a bit biased. :tiphat:


Sorry, that was just a random page as a joke, I couldn't remember all these pages 

But it was a serious (and previously made, I imagine) point: four minutes of not performing is _not_ silence.


----------



## elgar's ghost

The only real saving grace about 4:33 is that all the wanky jokes associated with it don't last as long (assuming they aren't recycled to death).


----------



## Dan Ante

dogen said:


> Sorry, that was just a random page as a joke, I couldn't remember all these pages
> 
> But it was a serious (and previously made, I imagine) point: four minutes of not performing is _not_ silence.


When you take it to the extreme you will never experience total silence.


----------



## millionrainbows

Roger Knox said:


> As a teenager I was intrigued by Cage (late '60's/early '70's). After a couple of years I moved on. Two concerns about 4'33": (1) my sense is (without evidence, to be sure) that when the piece was created in 1952 the existence of nuclear weapons made "nothingness" a real, frightening prospect, and that this might connect to what Cage was doing; (2) now in 2018, I am afraid about the future of classical music, that it is being reduced and replaced slowly and steadily -- not to "nothingness" but to marginalization - and I connect Cage's activities to this situation though I'm not asserting direct causality. 4'33" depresses me because it reminds me of both of these concerns.


Nothing could be farther off-base. 4'33" is not about "nothingness." It is about "being", and this is religious by its very nature. If you want existential negativity, try Barraque or Feldman.


----------



## DavidA

I find it amazing that a discussion of 4'33" of non-music could generate 2115 posts in a music forum. Cage certainly knew how to hoodwink people!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I find it amazing that a discussion of 4'33" of non-music could generate 2115 posts in a music forum. Cage certainly knew how to hoodwink people!


Indeed. Currently, of that 2115, you have contributed 24 of them.


----------



## Dim7

Here is the relevant Hall of Shame: https://www.talkclassical.com/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=36315


----------



## Dan Ante

Dim7 said:


> Here is the relevant Hall of Shame: https://www.talkclassical.com/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=36315


Ha Dimi how did you get that list?? Oh bugger now I have made 9 posts


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Gosh I need to work harder I'm not even in the top5


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I find it amazing that a discussion of 4'33" of non-music could generate 2115 posts in a music forum. Cage certainly knew how to hoodwink people!


I'm proud to be in the top five.


----------



## KenOC

I think we should consider combining irritating threads. "Was Cage a Nazi?"


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> I think we should consider combining irritating threads. "Was Cage a Nazi?"


and was Wagner to blame for Atonal music


----------



## DavidA

dogen said:


> Indeed. Currently, of that 2115, you have contributed 24 of them.


Yep hoodwinked by a con man who wrote non music


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

DavidA said:


> Yep hoodwinked by a con man who wrote non music


Wagner, yes you are right


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> I'm proud to be in the top five.


...though on reflection, slightly alarmed at how much time I spend at TC instead of getting on with life.


----------



## Strange Magic

Of course I looked up my own 3 years of posts on this subject, and found to my shame that I had repeated myself, not once but twice! I'll need some silent time to reflect on this......


----------



## Prat

Take 4'33" be my guest


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> Indeed. Currently, of that 2115, you have contributed 24 of them.


Here's my first, and I'm one in_ support _of 4'33"!


----------



## Guest

shirime said:


> my first


and last .


----------



## millionrainbows

I stand behind every post I have made here, because I think I truly understand the work and its significance.

4'33" is an important work, and Cage was a real composer. If you want complexity, look at The Freeman Etudes:


----------



## fluteman

Cage commented regarding his String Quartet in Four Parts of 1950: "Without actually using silence, I should like to praise it." Incorporating the meditative, tranquil aspects of Indian art and culture into Western music is old news nowadays, especially since the days of George Harrison and the Beatles, but in 1950 mid-20th century Western modernism was nearing its peak and this must have been quite a departure from the norm. Maybe it's not the first thing one thinks of in connection with John Cage, but everyone here who is so outraged by 4'33" should listen to it. It will calm you down.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

shirime said:


> Here's my first, and I'm one in_ support _of 4'33"!


Your back, that was quick


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> I stand behind every post I have made here, because I think I truly understand the work and its significance.
> 
> 4'33" is an important work, and Cage was a real composer. If you want complexity, look at The Freeman Etudes:


Hey, this is my kind of thread. Relating to the OP, 4'33" is both sacred and secular music at the same time. It can't be pigeonholed into a single genre. I can go on and on....

The Freeman etudes aren't complex. Cage didn't even compose them. They are just transcriptions to music of star charts. Cage ways always good for a laugh.


----------



## Roger Knox

millionrainbows, Thanks for the Freeman identification, I thought my new progressive lenses were making me see triple . . .


----------



## San Antone

millionrainbows said:


> I stand behind every post I have made here, because I think I truly understand the work and its significance.
> 
> 4'33" is an important work, and Cage was a real composer. If you want complexity, look at The Freeman Etudes:


Yep. But I understand people who think otherwise. I don't lose any sleep over it since it doesn't matter how people think of Cage, his place as a major figure in the history of music is secure. I think people will be performing and listening to his music, as well as arguing over it, for many decades to come.


----------



## Room2201974

Phil loves classical said:


> Hey, this is my kind of thread. Relating to the OP, 4'33" is both sacred and secular music at the same time. It can't be pigeonholed into a single genre. I can go on and on....
> 
> The Freeman etudes aren't complex. Cage didn't even compose them. They are just transcriptions to music of star charts. Cage ways always good for a laugh.


Probably stars near Vega!


----------



## Thomyum2

In the movie 'Amadeus' there's the famous and fun scene where Mozart asks the Emperor what he thinks was wrong with his opera and the emperor stammers and finally says that it just had "too many notes". So when I hear people criticize Cage's 4'33", it all sounds to me like they're just saying "not enough notes"!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

John Lennon did a great 4'33" version on his Mind Games LP, called the Nutopian International Anthem


----------



## Roger Knox

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> John Lennon did a great 4'33" version on his Mind Games LP, called the Nutopian International Anthem


set the cashew boxes ringing


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> The Freeman etudes aren't complex. Cage didn't even compose them. They are just transcriptions to music of star charts. Cage ways always good for a laugh.


You are missing a lot.

If you have the 2 CDs on MODE, read the liner notes, and you will see what trouble Cage went to in composing these Etudes. It was only with the help of Irvine Arditti, who said he could perform them after Paul Zukofsky's attempt and subsequent departure, that Cage was able to proceed with, and finish the Freeman Etudes.

John Cage was not a 'jokester.'

The Freeman Etudes *are* complex, and almost humanly impossible to play accurately, but Irvine Ardiiti accomplished this. The notation is very complex, with rapidly changing dynamics, irrational rhythms (nested tuplets, 7 against 8, etc.), and wide leaps in register.


----------



## St Matthew

Phil loves classical said:


> The Freeman etudes aren't complex. Cage didn't even compose them. They are just transcriptions to music of star charts. Cage ways always good for a laugh.


You miss the point completely and no, he Etudes ARE complex. Cage wasn't out there writing music to be funny either, where did you get that from? His music is entirely serious, although he himself had a sense of humor (anyone without a sense of humor is damned)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Hey was John Cage a Cowboy?


----------



## Room2201974

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Hey was John Cage a Cowboy?


I'd say yes, in the sense that he probably didn't get too far away from the cow pies.


----------



## millionrainbows

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> John Lennon did a great 4'33" version on his Mind Games LP, called the Nutopian International Anthem


He also did a cut called "One Minute of Silence" on the "Life with the Lions" album, in memoriam to the miscarriage of Yoko.


----------



## millionrainbows

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Hey was John Cage a Cowboy?


Yes, he was, just like Aaron Copland.:lol:


----------

