# The artistic merit of 4'33''



## Sol Invictus

Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but I can't seem to find a thread dedicated to this composition specifically so I started my own. I mean this in an unsarcastic way; what exactly is the artistic merit of 4'33''? And if it does have merit, could it be performed poorly?


----------



## Art Rock

128 pages of discussion here......


----------



## starthrower

Sol Invictus said:


> I mean this in an unsarcastic way; what exactly is the artistic merit of 4'33''? And if it does have merit, could it be performed poorly?


The performance is on the part of the audience. If you're not capable of sitting quietly and listening, then you've performed poorly.


----------



## Guest

At home you can use it to measure the signal to noise ratio of your stereo.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Some people find it deeply artistic and profound. Others, current poster included, find it an amusing attempt to stretch the practical definition of music. Cage had a propensity for creating such amusing but ultimately musically vapid works, including the "as slow as possible" piece.


----------



## hpowders

Artistic merit? Ya got 4'33" for me to list all the things?


----------



## Guest

Sol Invictus said:


> I mean this in an unsarcastic way; what exactly is the artistic merit of 4'33''?


IMO the artistic merit of the piece IS sarcasm, or humorous satire. I know there are others who will argue otherwise, but, again IMO, they are just playing along with the joke. I don't think it's funny, but I am not known for my sense of humor.


----------



## Nereffid

I'd draw a distinction between _artistic_ merit and _musical_ merit. If people want to have a laugh at 4'33" because it has no musical merit, fair enough. But it's 2017 (well, a few hours away as I write this), and if people still think it lacks _artistic_ merit then the joke's on them.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Nereffid said:


> I'd draw a distinction between _artistic_ merit and _musical_ merit. If people want to have a laugh at 4'33" because it has no musical merit, fair enough. But it's 2017 (well, a few hours away as I write this), and if people still think it lacks _artistic_ merit then the joke's on them.


Please describe the difference between artistic and musical merit in the context of 4'33"


----------



## Sol Invictus

starthrower said:


> The performance is on the part of the audience. If you're not capable of sitting quietly and listening, then you've performed poorly.


Again not trying to be sarcastic, how is the audience supposed to know that? If the audience are the performers, shouldn't they be given the sheet music?


----------



## MarkW

It was a piece that was performed -- and meant to be performed -- exactly once. The whole idea was that the audience had to be unsuspecting. And whether it was meant to be wholly a joke, or people were supposed to examine the nature of performance art, who knows or cares. It worked once, and to spend all the time and effort posters have invested in it, gives it a staying power Cage never would have imagined.


----------



## ArtMusic

Sol Invictus said:


> Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but I can't seem to find a thread dedicated to this composition specifically so I started my own. I mean this in an unsarcastic way; what exactly is the artistic merit of 4'33''? And if it does have merit, could it be performed poorly?


The fallacy with _4'33"_ is very simple, and you may have read this before. A person who is physically deaf or is near deaf would lament that this piece is called music, for the deaf person might even find it insulting to suggest that his/her world of silence is "music", indeed he/she would only love to hear conventional notes that you and I take for granted. No physically deaf person would welcome it. Pure and simple.


----------



## MarkW

ArtMusic said:


> The fallacy with _4'33"_ is very simple, and you may have read this before. A person who is physically deaf or is near deaf would lament that this piece is called music, for the deaf person might even find it insulting to suggest that his/her world of silence is "music", indeed he/she would only love to hear conventional notes that you and I take for granted. No physically deaf person would welcome it. Pure and simple.


No physically deaf person would have been at a concert where it would have been performed.


----------



## Chronochromie

ArtMusic said:


> The fallacy with _4'33"_ is very simple, and you may have read this before. A person who is physically deaf or is near deaf would lament that this piece is called music, for the deaf person might even find it insulting to suggest that his/her world of silence is "music", indeed he/she would only love to hear conventional notes that you and I take for granted. No physically deaf person would welcome it. Pure and simple.


But the piece isn't silent.


----------



## ArtMusic

MarkW said:


> No physically deaf person would have been at a concert where it would have been performed.


That's not the point. Imagine if I am physically deaf and someone tells me silence is music. I don't think I would find that appealing, not at all, maybe even insulting.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

4'33 isn't about silence and it's not intended to be a "composition". It's also not Cages best work, no way near it. The amount of negative publicity Cage gets for this single philosophical and spiritual statement is just pathetic


----------



## ArtMusic

Chronochromie said:


> But the piece isn't silent.


Regardless, needless to say, a deaf person would only wish to hear a Mozart note, not a concert hall of musician(s) sitting by their score and the sounds around that for four minutes plus. The concept is plain wrong. Pure and simple.


----------



## amfortas

ArtMusic said:


> The fallacy with _4'33"_ is very simple, and you may have read this before. A person who is physically deaf or is near deaf would lament that this piece is called music, for the deaf person might even find it insulting to suggest that his/her world of silence is "music", indeed he/she would only love to hear conventional notes that you and I take for granted. No physically deaf person would welcome it. Pure and simple.


The silence of a deaf person is different from the silence of a hearing person who attends a concert, expects to listen to instrumentalists play a new a piece of music, and is instead confronted with Cage's work. "Silence" isn't even the right word, since no doubt any sounds during those awkward four minutes and thirty-three seconds become tremendously conspicuous.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

ArtMusic said:


> Regardless, needless to say, a deaf person would only wish to hear a Mozart note, not a concert hall of musician(s) sitting by their score and the sounds around that for four minutes plus. The concept is plain wrong. Pure and simple.


Can you say something coherent? your blathering ArtMusic


----------



## ArtMusic

amfortas said:


> The silence of a deaf person is different from the silence of a hearing person who attends a concert, expects to listen to instrumentalists play a new a piece of music, and is instead confronted with Cage's work. "Silence" isn't even the right word, since no doubt any sounds during those awkward four minutes and thirty-three seconds become tremendously conspicuous.


If "silence" is not the right word, then what is? Or is it even art to begin with? Anything can be music/art?


----------



## ArtMusic

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Can you say something coherent? your blathering ArtMusic


I wrote it eloquently.


----------



## Chronochromie

ArtMusic said:


> Regardless, needless to say, a deaf person would only wish to hear a Mozart note, not a concert hall of musician(s) sitting by their score and the sounds around that for four minutes plus. The concept is plain wrong. Pure and simple.


I don't even know how to respond to this seriously, but I think that it would be self-evident to anyone reading the above that something's not quite right. And no, it's not the Cage piece (which again, is not silent).


----------



## Blancrocher

Art Rock said:


> 128 pages of discussion here......


I believe this is one of the shorter threads concerning 4'33'' that we've had--I have to admire the restraint of everyone involved.


----------



## Antiquarian

4'33" is the musical equivalent of Robert Rauschenberg's _White Painting_.


----------



## amfortas

ArtMusic said:


> If "silence" is not the right word, then what is? Or is it even art to begin with? Anything can be music/art?


Why not? Or at least, why not raise the question, as Cage's work seems to do?

Hamlet says, "I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space." There's something to be said for finding the infinite--or at least, a surprising richness--in utter simplicity, even in what at first may seem like nothing at all.

Not for everyone, perhaps, but what harm is there in a work that gestures in that direction?


----------



## amfortas

Blancrocher said:


> I believe this is one of the shorter threads concerning 4'33'' that we've had--I have to admire the restraint of everyone involved.


Give it time.
xxxxxxxxx


----------



## starthrower

Sol Invictus said:


> Again not trying to be sarcastic, how is the audience supposed to know that? If the audience are the performers, shouldn't they be given the sheet music?


It's not too hard to figure out. You just shut up and be quiet for 4:33


----------



## jdec

starthrower said:


> It's not too hard to figure out. You just shut up and be quiet for 4:33


What if someone farted out loud? Would that be considered part of the performance?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

jdec said:


> What if someone farted loud? Would that be considered part of the performance?


Overture .................................


----------



## starthrower

jdec said:


> What if someone farted loud? Would that be considered part of the performance?


I don't really give a fart. And why are so many people here precoccupied with 4:33? It's like having a thread about Ravel and constantly bring up Bolero.


----------



## Alfacharger

Here is Cage performing 4:33 in Harvard Square, Cambridge, MA. he must have revised it at the time (1:22). Viewing the video I think I spy the building which houses the law offices of Dewey, Cheatam and Howe!

http://www.openculture.com/2016/04/john-cage-performs-his-avant-garde-piano-piece-433.html


----------



## ArtMusic

amfortas said:


> Why not? Or at least, why not raise the question, as Cage's work seems to do?
> 
> Hamlet says, "I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space." There's something to be said for finding the infinite--or at least, a surprising richness--in utter simplicity, even in what at first may seem like nothing at all.
> 
> Not for everyone, perhaps, but what harm is there in a work that gestures in that direction?


The harm is there is nothing but degenerate art.


----------



## Casebearer

I think the piece is genial both as a philosophical idea and as an experience of a musical act. Regardless of what Cage meant, it makes you think about the essence of music, the role of silence, the essence of silence, the setting of musical performances, your own role as listener, etc.

As a philosophical idea it reminds (also) me of the White Painting by Rauschenberg. Both pose questions like: what do you get when you get nothing? Does nothing exist? Might nothing be something? The Rauschenberg painting is a real painting of certain measures. The Cage piece is canned 'silence' - silence being a structural element of all music - for an exact amount of time. (So it might also be a satyrical comment on other 'canned music' of often the same duration, see Wikipedia).

What both pieces also make me think of is the invention of the number 'zero' in arithmatics. Zero is (worth) nothing and at the same time zero is a very important number. Interestingly there's still some discussion between number theory people if zero should belong to the natural numbers or not, although most include zero in the natural numbers since the 19th century. The analogy is clear: is silence a part of music (as in 'organized sound')?

Arithmatics represent a world of ideas with a formal beauty of it's own. Zero is a beautiful number that means what it means and does what it does in arithmatical calculations. Nothing equals nothing there. So from a formal 'arithmatical' viewpoint on Cage's 4'33" you get 4'33" of nothing (zero) with this composition. If you want to look at it this way I think you must see that it was inevitable that this piece would be composed. It extended the system of natural music to include 'zero'. 

There is a big problem however with that. It just takes 4' 33" and in an ideal world it should of course have been of infinite length. (Hereby I compose that piece on paper for all to enjoy to eternity - if it hasn't been done before that is). 
Now of course Cage knew that, he didn't aim to compose a formal abstract piece of infinite and eternal beauty, he wants to show that in (visual or auditory) practice it's impossible for us to find 'nothing' (Zen). If we would ever succeed in eliminating all environmental sounds we would be listening to our own, both the real physical sounds our bodily functions produce and, maybe, the thoughts and sounds we hear in our heads. There's no such thing as silence in the real world of living creatures.

So, in my opinion, Cage has been thinking about these things and with 4' 33" he lets you think about these things as well and have a bodily experience of them when you visit a performance. This thinking easily connects to a whole lot of other philosophy, science and arts (e.g. quantumphysics) which makes 4'33" maybe the most important composition on a metamusical level and an important experience of music appreciation on a practical level.

Happy new year to all of you!


----------



## Pugg

Art Rock said:


> 128 pages of discussion here......





Kontrapunctus said:


> At home you can use it to measure the signal to noise ratio of your stereo.


Two best answers :lol:


----------



## Chronochromie

ArtMusic said:


> The harm is there is nothing but degenerate art.


You do know the connotations of the term "degenerate art" don't you? If you don't you should read up on it and if you do then it's absolutely disgusting that you would say that.


----------



## David OByrne

ArtMusic said:


> If "silence" is not the right word, then what is? Or is it even art to begin with? Anything can be music/art?


Yes, can this thread be closed now?


----------



## pianolearnerstride

4:33 is utterly, completely stupid.


----------



## Chronochromie

Still a better description than "degenerate art".


----------



## Casebearer

Well, it's an opinion, but I don't get anything out of it without further explanation.


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven, back from the grave, comments on 4'33".

"That bit between 1'45 and 2'15 is just stunning. Sheer genius! If I'd know about this, I'd have handled the slow movement from my Choral quite a bit differently, believe me."


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

pianolearnerstride said:


> 4:33 is utterly, completely stupid.


But 4'33 is a figurative framework for you to be aware of the beautiful world of insidental sounds around you, outside of yourself that you take for granted everyday


----------



## Art Rock

Chronochromie said:


> You do know the connotations of the term "degenerate art" don't you? If you don't you should read up on it and if you do then it's absolutely disgusting that you would say that.


Seconded............


----------



## pianolearnerstride

Daniel Atkinson said:


> But 4'33 is a figurative framework for you to be aware of the beautiful world of insidental sounds around you, outside of yourself that you take for granted everyday


I don't need 4'33 to remind me of that. Nobody does. Say I sold an ordinary mirror as a work of art... I could say it was a way for you to realize that the world around you and yourself (as seen in the mirror) is already filled with art... Would that have artistic merit? It's just silliness.


----------



## arpeggio

In another forum we frequently have discussions concerning the pros and cons of the music of Cage without the animosity that occurs here. I do not understand what the members who do not understand this work after all of these years are trying to prove.


----------



## starthrower

Chronochromie said:


> You do know the connotations of the term "degenerate art" don't you? If you don't you should read up on it and if you do then it's absolutely disgusting that you would say that.


Apparently the youngsters aren't learning much history these days?


----------



## starthrower

Casebearer said:


> The analogy is clear: is silence a part of music (as in 'organized sound')?


Of course! That's what the rest symbols are for. Would anyone want to listen to, or play music without intervals of silence? That would be absurd!

And your entire post is wonderful. Thanks! And Happy New Year to you too!


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

pianolearnerstride said:


> I don't need 4'33 to remind me of that. Nobody does. Say I sold an ordinary mirror as a work of art... I could say it was a way for you to realize that the world around you and yourself (as seen in the mirror) is already filled with art... Would that have artistic merit? It's just silliness.


It's not simply


> a way for you to realize that the world around you and yourself


 it is that there is beauty in those sounds, which does lead in to subjective waters but the whole premise of this thread is flawed in the first place.

Tell me What "*artistic merit*" is, because the only thing I can see in that phrasing is a very dogmatic concept of what art is in the first place


----------



## Nereffid

arpeggio said:


> I do not understand what the members who do not understand this work after all of these years are trying to prove.


Their own ignorance, perhaps?


----------



## Nereffid

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Please describe the difference between artistic and musical merit in the context of 4'33"


_4'33"_ as a piece of music lacks all the things that one would normally expect to find in a piece of music (except, I suppose, those parts of a performance that are expected to be silent). So on a basic level it strikes me as OK for someone to dismiss it as not worthy of being called music. But as a piece of _art_, it includes one crucial thing one would normally expect to find in a piece of art: it offers food for thought. The fact that 65 years after the work was first created people are still arguing about it surely demonstrates that it's a lasting and meritorious piece of art. (And the fact that it's still being performed indicates it's a lasting piece of music, too, but as I said, I'll allow that it genuinely fails to be "music" for many listeners)


----------



## Art Rock

This is still a good read on the piece.


----------



## Myriadi

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Cage had a propensity for creating such amusing but ultimately musically vapid works, including the "as slow as possible" piece.


Not going to join the fray re: 4'33'', but I have to ask about ASLSP: whatever amuses you so much about the piece and why is it musically vapid? It's simply some music that is meant to be played very slowly. It's not Cage's fault that someone decided playing it with a mechanism and for 600 years is a good idea.


----------



## DeepR

Before this turns into another 128 pages of discussion and lectures about 4'33" to the plebs "who don't like it because they don't understand it", let me say one last thing on 4'33": I understand the intent of the piece and I still don't like it. So there you go. 
I'm not impressed with it, I don't think it's anything special and worth all the attention. I do like sound and ambient music, lots of it in fact. And sometimes I like to focus on the ambient sounds of the world we live in. I also like to think about what music is and what music isn't. But I don't like 4'33", nor do I need it to remind me of those things. Just because there's an idea or philosophy behind 4'33", doesn't make it "good" to me, as music, or art, or whatever. Also, when people don't like it, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't understand it. It all comes down to individual judgement. Purely subjective.


----------



## EdwardBast

A fervent wish: That anyone inclined to write about 4'33" would read the thread linked in #2 above and only post ideas that are found fewer than seven times there. None of the posts so far meet that criterion.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Answer 1: It's good but Schumann's "Sphinxes" is better.

Answer 2: It must be great because it's made generations of people spend time opining about it that would've been better spent listening to the same composer's charming _Sonatas and Interludes_.


----------



## Barelytenor

Artistic merit: Possibly. About as much as a dance can represent good architecture.

Musical merit: 0.

Your mileage may vary.

:tiphat:

Kind regards,

George


----------



## Blancrocher

Barelytenor said:


> Musical merit: 0.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.


I give it a 4.33

Subjectivity aside, some works really do seem to announce their own greatness.


----------



## Richard8655

Could we call a painter sitting in front of a blank canvas for 20 minutes art? Or the resulting blank canvas a painting?


----------



## MarkW

Nereffid said:


> (And the fact that it's still being performed indicates it's a lasting piece of music, too, but as I said, I'll allow that it genuinely fails to be "music" for many listeners)


Except it isn't "still being performed" and hasn't since David Tudor first "played" it. It has never been in the active repertoire.


----------



## Pugg

4 pages in 24 hours......


----------



## amfortas

Pugg said:


> 4 pages in 24 hours......


See? What did I tell ya?


----------



## amfortas

If hearing 4'33" called "degenerate art" isn't enough to turn you in the work's favor, I don't know what is.


----------



## Chronochromie

starthrower said:


> Apparently the youngsters aren't learning much history these days?


I think I would be classified as a youngster, so at least some of us have.



DeepR said:


> Before this turns into another 128 pages of discussion and lectures about 4'33" to the plebs "who don't like it because they don't understand it", let me say one last thing on 4'33": I understand the intent of the piece and I still don't like it. So there you go.
> I'm not impressed with it, I don't think it's anything special and worth all the attention. I do like sound and ambient music, lots of it in fact. And sometimes I like to focus on the ambient sounds of the world we live in. I also like to think about what music is and what music isn't. But I don't like 4'33", nor do I need it to remind me of those things. Just because there's an idea or philosophy behind 4'33", doesn't make it "good" to me, as music, or art, or whatever. Also, when people don't like it, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't understand it. It all comes down to individual judgement. Purely subjective.


See, I mostly agree with you, but still defend it against the Nazi references and other odd remarks. :tiphat: Like someone said above I'd rather listen to the Sonatas and Interludes.


----------



## EdwardBast

MarkW said:


> *It was a piece that was performed -- and meant to be performed -- exactly once.* The whole idea was that the audience had to be unsuspecting. And whether it was meant to be wholly a joke, or people were supposed to examine the nature of performance art, who knows or cares. It worked once, and to spend all the time and effort posters have invested in it, gives it a staying power Cage never would have imagined.


An essential observation! Equally important is precisely when and where this one performance took place: Outdoors on a summer evening in the Berkshire Mountains. Perhaps Cage wanted to call the audience's attention to the natural sounds of birds, breezes in the oaks and fir trees, and insects buzzing and he realized that the only way to suppress the masking chatter of a Tanglewood audience was to get their ears focused on the performers for a few minutes? Looked at in this light, I think it is a lovely gesture and at worst an amusing and lighthearted provocation, not the end of civilization or a sign of aesthetic degeneracy. Lighten up!


----------



## Woodduck

None of the attempts to justify 4'33" as "art" succeed except in the minds of those who contrive definitions of art which accommodate it. A thing can't be defined as art by the fact that it "provokes thought" or stimulates "awareness" or occurs in an "artistic" venue or gets published in "score" or is _called_ art by some self-interested group of people with the epistemic authority of Humpty Dumpty.

Cage did something no one had ever done and which no one would ever recognize as music or art except for the fact that he, a composer, was the one who did it and introduced it to the public dressed up as a concert. What he did, simply, was to use the circumstances of a musical performance as a trick to produce a few unexpected minutes of mindfulness meditation, a time-honored Buddhist exercise which has never pretended to be art. Hence the entire question of its "artistic merit" is absurd.

Experiencing 4'33" may well have value for some, but doing somersaults around the common and still-sufficient understanding of words is a fool's game, and results only in endless streams of pointless verbiage - here we go again! - affecting neither the nature nor the value of anything, including art.

Just sit still and shut up for 4'33." Don't think about it. Just do it. You don't need instructions, urgings or prestidigitations from Mr. Cage. Now, did you get something from it? You might want to try it again. You might even want to do it every day. It'll probably be good for you. And when you are finished, you may, like the Buddhist scholar you have emulated, want to put brush to rice paper or pick up your guzhong and make some - art.

Now I think I'll go and listen to that stuff everyone has always called music. We don't need to ask whether it has artistic value.


----------



## Vasks

MarkW said:


> It was a piece that was performed -- and meant to be performed -- exactly once.


I did not know this, but once he decided to have the score published that meant he changed his mind.
View attachment 91198


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> None of the attempts to justify 4'33" as "art" succeed except in the minds of those who contrive definitions of art which accommodate it. A thing can't be defined as art by the fact that it "provokes thought" or stimulates "awareness" or occurs in an "artistic" venue or gets published in "score" or is _called_ art by some self-interested group of people with the epistemic authority of Humpty Dumpty.
> 
> Cage did something no one had ever done and which no one would ever recognize as music or art except for the fact that he, a composer, was the one who did it and introduced it to the public dressed up as a concert. What he did, simply, was to use the circumstances of a musical performance as a trick to produce a few unexpected minutes of mindfulness meditation, a time-honored Buddhist exercise which has never pretended to be art. Hence the entire question of its "artistic merit" is absurd.
> 
> Experiencing 4'33" may well have value for some, but doing somersaults around the common and still-sufficient understanding of words is a fool's game, and results only in endless streams of pointless verbiage - here we go again! - affecting neither the nature nor the value of anything, including art.
> 
> Just sit still and shut up for 4'33." Don't think about it. Just do it. You don't need instructions, urgings or prestidigitations from Mr. Cage. Now, did you get something from it? You might want to try it again. You might even want to do it every day. It'll probably be good for you. And when you are finished, you may, like the Buddhist scholar you have emulated, want to put brush to rice paper or pick up your guzhong and make some - art.
> 
> Now I think I'll go and listen to that stuff everyone has always called music. We don't need to ask whether it has artistic value.


Did you ever experience it yourself life, instead of a cd ?


----------



## Art Rock

Seriously, are we really going to repeat 128 pages of discussion? 

Some people consider it art and/or music.
Some people do not.

And NEVER the twain shall meet, no matter how much they discuss.


----------



## Guest

Art Rock said:


> Seriously, are we really going to repeat 128 pages of discussion?
> 
> Some people consider it art and/or music.
> Some people do not.
> 
> And NEVER the twain shall meet, no matter how much they discuss.


What is music if you are not able to hear it? It is just a provocative joke,no more no less.


----------



## Art Rock

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Ingélou

Art Rock said:


> Seriously, are we really going to repeat 128 pages of discussion?
> 
> Some people consider it art and/or music.
> Some people do not.
> 
> And NEVER the twain shall meet, no matter how much they discuss.


Yes, I'm afraid I've shot my bolt on this one...


----------



## Haydn man

Art Rock said:


> Seriously, are we really going to repeat 128 pages of discussion?
> 
> Some people consider it art and/or music.
> Some people do not.
> 
> And NEVER the twain shall meet, no matter how much they discuss.


I could not agree more, well said sir


----------



## KenOC

_4'33"_ is one of a line of pieces of "silent music." They all sound the same (obviously). Only Cage was clever enough to attach a "program" and claim it as more than a joke. Which, if you think about it, is kind of a joke itself.

The earliest piece of silent music I know of: Alphonse Allais wrote _Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man _in 1897. It consisted of twenty-four blank measures.


----------



## Richard8655

Traverso said:


> Did you ever experience it yourself life, instead of a cd ?


I think your point (valid) is that it can't be recorded sonically, only visually. Otherwise resulting in a silent CD. Therefore can a visual presentation designed for visual impact be defined as music? Silent pantomime is a more accurate description to me.


----------



## Guest

Of course is there a big difference in a experienced audience and a innocent one,the first ones are taking their cellphones and the others are still in a state of ignorance waiting and wondering what it is all about.


----------



## ArtMusic

Traverso said:


> Did you ever experience it yourself life, instead of a cd ?


I just performed it yesterday for my family by our home piano. Everyone clapped and cheered after my live performance. Grandma was in tears.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> I just performed it yesterday for my family by our home piano. Everyone clapped and cheered after my live performance. Grandma was in tears.


I wish I could see it and shared the joy ,they must really love you.


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> None of the attempts to justify 4'33" as "art" succeed except in the minds of those who contrive definitions of art which accommodate it. A thing can't be defined as art by the fact that it "provokes thought" or stimulates "awareness" or occurs in an "artistic" venue or gets published in "score" or is called art by some self-interested group of people with the epistemic authority of Humpty Dumpty.


This leads to the inevitable question: How _can_ a thing be defined as art?



Woodduck said:


> Cage did something no one had ever done and which no one would ever recognize as music or art except for the fact that he, a composer, was the one who did it and introduced it to the public dressed up as a concert. What he did, simply, was to use the circumstances of a musical performance as a trick to produce a few unexpected minutes of mindfulness meditation, a time-honored Buddhist exercise which has never pretended to be art. Hence the entire question of its "artistic merit" is absurd.


There is no doubt Cage was influenced by Buddhism, and that the piece serves as a kind of mindfulness meditation. But Cage's status as a composer and his introducing 4'33" as a piece of music at a public concert--all of which you dismiss as mere obfuscation--is precisely what makes it something other than just a simple Buddhist exercise.


----------



## mmsbls

Art Rock said:


> Some people consider it art and/or music.
> Some people do not.
> 
> And NEVER the twain shall meet, no matter how much they discuss.


I certainly understand your point, but I will say that discussion can lead to better understanding and even a change of opinion. When I first came to TC, I thought 4'33" was music, but after reading many posts and thinking carefully about how I view music, I changed my mind.

I personally do not believe it's obviously music or obviously not music.


----------



## Blancrocher

As an aside, I'm wondering how people sound out 4'33'' in their heads. Do you go all out and say "four minutes and thirty-three seconds," or for the sake of brevity do you just say "four thirty-three" (which is incidentally my own preferred option)? Does anyone try to treat 4'33'' as a purely visual icon?


----------



## Woodduck

amfortas said:


> This leads to the inevitable question: How _can_ a thing be defined as art?
> 
> There is no doubt Cage was influenced by Buddhism, and that the piece serves as a kind of mindfulness meditation. But Cage's status as a composer and his introducing 4'33" as a piece of music at a public concert--all of which you dismiss as mere obfuscation--is precisely what makes it something other than just a simple Buddhist exercise.


I didn't say 4'33" was a simple Buddhist exercise. I said it was a trick by which the audience was induced to participate in mindfulness meditation. I might have added that the trick was probably not awfully successful, since most people would have spent the 4'33" wondering what the heck was going on. Possibly a few were struck by spiritual lightning and went off to found Buddhist monasteries.

The only obfuscation is on the part of the epistemic Humpty Dumptys:

_"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."_

If Cage calls his seight-of-mind art, he's entitled to be master of his special genre. I don't listen to talking eggs, but when Humpty falls and cracks open, I'll be there with salt and pepper.


----------



## Woodduck

Traverso said:


> Did you ever experience it yourself life, instead of a cd ?


Frequently. I can play it at my own piano, and needn't pay for concert tickets.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Woodduck said:


> Frequently. I can play it at my own piano, and needn't pay for concert tickets.


I play it on my guitar, the sustain is incredible...........................


----------



## Vasks

Blancrocher said:


> As an aside, I'm wondering how people sound out 4'33'' in their heads. Do you go all out and say "four minutes and thirty-three seconds," or for the sake of brevity do you just say "four thirty-three" (which is incidentally my own preferred option)?


I watched several times a video where Cage referred to it as "four thirty-three"


----------



## arpeggio

Chronochromie said:


> You do know the connotations of the term "degenerate art" don't you? If you don't you should read up on it and if you do then it's absolutely disgusting that you would say that.


What concerns me is that ArtMusic may actually know what "degenerate art" means.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Vasks said:


> I watched several times a video where Cage referred to it as "four thirty-three"


Unless he had a video screen for a face, it would be hard to say 4'33" any other way...............


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> I didn't say 4'33" was a simple Buddhist exercise. I said it was a trick by which the audience was induced to participate in mindfulness meditation. I might have added that the trick was probably not awfully successful, since most people would have spent the 4'33" wondering what the heck was going on.


I'm not sure people wondering what the heck is going on renders a work of art unsuccessful. For that matter, I'm not sure it renders a Buddhist exercise unsuccessful.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Frequently. I can play it at my own piano, and needn't pay for concert tickets.


Is the presence of a piano a necessary condition or will a bagpipe also be, sufficient as a vehicle,I mean as visual information.
The interaction could be different.The expectations are culturaly bound.


----------



## Woodduck

Traverso said:


> Is the presence of a piano a necessary condition or will a bagpipe also be, sufficient as a vehicle,I mean as visual information.
> The interaction could be different.The expectations are culturaly bound.


I should think a bagpiper performing the work would be especially entertaining. Complete with kilt and tam, of course.


----------



## Woodduck

amfortas said:


> I'm not sure people wondering what the heck is going on renders a work of art unsuccessful. For that matter, I'm not sure it renders a Buddhist exercise unsuccessful.


That depends on the work of art - and whether there actually is one. I won't say more about Buddhists.


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> That depends on the work of art - and whether there actually is one.


Fair enough, though that raises more questions than it answers.



Woodduck said:


> I won't say more about Buddhists.


Good! I'm on very shaky ground there.


----------



## Gordontrek

Dang. Only 36 hours later and six pages....


----------



## Casebearer

mmsbls said:


> I certainly understand your point, but I will say that discussion can lead to better understanding and even a change of opinion. When I first came to TC, I thought 4'33" was music, but after reading many posts and thinking carefully about how I view music, I changed my mind.
> 
> I personally do not believe it's obviously music or obviously not music.


That's a profound way of putting it that has Zen-like qualities of its own. I like that. But if I translate that, you're in fact saying you're now agnostic on the matter.

Other people like Woodduck state it can only be called art or music when you 'contrive' definitions of art or music to fit your own ideology or self-interest (which is an unpleasant way to put things because it can only lead to 'us versus them' exchanges of opinions). He also doesn't define art or music in a positive way himself, only goes to say that if you want to include 4'33" your motivations are doubtful, so he makes it personal. He objects to definitions of art or music that go beyond "the common and still-sufficient understanding" of it.

I want to go deeper into that. Is there a common understanding of art and music? You only need about two seconds to think about that and conclude that there is not, even if you put 4'33" (and other 'art by contrived definitions') aside. Even when you confine it to older Western classical music the whole history is full of incidents where works by now accepted composers where completely rejected as not proper art/music or not art/music (so falling outside the common understanding of that period/audience if there ever is one in any period). What art/music is, has always been a matter of debate and definitions even within the cultural limits of western classical music.

So when Woodduck states that "the common understanding" of music is still sufficient, he suggests that there is something like an absolute/unchanging/traditional consensus on what is music and what not and he knows about it. I invite him to define that in such a way that it makes clear what strands of classical and non-classical, western and non-western music form part of this music by common understanding. Please also specify 'the commons' that are your reference commons and by what means you have knowledge of their understanding.

This aside: of course it is a question of definition what you call music and what not. In all arts and sciences these fundamental definitions are under constant debate and shifting. You may choose to live by what you perceive to be the common standards of the early 19th century, that's perfectly okay, but don't delude yourself that you'll be able to stop the world from turning by selecting a cosy little peer group of like-minded people you call 'us'.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> None of the attempts to justify 4'33" as "art" succeed except in the minds of those who contrive definitions of art which accommodate it.


In your opinion, of course. I'm willing to accept it as "art" without the need to contrive, as you suggest. In my opinion, of course.

I've never accepted it as music, however.


----------



## ArtMusic

Traverso said:


> I wish I could see it and shared the joy ,they must really love you.


I'll keep that in mind for my next performance so that we can do a live recording of it.


----------



## Strange Magic

Casebearer said:


> That's a profound way of putting it that has Zen-like qualities of its own. I like that. But if I translate that, you're in fact saying you're now agnostic on the matter.
> 
> Other people like Woodduck state it can only be called art or music when you 'contrive' definitions of art or music to fit your own ideology or self-interest (which is an unpleasant way to put things because it can only lead to 'us versus them' exchanges of opinions). He also doesn't define art or music in a positive way himself, only goes to say that if you want to include 4'33" your motivations are doubtful, so he makes it personal. He objects to definitions of art or music that go beyond "the common and still-sufficient understanding" of it.
> 
> I want to go deeper into that. Is there a common understanding of art and music? You only need about two seconds to think about that and conclude that there is not, even if you put 4'33" (and other 'art by contrived definitions') aside. Even when you confine it to older Western classical music the whole history is full of incidents where works by now accepted composers where completely rejected as not proper art/music or not art/music (so falling outside the common understanding of that period/audience if there ever is one in any period). What art/music is, has always been a matter of debate and definitions even within the cultural limits of western classical music.
> 
> So when Woodduck states that "the common understanding" of music is still sufficient, he suggests that there is something like an absolute/unchanging/traditional consensus on what is music and what not and he knows about it. I invite him to define that in such a way that it makes clear what strands of classical and non-classical, western and non-western music form part of this music by common understanding. Please also specify 'the commons' that are your reference commons and by what means you have knowledge of their understanding.
> 
> This aside: of course it is a question of definition what you call music and what not. In all arts and sciences these fundamental definitions are under constant debate and shifting. You may choose to live by what you perceive to be the common standards of the early 19th century, that's perfectly okay, but don't delude yourself that you'll be able to stop the world from turning by selecting a cosy little peer group of like-minded people you call 'us'.


If we accept your notion that "in all arts and sciences these fundamental definitions are under constant debate and shifting..."--and I do accept it--we must also accept that all dialogue on these issues is meaningless, if we choose to always consider the entire spectrum of views and opinions on any subject as equally valid or relevant. To define is to limit and to exclude. Insects have six legs. If I find an ant with 5 legs, is it an insect? But in order to have discussions about things wherein there is some kind of shared definition of terms, we can fall back on some sort of Woodducklike understanding of a reference commons. If the phenomenon referred to as 4'33" occurred only once, engaging a relatively small group of people, then the reference commons is both small and removed, now only hearsay. If I go into a room alone and then emerge saying I've had an art experience, are others to then concern themselves in debate and discussion of that phenomenon? I don't think so--they could of course--but likely won't, and by thus limiting and excluding my reported phenomenon from consideration as art, ordinary life and dialogue can continue on, and we reduce "analysis paralysis" to more manageable proportions. We may live (partly) in a universe where quantum phenomena underpin all "reality", but our actual lived lives are experienced in a world of Newtonian physics. Looked at this way, 4'33" represents the sort of quantum phenomenon a vast majority can ignore as "art".


----------



## Guest

Casebearer said:


> This aside: of course it is a question of definition what you call music and what not. In all arts and sciences these fundamental definitions are under *constant *debate and shifting.


On the whole, I agree with the points you have made, but I think 'constant' here overstates the situation. There have always been those who have preferred to challenge whatever orthodoxies prevail at their time of working - though the degrees of challenge have varied. There have been occasions when some - sometimes only a few, sometimes a few with greater influence among their peers or the public - have 'created' something to challenge the fundamental question of what might be called 'art' and/or 'music'. For the general audience, such creations have at best been of novelty value. For the more specialist audience of those who enjoy a wide range of art and might consider themselves well-educated in the arts, there is a valid debate to be had about the contributions of such 'creations' to our thinking about art and music. For a very much smaller audience, the debate is over and the 'anything goes' argument is won.

It seems to me unarguable that 4'33" is a 'creation', not a mere unorthodox idea. It made a contribution to the debate at the time about art and music. Doubtless some revere it as an antecedent to similar types of creation still being promoted, and doubtless some, somewhere, still wish to continue that debate - perhaps because they are artists who wish to challenge the orthodox, or perhaps because they're new to 4'33" and haven't yet had it.

I don't feel compelled to justify my thinking on the matter, nor to debate at length with others who've already entertained and, probably, exhausted themselves in other threads on the piece. But nor do I feel compelled to pour scorn on those who wish to join the debate for the first time.


----------



## Ingélou

So long as 'scorn' is absent, 4'33" can be an interesting starting point, from which people can discuss what they understand by 'art' and 'music'.


----------



## EdwardBast

Traverso said:


> Is the presence of a piano a necessary condition or will a bagpipe also be, sufficient as a vehicle,I mean as visual information.
> The interaction could be different.The expectations are culturaly bound.


Oh, the bagpipes would certainly be better! Nothing enhances the appreciation of environmental sounds - or silence - more than an impending bagpipe serenade!


----------



## Pugg

ArtMusic said:


> I'll keep that in mind for my next performance so that we can do a live recording of it.


Can I count myself in?


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> I'll keep that in mind for my next performance so that we can do a live recording of it.


Do not forget the most important thing ! keeping up appearances


----------



## mmsbls

Casebearer said:


> That's a profound way of putting it that has Zen-like qualities of its own. I like that. But if I translate that, you're in fact saying you're now agnostic on the matter.


Actually, I think I was not clear in my post. I did change my mind so that I now believe 4'33" is _not_ music. But I do not think it is _obviously_ not music. In other words I think the issue is not trivial. People ought to think about the actual intent of 4'33" (rather than what most people seem to think it is), think about how they define music in the light of more modern ideas of music, and then decide if they believe 4'33" is or is not music.



> Other people like Woodduck state it can only be called art or music when you 'contrive' definitions of art or music to fit your own ideology or self-interest (which is an unpleasant way to put things because it can only lead to 'us versus them' exchanges of opinions). He also doesn't define art or music in a positive way himself, only goes to say that if you want to include 4'33" your motivations are doubtful, so he makes it personal. He objects to definitions of art or music that go beyond "the common and still-sufficient understanding" of it.


I agree with some of what Woodduck said, but I don't agree that those who find it music must _contrive_ a definition to include the work. I believe Cage found much in the world musical. He loved sounds in a musical way. That doesn't make those sounds musical, but he may have felt any such boundary was vastly less than people like I do.



> I want to go deeper into that. Is there a common understanding of art and music? You only need about two seconds to think about that and conclude that there is not, even if you put 4'33" (and other 'art by contrived definitions') aside.


I agree that any "common" understanding is certainly not common to all, so in the sense that you use it, you are correct. I think if one were to play suspected music (i.e. sounds) to a large group of listeners, there would be a set of "works" that 100% agreed were music. There would also be a set of "works" that fewer than 100% believed were music including some "works" that perhaps 0% agreed were music. One could use those results to determine which "works" were music (i.e. using a term in a manner that few actually use it leads to confusion). I'm not sure what percentage of people would feel that 4'33" was music, but I would bet that the percentage was low enough to comfortably place it in the non-music category based on the above empirical result.


----------



## Woodduck

Casebearer said:


> Other people like Woodduck state it can only be called art or music when you 'contrive' definitions of art or music to fit your own ideology or self-interest (which is an unpleasant way to put things because it can only lead to 'us versus them' exchanges of opinions). He also doesn't define art or music in a positive way himself, only goes to say that if you want to include 4'33" your motivations are doubtful, so he makes it personal. He objects to definitions of art or music that go beyond "the common and still-sufficient understanding" of it.
> 
> I want to go deeper into that. Is there a common understanding of art and music? You only need about two seconds to think about that and conclude that there is not, even if you put 4'33" (and other 'art by contrived definitions') aside. Even when you confine it to older Western classical music the whole history is full of incidents where works by now accepted composers where completely rejected as not proper art/music or not art/music (so falling outside the common understanding of that period/audience if there ever is one in any period). What art/music is, has always been a matter of debate and definitions even within the cultural limits of western classical music.
> 
> So when Woodduck states that "the common understanding" of music is still sufficient, he suggests that there is something like an absolute/unchanging/traditional consensus on what is music and what not and he knows about it. I invite him to define that in such a way that it makes clear what strands of classical and non-classical, western and non-western music form part of this music by common understanding. Please also specify 'the commons' that are your reference commons and by what means you have knowledge of their understanding.
> 
> This aside: of course it is a question of definition what you call music and what not. In all arts and sciences these fundamental definitions are under constant debate and shifting. You may choose to live by what you perceive to be the common standards of the early 19th century, that's perfectly okay, but don't delude yourself that you'll be able to stop the world from turning by selecting a cosy little peer group of like-minded people you call 'us'.


This is not, at base, complex. I would refer you first to Strange Magic's fine post above. I would then refer you to the immensely protracted thread on 4'33" as "sacred music" started by millionrainbows a good while ago and, possibly, still attracting diehards and curiosity-seekers. In that thread I laid out my philosophical position at great length in a number of posts. I have no energy to repeat it all now.

But to put it crudely: some bloke can't just come along and do a little trick in a concert hall and say "this is music" and expect intelligent people to agree. I don't live in Wonderland, where words suddenly mean anything we want them to mean. But, if we go beyond just using them carelessly or in heretofore-unheard of ways, and actually argue that they actually should acquire these new meanings, we're taking a position; we're being philosophical. And so we'd better have a damn good reason for what we're doing.

What is language for? Thinking and communicating - both as clearly as possible, if we're honest. That implies purpose in the use of language: why are we using a word this way? Why do we need it? What does it do for us? Most people don't think this through when they use language, and the meaning of words tend to drift over time in ways that may or may not be helpful to understanding. The meaning of "music," however, has been remarkably stable, and indeed "common," across time and cultures. I don't care in what exact terms you put it, but _"music" has meant, essentially, humanly produced sounds felt to have some expressive properties, sounds chosen, composed, and produced for expressive purposes ranging from the purely aesthetic to the emotional to the physically stimulating but not specifically conceptual in intent (though not necessarily excluding conceptual communication; sounds produced for that particular purpose being language)._

This very general definition does not exactly imply your "something like an absolute/unchanging/traditional consensus on what is music." That would be like saying that something is "inarguable." There's always somebody prepared to argue anything, or challenge any absolute or consensus. I'm not arguing, fundamentally, with the opinions of such people; I'm arguing with their policies - i.e., their epistemological policies. I'm arguing with their loose view of language - of what it is and why we have it.

_Why_ does anyone want to call 4'33," which lacks the simplest defining quality of music - the production of sound by human beings - music? What _purpose_ is served by so extending, if not indeed, violating, common understanding? Are we to be fooled by the trappings of the concert hall into thinking "Oh, yeah, we're at a concert, and that guy's just sitting at the piano doing nothing and turning pages with nothing on them, but I guess we're supposed to be listening anyway, and - hey! - I hear a plane going over, so I guess that's Mr. Cage's musical offering (apologies to Bach) and, by George, maybe the whole meaning of music and art have changed forever"?

Mr. Cage is on record as saying quite explicitly that he regards all sound as music. Well, bless him. I hope there are lots of random noises in whatever corner of heaven he now inhabits. Environmental sounds are indeed lovely things (at least when they aren't annoying things). But they are "music" only speaking poetically, by analogy. They are not music in the same sense that the artifact - the work of human art - which mankind has always called "music" is. Hence the essential pointlessness of the title of this thread: "The artistic merit of 4'33." 4'33" has no _artistic_ merit, because it is not _art._ It is an exercise in meditation, hopefully framed and induced by the trappings and motions of a concert. As such it may have merit (and presumably does, if you get something out of it).


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> 4'33" has no _artistic_ merit, because it is not _art._


This is a bit off topic, but sometimes analogies are helpful: Would you similarly identify any particular schools or trends in the visual arts as "not art"?


----------



## Woodduck

amfortas said:


> This is a bit off topic, but sometimes analogies are helpful: Would you similarly identify any particular schools or trends in the visual arts as "not art"?


Yeah, but I'd get a lot of flack for it, and I'm resting now. Old age has its prerogatives.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

ArtMusic said:


> I'll keep that in mind for my next performance so that we can do a live recording of it.


Make sure you do it 24/192 or at least 24/ 96


----------



## ArtMusic

Ingélou said:


> So long as 'scorn' is absent, 4'33" can be an interesting starting point, from which people can discuss what they understand by 'art' and 'music'.


People pay a lot of money to buy Rothko works.


----------



## Pugg

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Make sure you do it 24/192 or at least 24/ 96


And on vinyl I suppose?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Pugg said:


> And on vinyl I suppose?[/QUOTE
> 
> Direct to wax cylinder would be preferred...............


----------



## Casebearer

Strange Magic said:


> If we accept your notion that "in all arts and sciences these fundamental definitions are under constant debate and shifting..."--and I do accept it--we must also accept that all dialogue on these issues is meaningless, if we choose to always consider the entire spectrum of views and opinions on any subject as equally valid or relevant. To define is to limit and to exclude. Insects have six legs. If I find an ant with 5 legs, is it an insect? But in order to have discussions about things wherein there is some kind of shared definition of terms, we can fall back on some sort of Woodducklike understanding of a reference commons. If the phenomenon referred to as 4'33" occurred only once, engaging a relatively small group of people, then the reference commons is both small and removed, now only hearsay. If I go into a room alone and then emerge saying I've had an art experience, are others to then concern themselves in debate and discussion of that phenomenon? I don't think so--they could of course--but likely won't, and by thus limiting and excluding my reported phenomenon from consideration as art, ordinary life and dialogue can continue on, and we reduce "analysis paralysis" to more manageable proportions. We may live (partly) in a universe where quantum phenomena underpin all "reality", but our actual lived lives are experienced in a world of Newtonian physics. Looked at this way, 4'33" represents the sort of quantum phenomenon a vast majority can ignore as "art".


I don't think dialogue on these issues is meaningless and I also think some definitions are better than others, so I don't think the entire spectrum of views and opinions is equally valid. I still (want to) believe in progress in arts and science and I also believe dialogue on these matters can gradually influence people's views (including my own). What else is the purpose of a forum like this?

Of course I'm not naieve and - after reading the rest of the new posts also - I think were having a good debate on the subject. What it comes down to for me is that when we are merely exchanging statements on 4'33" (or Wagner or other difficult subjects) the dialogue, time and again, is quite meaningless as you say, but when we start debating on our more fundamental views and definitions our exchange could be helpful in understanding eachother and maybe improve or sharpen or own views.

Allright, I will leave quantumphysics aside for the moment (or the invention of the number zero) and limit it to our Newtonian dayly reality. So we're talking about reference commons solely in this context but even then I still don't know who these people are and what they define as art/music. Do you think they accept as art/music: punk, musique concrete, electronic music, Mongolian throat singing etc (fill in with weird music...). How broadminded are these reference commons? From reading many threads on this forum I don't get the impression that only 4'33"is off limits ....


----------



## Casebearer

Sorry I don't have the time to go into the other replies at this moment...


----------



## Sloe

ArtMusic said:


> People pay a lot of money to buy Rothko works.


I would rather listen to something by John Cage than see a Rothko painting:

Here is something by him were there is something to listen to.


----------



## amfortas

ArtMusic said:


> People pay a lot of money to buy Rothko works.


If you're going to dismiss Rothko, you may as well dismiss Picasso. Or Cézanne. Or . . . I dunno, Monet. All that weird stuff.


----------



## Strange Magic

I think we might draw the line at whether the artist (using the word broadly) actually makes a first step, however minimal, to alter a pre-existing state of stasis. Rothko is fine by me. Even if the artist touched the blank canvas and merely placed a dot somewhere, that could be the beginning of "Art". But to exhibit a blank canvas, or to sit down before a piano and merely open and close the keyboard cover, I think can fall into the category of quantum "art" phenomena that are too infinitesimal to qualify as Art. As would be my previous example of entering a room alone, closing the door, and emerging stating that I had an art experience. Just some thoughts that pop into my mind....


----------



## David OByrne

ArtMusic said:


> People pay a lot of money to buy Rothko works.


I'm glad you like Rothko, he's a great artist. I went to an exhibition of his works several months ago, I was very impressed


----------



## ArtMusic

amfortas said:


> If you're going to dismiss Rothko, you may as well dismiss Picasso. Or Cézanne. Or . . . I dunno, Monet. All that weird stuff.


I would not extrapolate. For example if someone dislikes eating apples, does that mean that person also dislikes peaches, apricots and related fruits? Without knowing that person well enough, I would not prejudge.

As for _4'33"_, it's only strength is the inherent controversial much like Andy Warhol's art works, contemporary of John Cage and both share very similar artistic philosophies, and both have produced similar conceptual pieces. It's a byproduct of the post Second World War modernism thinking at the time, which is now outdated with little lasting value.


----------



## bharbeke

The idea can stimulate some interesting discussion. My take on it is pretty simple. I would not choose to listen to 4'33", and I would not appreciate it being put on the program of any concert I attended.


----------



## amfortas

ArtMusic said:


> I would not extrapolate. For example if someone dislikes eating apples, does that mean that person also dislikes peaches, apricots and related fruits? Without knowing that person well enough, I would not prejudge.


If all you meant was, you don't like Rothko, why not say so?


----------



## superhorn

As far as I am concerned , 4 ' 33" is a clever gimmick, nothing more . And all the pseudo profound gobbledygook which it has inspired in print , as though it were a profound work of art, is highly amusing .


----------



## David OByrne

superhorn said:


> As far as I am concerned , 4 ' 33" is a clever gimmick, nothing more . And all the pseudo profound gobbledygook which it has inspired in print , as though it were a profound work of art, is highly amusing .


Well it's inspired future centuries of endless arguments going nowhere, so it has that going for it:

When will this end?


----------



## tortkis

ArtMusic said:


> As for _4'33"_, it's only strength is the inherent controversial much like Andy Warhol's art works, contemporary of John Cage and both share very similar artistic philosophies, and both have produced similar conceptual pieces.


What are the "artistic philosophies" they share?



> It's a byproduct of the post Second World War modernism thinking at the time, which is now outdated with little lasting value.


Then why many of Cage's works have been recorded / reissued even a quarter-century after his death?


----------



## cimirro

tortkis said:


> What are the "artistic philosophies" they share?
> Then why many of Cage's works have been recorded / reissued even a quarter-century after his death?


I think this is the worst point in any discussion about such people like Cage
People starts to mention "artistic philosophies" to justify the music.
"art" is not "philosophy" - "philosophy" is not "art" - but, ok, we can do both things together, no problems,

Anyway, Cage never acted as a philosopher, eventually if he "explained" his music during his life and this is no special merit, that's all.
(Actually i don't think anyone needs explanations to enjoy the music of Varese, for example.)

So, each new line here is a waste of time if I try to call him genius.
usually I say "taste is enemy of art". So no matter what is my taste - I prefer to speak about the techniques of an art.
When studying his music I never found anything special in a compositional point-of-view.
In this case I would rate him as an unnecessary composer - a lot of marketing around his name doesn't mean he was special at all.
Ok, he made some prepared piano works, but these works are not special at all, the only difference is the sound in the piano. 
It is like someone who created a new instrument. Nothing which will change the world of music.
If you want different sounds you can make it with a computer now - so this is an old and unnecessary technique now.

On a musical point of view - 4'33'' is 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence in a musical score. More words are waste of paper/computer/time...
if you already waste 4 minutes and 33 seconds to listen this, why would you waste more time to write about it?
I have not heard or find anything special during his 4'33'' - no matter if he ask you to move your hands, or shake them, or hide them, or whatever

Finally, I must say it is sad to read people who claim to be interested in classical music trying to justify the importance of 4'33'' while a HUGE number of composers have never been heard for even 2 minutes...
People who, at least, take more then 4 minutes to write something more than "pauses".
4'33'' if compared to any other composer's work makes Cage sounds like a simple charlatan.
in the best situation he will be a nice composer for some tastes - but again - "taste is enemy of art"

And why the people record it?
because there are people wasting time trying to explain why he was a genius...
and why a lot of genius are forgotten now?
because a lot of people are discussing about the importance of silence in 4'33'' and have no time to listen the old and the new things...

let's think about it... for "trying to create a new concept of art", it is necessary to study the history of it (more than 45000 years of art)
if you want to break rules, ok, anyway first you need to learn them...

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Barbebleu

EdwardBast said:


> Oh, the bagpipes would certainly be better! Nothing enhances the appreciation of environmental sounds - or silence - more than an impending bagpipe serenade!


Interestingly enough my neighbour came banging on my door at three o'clock in the morning. Some nerve. Fortunately I was still awake and playing my bagpipes at the time.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Barbebleu said:


> Interestingly enough my neighbour came banging on my door at three o'clock in the morning. Some nerve. Fortunately I was still awake and playing my bagpipes at the time.


There is no better time for playing one's bagpipes.


----------



## KenOC

4'33" is God's way of telling you that you have too much time on your hands. Way too much. :tiphat:


----------



## MarkW

Like, for instance, most of Bach, I don't think it's so idiomatic that a transcription can't result in a perfectly acceptable performance. In fact, I would think performances on the accordian, bass drum, or steam calliope might actually be preferable to the original.


----------



## ArtMusic

KenOC said:


> 4'33" is God's way of telling you that you have too much time on your hands. Way too much. :tiphat:


I agree, also for composers.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> 4'33" is God's way of telling you that you have too much time on your hands. Way too much. :tiphat:


Perhaps you have only 4'33" too much. In that case, Cage has provided the tailor-made means of helping you dispose of it. But it's a little known fact that Cage instructs in the published score that the work may last any length of time. Cage's work is thus a gift to everyone with time on their hands (admit it, that includes you): the universal work of art. Seid umschlungen, Millionen!


----------



## tortkis

cimirro said:


> I think this is the worst point in any discussion about such people like Cage
> People starts to mention "artistic philosophies" to justify the music.


ArtMusic mentioned "artistic philosophies" to disdain Cage and Warhol. And I became curious about the idea that they shared similar "artistic philosophies," since I have not thought that there was a remarkable common ground between them.



> It is like someone who created a new instrument. Nothing which will change the world of music.


A new instrument could change how music is composed.



> 4'33'' if compared to any other composer's work makes Cage sounds like a simple charlatan.


If Cage truly believed that 4'33" had a value, he was not a charlatan, even if the work objectively had no value. Is there any evidence that Cage purposely deceived people who thought 4'33" is a meaningful piece of art/music?


----------



## Pugg

ArtMusic said:


> I agree, also for composers.


Also for some singers I might add.


----------



## cimirro

tortkis said:


> ArtMusic mentioned "artistic philosophies" to disdain Cage and Warhol. And I became curious about the idea that they shared similar "artistic philosophies," since I have not thought that there was a remarkable common ground between them.


Yes, I understand that, I was not speaking about the comment of ArtMusic, I was speaking about the explanations the people make around a piece of music (or "silence" in this case, which is not really necessary).



tortkis said:


> A new instrument could change how music is composed.


Good sentence, now can you show me which changes were made in the Cage's composed music forprepared piano that was not made by anyone in the last 3000 years of written music?

And, by the way, after the computer tools which are available now, no instrument will change how music is composed anymore, i assume you already know that sentence is dead - but still sounds beautiful, of course. 



tortkis said:


> If Cage truly believed that 4'33" had a value, he was not a charlatan, even if the work objectively had no value.


If I believe I'm a medical doctor... well, no matters what I believe if i'm not a medical doctor... or I can be called charlatan if I try to act like one right now...



tortkis said:


> Is there any evidence that Cage purposely deceived people who thought 4'33" is a meaningful piece of art/music?


Sincerely, this is of no interest to me, I'm just afraid when musicians or music students or wanna-be-artists or art-lovers mention such work as "art".

He wrote 4'33'', and this was probably the most useless piece of paper in the world of music (together with one Ligeti piece, which probably you have heard about, anyway Ligeti made great compositions too). 
I'm sad because someone cut a tree and make such paper for a fool write such charlatan example of a fake music.
i have no personal problems with Cage "the person", if Beethoven would do that, i would call Beethoven a charlatan... being a composer does not mean being a God (no matters if one believes or not in God), a composer must compose not act like a "naughty boy".
I don't care for WHO calls Cage a genius, i have his musical scores, i studied it, no genius is necessary to write his "normal" music.

If compositions are made for the paper and the playing, 
4'33'' is made for a latrine, let's keep each paper in its right place...

Please, don't be angry with me, but if you don't like music and like only the silence i recommend you more than 4 minutes and 33 seconds daily.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Casebearer

Strange Magic said:


> I think we might draw the line at whether the artist (using the word broadly) actually makes a first step, however minimal, to alter a pre-existing state of stasis. Rothko is fine by me. Even if the artist touched the blank canvas and merely placed a dot somewhere, that could be the beginning of "Art". But to exhibit a blank canvas, or to sit down before a piano and merely open and close the keyboard cover, I think can fall into the category of quantum "art" phenomena that are too infinitesimal to qualify as Art. As would be my previous example of entering a room alone, closing the door, and emerging stating that I had an art experience. Just some thoughts that pop into my mind....


Allright, it's clear where you draw the line and I know you're very open minded to all sorts of music. I draw the line differently, I think it's music in a formal sense in the same way 'zero' is a number and it's music in a practical sense in that it uses an important structural element of music (pauze/silence) in a concert setting. We could discuss if 'zero music' is part of music however, I can see why people have trouble with that. Nevertheless it certainly is art in my opinion.

But after reading the rest of the post of today I'm more inclined to agree with you on the uselessnes of exchange on this. People telling us that 4'33" is a waste of time and printed paper et cetera don't really contribute. There's a whole lot of music in print and on cd or radio that I would immediately swop for silence (made by Cage or not). Probably including a whole of their preffered 'music'. But that's not the kind of debate that's fruitful.


----------



## tortkis

cimirro said:


> Good sentence, now can you show me which changes were made in the Cage's composed music forprepared piano that was not made by anyone in the last 3000 years of written music?


I do not know any music before Cage that uses melody lines which consist of pitched notes and unpitched notes in sonata forms with strict time structure. Probably "melody" is not an proper word because it includes unpitched notes. Webern's sound-color melody may be close, but it uses only normal notes with a clear pitch.



> And, by the way, after the computer tools which are available now, no instrument will change how music is composed anymore, i assume you already know that sentence is dead - but still sounds beautiful, of course.


Maybe, but I don't know. Sometimes making physical instrument is easier than programming all the sonic characteristics. If you rely on computer, unpredictable byproduct in sounds may not be discovered. And physical features (or restrictions) of an instrument may create an interesting style of phrasing or rhythm or ornament when improvised.



> If I believe I'm a medical doctor... well, no matters what I believe if i'm not a medical doctor... or I can be called charlatan if I try to act like one right now...


In that case, perhaps there is more appropriate word than "charlatan." The word "charlatan" usually implies the intention to deceive.



> Sincerely, this is of no interest to me, I'm just afraid when musicians or music students or wanna-be-artists or art-lovers mention such work as "art".
> 
> He wrote 4'33'', and this was probably the most useless piece of paper in the world of music (together with one Ligeti piece, which probably you have heard about, anyway Ligeti made great compositions too).
> I'm sad because someone cut a tree and make such paper for a fool write such charlatan example of a fake music.
> i have no personal problems with Cage "the person", if Beethoven would do that, i would call Beethoven a charlatan... being a composer does not mean being a God (no matters if one believes or not in God), a composer must compose not act like a "naughty boy".
> I don't care for WHO calls Cage a genius, i have his musical scores, i studied it, no genius is necessary to write his "normal" music.
> 
> If compositions are made for the paper and the playing,
> 4'33'' is made for a latrine, let's keep each paper in its right place...
> 
> Please, don't be angry with me, but if you don't like music and like only the silence i recommend you more than 4 minutes and 33 seconds daily.


Oh... What did 4'33" do to you?


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

I have been debating whether or not to contribute to this thread. When it comes to 4'33" most people, I think, have nothing to say, are saying it, but it's not poetry and we don't really need it.

I really don't have any particular interest in the question of the work's status or merit as either art or music. What ultimately disturbs me, as one continues to believe in individualistic human creativity, at least in the sphere of art, is Cage's rejection of human agency.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

This kind of thread is ultimately a bait and a waste of time. When you have two sides that have such strong opposing opinions on such a subjective, heated topic it will always be pointless from the beginning.
Seriously, why waste your time? :lol:


----------



## Ingélou

Daniel Atkinson said:


> This kind of thread is ultimately a bait and a waste of time. When you have two sides that have such strong opposing opinions on such a subjective, heated topic it will always be pointless from the beginning.
> Seriously, why waste your time? :lol:


It isn't pointless - many posts explain differing points of view very clearly and provide food for thought. The silly or nasty posts at least reveal something about the posters or about human nature. Nobody needs to spend time reading this thread. It's only 'wasting time' if you think that it is.
Live long & prosper. :tiphat:


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Jerome said:


> *IMO the artistic merit of the piece IS sarcasm, or humorous satire.* I know there are others who will argue otherwise, but, again IMO, they are just playing along with the joke. I don't think it's funny, but I am not known for my sense of humor.


I think the word you were looking for is trolling. John Cage is a master troll, and the number of pages discussing him and his masterpiece on these boards only prove that.


----------



## cimirro

tortkis said:


> I do not know any music before Cage that uses melody lines which consist of pitched notes and unpitched notes in sonata forms with strict time structure. Probably "melody" is not an proper word because it includes unpitched notes. Webern's sound-color melody may be close, but it uses only normal notes with a clear pitch.


There are symphonies using unpitched notes in its first movement before Cage.
But why not mention Bartok's "Sonata for piano and percussion"?



tortkis said:


> Maybe, but I don't know. Sometimes making physical instrument is easier than programming all the sonic characteristics. If you rely on computer, unpredictable byproduct in sounds may not be discovered. And physical features (or restrictions) of an instrument may create an interesting style of phrasing or rhythm or ornament when improvised.


I assume you know a computer can sound like any and all instruments and even sound with these "restrictions" you mention. So I still feel a instrument will not change the world. And prepared piano is not an instrument. 
Actually composers today are free to compose with any form and sound of their preference, and it was not necessary Cage to give this possibility.



tortkis said:


> In that case, perhaps there is more appropriate word than "charlatan." The word "charlatan" usually implies the intention to deceive.


Making a piece of music which is clearly not a piece of music means no intention from the composer of doing this?



tortkis said:


> Oh... What did 4'33" do to you?


Nothing at all.
Sincerely, I just think it is a lack of respect with any serious professional musician who study for years about counterpoint/harmony/Art aesthetics/Music history when someone wants to make 4'33'' a work of genius while it is nothing but 3 pauses and no art work at all.
It is sad also mention Cage between great composers because his work is not special at all.
Unfortunately people speak too much about opinion, I'm not speaking about opinion - there are moments that we will note a chair is a chair
"Zero" is "Zero" - not music.



Casebearer said:


> Allright, it's clear where you draw the line and I know you're very open minded to all sorts of music. I draw the line differently, I think it's music in a formal sense in the same way 'zero' is a number and it's music in a practical sense in that it uses an important structural element of music (pauze/silence) in a concert setting. We could discuss if 'zero music' is part of music however, I can see why people have trouble with that. Nevertheless it certainly is art in my opinion.


Here is an example of the problem I mentioned.
I can not understand a discussion about "zero music" as a serious thing.
of course silence is an important element in music. But these elements are not music. Music is when you work using these elements together with techniques of composition.
"Sol" is a note, not a music. Same idea must work with a pauze, which is silence, not a music.

By the way, I think it is fair to mention I run a composition competition (in its third edition today)
I'm open minded to all kinds of music. Except "zero music". i have seen too many people working hard o composition to accept such charlatanism.



Casebearer said:


> But after reading the rest of the post of today I'm more inclined to agree with you on the uselessnes of exchange on this. People telling us that 4'33" is a waste of time and printed paper et cetera don't really contribute.


Well, I never imagined that a discussion with the title "The artistic merit of 4'33''" would mean "please shut up if you do not agree with us".
I know a lot of people prefer do not say they deslike something because they are afraid of being called ignorant. I'm not afraid of this, I have been working as concert pianist an played all kind of repertoires for years, and I studied during all my life about it. I really can contribute with one information:
If someone tells you that a bad thing is genial you don't need to call it genial to claim you understand about it.
There are too many pseudo-artists around the world doing these bad works - why must I help them with my silence about their act? I really would love if no one in the world do not perform 4'33'' again, but we always have the charlatans to do so. No one can change it - I know that.



Casebearer said:


> There's a whole lot of music in print and on cd or radio that I would immediately swop for silence (made by Cage or not). Probably including a whole of their preffered 'music'. But that's not the kind of debate that's fruitful.


That is the point - Your taste.
"Your taste" or "my taste" do not rule what is art.
Art was not a concept created by any modernist, we have thousands of years of art. 
the problem is people not studying art history and trying to build a new sense for art when it is not necessary at all, you just need study its history (but i know mostly so called "scholars" are lazy now... it sounds easier to creat new explnations for something you do not really understand - acting like religious people not like artists...)
If you do not like a piece of music at all you always can change it 
Silence is a solution for the ones who deslike music... no doubts
Just, please, don't tell me Cage created the silence... (yes, you didn't said that) and don't call "music" the "elements" used for making a piece of music. If you have found any very special thing in Cage music I'll be very happy to read and i'll be back to his scores and change my point of view, if not, please don't try to shut up a voice who have studied his works and found no special merit. That is a bad act.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Strange Magic

Retrograde Inversion said:


> I have been debating whether or not to contribute to this thread. When it comes to 4'33" most people, I think, have nothing to say, are saying it, but it's not poetry and we don't really need it.
> 
> I really don't have any particular interest in the question of the work's status or merit as either art or music. What ultimately disturbs me, as one continues to believe in individualistic human creativity, at least in the sphere of art, is Cage's rejection of human agency.


Similar questions were/are raised by Marcel Duchamp's _Fountain_, his famous/notorious submission of a urinal as an entry in an art exhibition--questions of agency, of intent. The Wikipedia entry is well worth reading...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

The issue of human agency often comes up in another field: hominid paleontology. There, experts minutely examine rock specimens for signs that hominins (_Australopithecus, Homo_) have worked on shaping or using them as tools, or the examination of animal bones to discern hominid-caused cut-marks, denoting the presence of tool-using ancestral or related human beings.


----------



## amfortas

cimirro said:


> I think this is the worst point in any discussion about such people like Cage
> People starts to mention "artistic philosophies" to justify the music.
> "art" is not "philosophy" - "philosophy" is not "art" - but, ok, we can do both things together, no problems,
> 
> Anyway, Cage never acted as a philosopher, eventually if he "explained" his music during his life and this is no special merit, that's all.
> (Actually i don't think anyone needs explanations to enjoy the music of Varese, for example.)
> 
> So, each new line here is a waste of time if I try to call him genius.
> usually I say "taste is enemy of art". So no matter what is my taste - I prefer to speak about the techniques of an art.
> When studying his music I never found anything special in a compositional point-of-view.
> In this case I would rate him as an unnecessary composer - a lot of marketing around his name doesn't mean he was special at all.
> Ok, he made some prepared piano works, but these works are not special at all, the only difference is the sound in the piano.
> It is like someone who created a new instrument. Nothing which will change the world of music.
> If you want different sounds you can make it with a computer now - so this is an old and unnecessary technique now.
> 
> On a musical point of view - 4'33'' is 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence in a musical score. More words are waste of paper/computer/time...
> if you already waste 4 minutes and 33 seconds to listen this, why would you waste more time to write about it?
> I have not heard or find anything special during his 4'33'' - no matter if he ask you to move your hands, or shake them, or hide them, or whatever
> 
> Finally, I must say it is sad to read people who claim to be interested in classical music trying to justify the importance of 4'33'' while a HUGE number of composers have never been heard for even 2 minutes...
> People who, at least, take more then 4 minutes to write something more than "pauses".
> 4'33'' if compared to any other composer's work makes Cage sounds like a simple charlatan.
> in the best situation he will be a nice composer for some tastes - but again - "taste is enemy of art"
> 
> And why the people record it?
> because there are people wasting time trying to explain why he was a genius...
> and why a lot of genius are forgotten now?
> because a lot of people are discussing about the importance of silence in 4'33'' and have no time to listen the old and the new things...
> 
> let's think about it... for "trying to create a new concept of art", it is necessary to study the history of it (more than 45000 years of art)
> if you want to break rules, ok, anyway first you need to learn them...
> 
> All the best
> Artur Cimirro


Five hundred words to explain why 4'33" is not worth writing about?


----------



## cimirro

amfortas said:


> Five hundred words to explain why 4'33" is not worth writing about?


If you have all this free time, you can also check how many words were written to explain why 4'33'' is art.
If you have nothing to say, ok, but, please don't try to ask me to shut up.
I really can't understand why some people enter in a discussion forum. 
Am I expected to say "Amen" to comments based in a total lack of acknowledgement in art?

and yes, there are too much words about this piece, and this is exactly why I decided to write about.
I'm tired of people claiming they understand about music just repeating all this ridiculous marketing made by score/book editors, and cd labels.
The ones who do not agree are able to write anything they want about it. 
personal attacks means nothing more than lack of personality and a coward attitude (I would understand if it comes from edition Peters in this case... do you receive any fee from them?)


----------



## amfortas

cimirro said:


> If you have all this free time, you can also check how many words were written to explain why 4'33'' is art.
> If you have nothing to say, ok, but, please don't try to ask me to shut up.
> I really can't understand why some people enter in a discussion forum.
> Am I expected to say "Amen" to comments based in a total lack of acknowledgement in art?
> 
> and yes, there are too much words about this piece, and this is exactly why I decided to write about.
> I'm tired of people claiming they understand about music just repeating all this ridiculous marketing made by score/book editors, and cd labels.
> The ones who do not agree are able to write anything they want about it.
> personal attacks means nothing more than lack of personality and a coward attitude (I would understand if it comes from edition Peters in this case... do you receive any fee from them?)


When did I ask you to shut up? When did I make a personal attack?


----------



## cimirro

amfortas said:


> When did I ask you to shut up? When did I make a personal attack?


"Ridiculing" the fact I wrote 500 words sounds like this...


----------



## amfortas

cimirro said:


> "Ridiculing" the fact I wrote 500 words sounds like this...


Sorry you took it that way. Feel free to write what you want. And for all I know, you're a wonderful person.


----------



## mmsbls

Let's keep the focus on Cage and 4'33" rather than other posters.


----------



## millionrainbows

Sol Invictus said:


> Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but I can't seem to find a thread dedicated to this composition specifically so I started my own. I mean this in an unsarcastic way; what exactly is the artistic merit of 4'33''? And if it does have merit, could it be performed poorly?


The wrong questions.


----------



## millionrainbows

…and now, for something completely different: The Freeman Etudes. Every note is a separately notated event. Paul Zukofsky, the virtuoso violinist for whom the piece was being written for, eventually claimed they were "humanly impossible" to play. Cage stopped composing it, believing this to be true. Then along came Irvine Arditti, and changed all that. He considered them a challenge. Heartened by this, Cage attempted to continue his composition process, but found that after this 10-year hiatus, he was lost, and no longer remembered how to continue. He asked James Pritchett, whom Cage had assisted in his doctoral work on Cage, to return the favor by looking at where he had stopped, and how he might continue. After an extensive analysis, Pritchett figured out how Cage was to continue, and the Etudes were completed. Just one look at the highly detailed and meticulous score will reveal what a complex and detailed work this is. It makes Stockhausen's overly-complex scores look simple by comparison.

So consider The Freeman Etudes to be the polar opposite of 4'33", and let there be NO DOUBT that John Cage was a highly skilled and competent modern composer. _Just in case that's the drift here._


----------



## cimirro

millionrainbows said:


> …and now, for something completely different: The Freeman Etudes. Every note is a separately notated event. Paul Zukofsky, the virtuoso violinist for whom the piece was being written for, eventually claimed they were "humanly impossible" to play. Cage stopped composing it, believing this to be true. Then along came Irvine Arditti, and changed all that. He considered them a challenge. Heartened by this, Cage attempted to continue his composition process, but found that after this 10-year hiatus, he was lost, and no longer remembered how to continue. He asked James Pritchett, whom Cage had assisted in his doctoral work on Cage, to return the favor by looking at where he had stopped, and how he might continue. After an extensive analysis, Pritchett figured out how Cage was to continue, and the Etudes were completed. Just one look at the highly detailed and meticulous score will reveal what a complex and detailed work this is. It makes Stockhausen's overly-complex scores look simple by comparison.
> 
> So consider The Freeman Etudes to be the polar opposite of 4'33", and let there be NO DOUBT that John Cage was a highly skilled and competent modern composer. _Just in case that's the drift here._


Yes, now, let's forget for a second all this beautiful story around these "almost impossible works" by Cage and let's focus on the composition itself.
Freeman etudes are real music. No matter opinions or tastes.

But I want remember you all that the impression of "almost impossible work" because of details can be found in Messiaen's "Mode de valeurs et d'intensités" for piano solo - which was a revolution in composition - I'm pretty sure every pianist who read it for the first time is scared and call it impossible because of all the details.

Again Cage is late in history, and why I say that? 
Just to prove his music can be interesting for some tastes, but it is not important to the history as a lot of people want to force.
Maybe If we transcribe the Freeman etudes for piano solo we will notice there are no big news there...

said this, now it is time to answer the next sentence as it is expected from now:


mmsbls said:


> Let's keep the focus on Cage and 4'33" rather than other posters.


...! 
(I'm focusing on 4'33'')

All the best
Artur


----------



## sloth

just a silent tribute to cage


----------



## millionrainbows

This is what the Freeman Etudes notation looks like…the point being, that while 4'33" is such a "free" work, these Etudes are by contrast notated down to the minutest detail. Still, part of it was determined by chance procedures, the I-Ching and star maps. The note density was in part determined by the star maps, and it got so dense that it caused Zukofsky to give up. Apparently, Cage and Arditti worked out this problem to where it became a matter of "as fast as humanly possible," and Arditti is still working at "improving his time."


----------



## cimirro

millionrainbows said:


> This is what the Freeman Etudes notation looks like...


Do you really think no one wrote scores like this before him? How many examples you want? (not speaking about the instrument, but the notation)


----------



## millionrainbows

I can't stand John Cage, and to prove it, I'm going to shoot this dog...


----------



## millionrainbows

cimirro said:


> Do you really think no one wrote scores like this before him? How many examples you want? (not speaking about the instrument, but the notation)


So what's your point? That John Cage is not an innovator? My point is that he was, indeed, a knowledgable composer who was working within the bounds of the most complex notation available to any composer, such as Boulez or Stockhausen; only, by the nature of this work, he may have been obliquely commenting on the state of affairs…but I think you might have missed that aspect.


----------



## cimirro

millionrainbows said:


> So what's your point? That John Cage is not an innovator? My point is that he was, indeed, a knowledgable composer who was working within the bounds of the most complex notation available to any composer, such as Boulez or Stockhausen; only, by the nature of this work, he may have been obliquely commenting on the state of affairs…but I think you might have missed that aspect.


There are composers like Boulez and there are conceptualists like Cage
the first made music, the second discuss sterile ideas 
does it sound better for you now?


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> So what's your point? That John Cage is not an innovator? My point is that he was, indeed, a knowledgable composer who was working within the bounds of the most complex notation available to any composer, such as Boulez or Stockhausen; only, by the nature of this work, he may have been obliquely commenting on the state of affairs…but I think you might have missed that aspect.


Is complex synonymous with messy and ill-conceived? What is complex about the notation? Detailed yes, but why complex?

Personally, I think it needs more color. And it might be more pleasing to look at upside down. Clearly this is a work of visual art because it is useless as as a performing score.


----------



## amfortas

millionrainbows said:


> I can't stand John Cage, and to prove it, I'm going to shoot this dog...


I can't stand this dog . . .


----------



## Autocrat

Art Rock said:


> This is still a good read on the piece.


This certainly is.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Traverso said:


> Is the presence of a piano a necessary condition or will a bagpipe also be, sufficient as a vehicle,I mean as visual information.
> The interaction could be different.The expectations are culturaly bound.


I would like it transcribed for kazoo!


----------



## 433

Florestan said:


> I would like it transcribed for kazoo!


Sounds good .


----------



## Pugg

Florestan said:


> I would like it transcribed for kazoo!


Only if you playing it Florestan.......


----------



## SixFootScowl

Pugg said:


> Only if you playing it Florestan.......


Good because that is the only instrument I can play. And when I do, it tends to drive everyone nuts! :lol:


----------



## MarkW

I was wrong. I had thought performances of 4'33" had died after the premier. I just read the academic paper posted by ArtRock and discover that it actually has a long performance history. Who knew? I apologize for my uninformed presumption.


----------



## Strange Magic

There is actually a variant of 4'33" that is performed with much greater frequency. Rather than specifying the length of the piece, its anonymous composer scored its duration as being the time between the initial closing of the keyboard cover and its subsequent opening. The piece is quite often performed late at night, as it happens; also, curiously, the performer is usually present only at the very beginning and its end. Cage became aware of this piece very early in his musical life, and it served as the catalyst for him to compose his rather more famous work.


----------



## jdec

BTW, does anyone know why Celibidache's performance of the work in question takes 7'46" and not 4'33"?


----------



## Razumovskymas

jdec said:


> BTW, does anyone know why Celibidache's performance of the work in question takes 7'46" and not 4'33"?


Because it's not a HIP-performance


----------



## 433

MarkW said:


> I was wrong. I had thought performances of 4'33" had died after the premier. I just read the academic paper posted by ArtRock and discover that it actually has a long performance history. Who knew? I apologize for my uninformed presumption.


 . . . .


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

433 said:


> .  . . .


4'33" is four thirty three


----------



## TurnaboutVox

jdec said:


> BTW, does anyone know why Celibidache's performance of the work in question takes 7'46" and not 4'33"?


Wait till you hear Maximianno Cobra's...


----------



## Sloe

jdec said:


> BTW, does anyone know why Celibidache's performance of the work in question takes 7'46" and not 4'33"?


Wasn´t Celibidache´s conducting slower on the slow parts and faster on the fast parts maybe it is a fast silence so it is shorter.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Sloe said:


> Wasn´t Celibidache´s conducting slower on the slow parts and faster on the fast parts maybe it is a fast silence so it is shorter.


Or maybe it was very HIP and he did a recap of the exposition!


----------



## 433

Razumovskymas said:


> Or maybe it was very HIP and he did a recap of the exposition!


Sounds . Good .


----------



## ArtMusic

I might composed a theme and variation based on _4'33"_, arranged for four natural horns and keyboard.


----------



## 433

ArtMusic said:


> I might composed a theme and variation based on _4'33"_, arranged for four natural horns and keyboard.


I need it now .


----------



## millionrainbows

There's a version of 4'33" going on right now: 4'33", for critics, jokers, and lonely people…To start the piece, you lift the cover of a laptop, and log on to TalkClassical. To end it, you log off and close the cover. Whatever happens in between is entirely up to the performers.


----------



## ArtMusic

433 said:


> I need it now .


With some imagination I am sure you will know what it may sound like, 90% authentically close.


----------



## Pugg

ArtMusic said:


> With some imagination I am sure you will know what it may sound like, 90% authentically close.


Perhaps poster means something complete different, by I needing it now.


----------



## 433

Pugg said:


> Perhaps poster means something complete different, by I needing it now.


You still haven't answered my question.

But yes, I want to hear Artmusic's cool arrangement


----------



## Pugg

> You still haven't answered my question.


I wanted to go for Thatfabulousalien but it was already taken.


----------



## 433

Pugg said:


> I wanted to go for Thatfabulousalien but it was already taken.


Ok, if that's your reason but it seems like a strange name for a classical forum


----------



## Pugg

433 said:


> Ok, if that's your reason but it seems like a strange name for a classical forum


Some people have several names( so called double accounts), at one time we had Xenakisboy and Xenakisgirl, can you believe it.
No longer with us .


----------



## 433

Pugg said:


> Some people have several names( so called double accounts), at one time we had Xenakisboy and Xenakisgirl, can you believe it.
> No longer with us .


Ok, but I don't see how that's relevant


----------



## 433

ArtMusic said:


> With some imagination I am sure you will know what it may sound like, 90% authentically close.


I'm trying .


----------



## Pugg

433 said:


> Ok, but I don't see how that's relevant


I do and you know why, so make a new thread in Area51 and continue this conversation there.


----------



## 433

Pugg said:


> I do and you know why, so make a new thread in Area51 and continue this conversation there.


Sorry, I'm not following


----------



## Casebearer

Area51 is just for registered members, so it's 'behind closed doors'. To read and post there also requires a minimum amount of previous posts I think but I forgot how many.


----------



## ArtMusic

433 said:


> I'm trying .


It's not difficult to imagine, in fact if you go to your room and shut all door(s) and window(s) and kindly ask anyone already inside to leave, you are already close to a theme and variation of _4'33"_. It's a close variation, not exact (no two performances are ever, we all know), but close.


----------



## 433

Casebearer said:


> Area51 is just for registered members, so it's 'behind closed doors'. To read and post there also requires a minimum amount of previous posts I think but I forgot how many.


Oh, I just saw that there is a section on the forum. Still, what is Pugg saying in her post?


----------



## Pugg

433 said:


> Oh, I just saw that there is a section on the forum. Still, what is Pugg saying in her post?


There is also a introducing section with I used on my first day, Can't find yours.
Please on topic now.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Pugg said:


> Some people have several names( so called double accounts), at one time we had Xenakisboy and Xenakisgirl, can you believe it.
> No longer with us .


I can lend you a sock Puppet if you want one.........


----------



## Casebearer

433 said:


> Oh, I just saw that there is a section on the forum. Still, what is Pugg saying in her post?


I haven't got a clue, sorry.


----------



## hpowders

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I can lend you a sock Puppet if you want one.........
> 
> View attachment 91504


Just lend me a clean sock. I need one.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

hpowders said:


> Just lend me a clean sock. I need one.


Clean mmmmm, I have to wash one..........


----------



## hpowders

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Clean mmmmm, I have to wash one..........


I like Mr. Clean, the quicker picker upper.


----------



## Casebearer

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Clean mmmmm, I have to wash one..........


........and then you can play Mr. Clean and Mr. Dirty in your cabinet.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Casebearer said:


> ........and then you can play Mr. Clean and Mr. Dirty in your cabinet.


Mr. Clean and Mr. Dirty the Jekyll and Hyde of the Sock Puppet world.............


----------



## Casebearer

Makes me wonder if I should have a double account here as some other seem to have....


----------



## Dan Ante

I don’t know where this came from but I read or heard that 4.33 originally started as a normal piece of music but it was suggested to Cage that he should eliminate all unnecessary notes, result 4.33 true, I don’t know.


----------



## Pugg

Deleted, not worth the bother.


----------



## 433

Casebearer said:


> I haven't got a clue, sorry.


I wish I could understand it, I haven't got time to play 20 questions :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

In the spirit of 4'33", let's at least try to forget about our own egos for a brief time. These last pages of posts are not going to make the "4'33" Hall of Fame" at this rate. Yawwwnn…now I can appreciate that old maxim, "silence is golden."


----------



## arpeggio

*I Am Serious*

"Surely you can't be serious about _433_?"

"I am serious and don't call me Shirley."


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Pugg said:


> Deleted, not worth the bother.


Good to see your in the spirit of 433


----------



## Blancrocher

One of the better pieces lasting exactly 4 minutes and 33 seconds that I've heard.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I'm just grateful that Cage never combined 433 and ASLSP


----------



## Pugg

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Good to see your in the spirit of 433


Did you see the response date......January 14th


----------



## Nereffid

Why the need to revive a 6-month-dead thread on a subject that causes such frustration?


----------



## KenOC

Nereffid said:


> Why the need to revive a 6-month-dead thread on a subject that causes such frustration?


No frustration here! In fact let's combine two threads. Was Cage responsible for Hitler???


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> No frustration here! In fact let's combine two threads. Was Cage responsible for Hitler???


Of course not, it was Schoenberg all music lovers know that, tut tut.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Dan Ante said:


> Of course not, it was Schoenberg all music lovers know that, tut tut.


No he was reposnsible for Hilter..............


----------



## millionrainbows

Sometimes at dusk, when I'm outside, I listen to sounds of traffic, dogs barking, as 'music' of sorts. I've noticed a recurring motive as well; I call him "echo dog." There's always a dog who barks, with a distinct echo…has anybody else heard the echo dog?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Its called a dingo..............


----------



## Dan Ante

millionrainbows said:


> Sometimes at dusk, when I'm outside, I listen to sounds of traffic, dogs barking, as 'music' of sorts. I've noticed a recurring motive as well; I call him "echo dog." There's always a dog who barks, with a distinct echo…has anybody else heard the echo dog?


Eco Dog versus Duck who will win?


----------



## larold

Cage played a trick on everyone with all his compositions. He knew people defined art and music personally.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Sometimes at dusk, when I'm outside, I listen to sounds of traffic, dogs barking, as 'music' of sorts. I've noticed a recurring motive as well; I call him "echo dog." There's always a dog who barks, with a distinct echo…has anybody else heard the echo dog?


Oh, you mean Sam? That dog used to drive my neighbor David Berkowitz bonkers!


----------



## DaveM

It may have been this dog. (Apologies if someone previously posted this on this forum).


----------



## Larkenfield

Sol Invictus said:


> Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but I can't seem to find a thread dedicated to this composition specifically so I started my own.


You have exactly four minutes and thirty-three seconds to find one or start your own.


----------



## Dan Ante

DaveM said:


> It may have been this dog. (Apologies if someone previously posted this on this forum).
> 
> View attachment 96173


*Royal perhaps...*


----------



## Woodduck

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I'm just grateful that Cage never combined 433 and ASLSP


4'33" would make a good second movement.


----------



## Pugg

Larkenfield said:


> You have exactly four minutes and thirty-three seconds to find one or start your own.


And my goodness those will look like hours of silence.


----------



## 20centrfuge

addressing the OP:

4'33" has zero artistic merit. It has enormous philosophical merit.


----------



## Dan Ante

20centrfuge said:


> addressing the OP:
> 
> 4'33" has zero artistic merit. It has enormous philosophical merit.


Which is????????????


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Dan Ante said:


> Which is????????????


4'33" of add free space just waiting for some enterprising ad exec....................


----------



## 20centrfuge

Dan Ante said:


> Which is????????????


which causes everyone to ask themselves "what is music?" and to realize that all sound can be in, a way, considered music.

To my knowledge, 4'33" doesn't require silence, it just requires not performing.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

20centrfuge said:


> which causes everyone to ask themselves "what is music?" and to realize that all sound can be in, a way, considered music.
> 
> To my knowledge, 4'33" doesn't require silence, it just requires not performing.


The only problem is 4'33 does not have any notes that can be played.


----------



## Dan Ante

Johnnie Burgess said:


> The only problem is 4'33 does not have any notes that can be played.


Correct and as I pointed out before, the reason is CAGE WAS ADVISED TO REMOVE ANY UNNECESSARY NOTES


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Dan Ante said:


> Correct and as I pointed out before, the reason is CAGE WAS ADVISED TO REMOVE ANY UNNECESSARY NOTES


Was that to save humanity


----------



## Dan Ante

20centrfuge said:


> which causes everyone to ask themselves "what is music?" and to realize that all sound can be in, a way, considered music.
> 
> To my knowledge, 4'33" doesn't require silence, it just requires not performing.


So as there is no such thing as silence every action in the Cosmos in music? or does this only apply to musicians with nothing better to do.


----------



## Dan Ante

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Was that to save humanity


You got it Edd............ have you been watching Wentworth?


----------



## mmsbls

Dan Ante said:


> So as there is no such thing as silence every action in the Cosmos in music? or does this only apply to musicians with nothing better to do.


Cage was fascinated by sounds. He thought all sounds could be musical. His suggestion was that people could choose to hear sounds as music - even background sounds that we're so used to hearing that we normally ignore them.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Dan Ante said:


> You got it Edd............ have you been watching Wentworth?


Don't think they are even showing it on my TV - I've still got Ted Bullpit or something.............


----------



## fluteman

Sol Invictus said:


> Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but I can't seem to find a thread dedicated to this composition specifically so I started my own. I mean this in an unsarcastic way; what exactly is the artistic merit of 4'33''? And if it does have merit, could it be performed poorly?


The bottom line is, if you were seriously interested, you could find one of the large number of books by or about John Cage. Of those I have read or sampled, nearly all if not all address the very question you are asking. If you can't be bothered to read an entire book, there was a nice piece about Cage by music critic Alex Ross in The New Yorker not too long ago, that not only addresses your 4'33" question (of course), but also mentions the ridicule 4'33" receives in internet discussion groups like this one:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/searching-for-silence
Ross also mentions some of the best known books about him, if you want to read more.
Of course, John Cage himself addressed this question in writing and in detail. Forgive me for not reading more deeply into this thread. To paraphrase Charles Ives (and Leonard Bernstein) what you have posed can only be described as The Answered Question.


----------



## arpeggio

fluteman said:


> The bottom line is, if you were seriously interested, you could find one of the large number of books by or about John Cage. Of those I have read or sampled, nearly all if not all address the very question you are asking. If you can't be bothered to read an entire book, there was a nice piece about Cage by music critic Alex Ross in The New Yorker not too long ago, that not only addresses your 4'33" question (of course), but also mentions the ridicule 4'33" receives in internet discussion groups like this one:
> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/searching-for-silence
> Ross also mentions some of the best known books about him, if you want to read more.
> Of course, John Cage himself addressed this question in writing and in detail. Forgive me for not reading more deeply into this thread. To paraphrase Charles Ives (and Leonard Bernstein) what you have posed can only be described as The Answered Question.


Great Post !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dan Ante

mmsbls said:


> Cage was fascinated by sounds. He thought all sounds could be musical. His suggestion was that people could choose to hear sounds as music - even background sounds that we're so used to hearing that we normally ignore them.


Well that is where most people disagree and choose to separate extraneous sounds as just noise, which is not to be confused with the purposeful arrangement of predetermined sounds (notes) into organised order which we generally call music.
Personally I enjoy some of Cage's music but do not take 4:33 seriously.


----------



## millionrainbows

Dan Ante said:


> Well that is where most people disagree and choose to separate extraneous sounds as just noise, which is not to be confused with the purposeful arrangement of predetermined sounds (notes) into organised order which we generally call music.
> Personally I enjoy some of Cage's music...


This is contradicted by the use in TV scores of "noise." I was watching a detective show on BBC via PBS, and it used long, sustained "whooshes" of sound that were very effective at creating suspense...


----------



## millionrainbows

I've tried several times to stage performances of 4'33" in Texas, but they inevitably all turn to the same: some guy yelling "Lynrd Skynrd!!" in the background...


----------



## Dan Ante

millionrainbows said:


> This is contradicted by the use in TV scores of "noise." I was watching a detective show on BBC via PBS, and it used long, sustained "whooshes" of sound that were very effective at creating suspense...


What are you connecting to what?


----------



## mmsbls

Dan Ante said:


> Well that is where most people disagree and choose to separate extraneous sounds as just noise, which is not to be confused with the purposeful arrangement of predetermined sounds (notes) into organised order which we generally call music.


That is true, and I hold that position as well. Still, many do enjoy listening to background or environmental sounds at times, and some of those might view those sounds as music.



Dan Ante said:


> Personally I enjoy some of Cage's music but do not take 4:33 seriously.


I enjoy some of Cage's music as well and have given Cage's idea in 4'33" some reasonable thought.


----------



## Tallisman

John Cage is probably laughing at you all from the grave. 'Look at them', he's saying, 'discussing in such depth such a simple and mundane idea'.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> This is contradicted by the use in TV scores of "noise." I was watching a detective show on BBC via PBS, and it used long, sustained "whooshes" of sound that were very effective at creating suspense...


Apples and oranges. Various sound effects associated with video presentations are not music. The end-title credits for whooshes of sound will be for the sound effects engineer not the composer of the music sound track.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

DaveM said:


> Apples and oranges. Various sound effects associated with video presentations are not music. The end-title credits for whooshes of sound will be for the sound effects engineer not the composer of the music sound track.


Soon they will be wanting to change sound effects engineer to being called a composer.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Cage was fascinated by sounds. He thought all sounds could be musical. His suggestion was that people could choose to hear sounds as music - even background sounds that we're so used to hearing that we normally ignore them.


I've raised this before, but since this subject is mentioned: Why does classical music get saddled with this 'sounds, even background sounds are music' premise? What does any of this have to do with classical music? Might as well assign it to pop music or country music for that matter if one insists on calling it music.


----------



## Dan Ante

Dan Ante said:


> Well that is where most people disagree and choose to separate extraneous sounds as just noise, which is not to be confused with the purposeful arrangement of predetermined sounds (notes) into organised order which we generally call music.
> Personally I enjoy some of Cage's music but do not take 4:33 seriously.





mmsbls said:


> That is true, and I hold that position as well. Still, many do enjoy listening to background or environmental sounds at times, and some of those might view those sounds as music.
> 
> I enjoy some of Cage's music as well and have given Cage's idea in 4'33" some reasonable thought.


Thank you for agreeing with most of my post :kiss:


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I've raised this before, but since this subject is mentioned: Why does classical music get saddled with this 'sounds, even background sounds are music' premise? What does any of this have to do with classical music? Might as well assign it to pop music or country music for that matter if one insists on calling it music.


To my knowledge the only people who perform Cage's 4'33" are classical musicians. Generally it is performed with other works which are classical. If one views it as music, it's hard to consider it anything other than classical music.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

mmsbls said:


> To my knowledge the only people who perform Cage's 4'33" are classical musicians. Generally it is performed with other works which are classical. If one views it as music, it's hard to consider it anything other than classical music.


But what makes it classical. So if a rock band did a cover of it would it be considered rock?


----------



## Chromatose

I wont dispute that Cage wrote some pretty interesting stuff, some definitely worth looking into and yes I'd consider him a composer but 4'33" is a second rate piece of performance art and most definitely not classical music regardless of how many tuxedoed classical musicians rest while the time passes before moving on to more real music.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

mmsbls said:


> To my knowledge the only people who perform Cage's 4'33" are classical musicians. Generally it is performed with other works which are classical. If one views it as music, it's hard to consider it anything other than classical music.


Death Metal cover of 4'33:

John Cage - 4' 33'' Death Metal Cover by Dead Territory


----------



## mmsbls

Johnnie Burgess said:


> But what makes it classical. So if a rock band did a cover of it would it be considered rock?


If basketball teams performed 4'33", would we consider it a sport? The answer is that basketball teams would not perform 4'33". Cage wrote it in 1952. It has been performed numerous times by classical musicians in classical concerts. I'd guess that it's never been performed in 65 years by rock bands. So if it's music, there's really only one type of music it could be.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

mmsbls said:


> If basketball teams performed 4'33", would we consider it a sport? The answer is that basketball teams would not perform 4'33". Cage wrote it in 1952. It has been performed numerous times by classical musicians in classical concerts. I'd guess that it's never been performed in 65 years by rock bands. So if it's music, there's really only one type of music it could be.


Looks like several death metal bands have done it.


----------



## Dan Ante

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Death Metal cover of 4'33:
> 
> John Cage - 4' 33'' Death Metal Cover by Dead Territory


I hate to be negative but that is the worst performance that I have witnessed.


----------



## Guest

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Death Metal cover of 4'33:
> 
> John Cage - 4' 33'' Death Metal Cover by Dead Territory







Your logic is that something ceases to be classical music because some dudes that play metal uploaded a youtube video. Your logic is so bad that Beethoven is no longer classical music.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Dan Ante said:


> I hate to be negative but that is the worst performance that I have witnessed.


Stephen Colbert had a cat perform it. NOLA The Cat Performs John Cage's 4'33" :


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> To my knowledge the only people who perform Cage's 4'33" are classical musicians.


Seems to me that anyone with a stopwatch could do a credible performance. No more big bucks for famous musicians! If we had more pieces like 4'33", imagine how ticket prices would drop. :lol:


----------



## mmsbls

So are we saying that classical musicians are no more likely to perform 4'33" than other musicians? To first order 4'33" is _only_ performed by classical musicians. Why does it matter to anyone on TC if some people view 4'33" as music and those who do so view it as classical music?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

mmsbls said:


> So are we saying that classical musicians are no more likely to perform 4'33" than other musicians? To first order 4'33" is _only_ performed by classical musicians. Why does it matter to anyone on TC if some people view 4'33" as music and those who do so view it as classical music?


But the fact a 3rd rate comedian has a cat do a performance of it might show how this might be the start of it being no longer classified as music.


----------



## mmsbls

Johnnie Burgess said:


> But the fact a 3rd rate comedian has a cat do a performance of it might show how this might be the start of it being no longer classified as music.


Ever since 1952, 4'33" has never been classified as music by most people. What do you mean the start of it not being classified as music? The only people who view it as music are those who have analyzed music for decades, who have written about music in journals, and who have discussed details of music with other experts. Those people couldn't care less about the general public's view just as physicists are not swayed by comments on physics forums.

Who's the 3rd rate comedian?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

mmsbls said:


> Ever since 1952, 4'33" has never been classified as music by most people. What do you mean the start of it not being classified as music? The only people who view it as music are those who have analyzed music for decades, who have written about music in journals, and who have discussed details of music with other experts. Those people couldn't care less about the general public's view just as physicists are not swayed by comments on physics forums.
> 
> Who's the 3rd rate comedian?


Colbert on the late show.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> So are we saying that classical musicians are no more likely to perform 4'33" than other musicians? To first order 4'33" is _only_ performed by classical musicians. Why does it matter to anyone on TC if some people view 4'33" as music and those who do so view it as classical music?


In a sense it's embarrassing (broadly not personally if that makes sense) because a lot of people around me are not familiar with classical music and when I'm asked about it I try to explain how beautiful, profound and lifetime rewarding it is. Still they tend to see it as beyond them and on the fringe of what their musical experience is. Now here comes Cage with the silliness of 4'33" and you try to explain to them how some people find _it_ profound and they roll their eyes and say wtf in various ways, 

I will add that I understand what Cage was getting at and I don't consider him silly so much as people who have made far more out of 4'33" than I think Cage ever intended. And repeating what I've said in the past, selling a track of 4'33" and buying it on iTunes is the ultimate silliness.


----------



## KenOC

Cage could have captured those crossover listeners with 4'33" if only he had used cannons in it.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> In a sense it's embarrassing (broadly not personally if that makes sense) because a lot of people around me are not familiar with classical music and when I'm asked about it I try to explain how beautiful, profound and lifetime rewarding it is. Still they tend to see it as beyond them and on the fringe of what their musical experience is. Now here comes Cage with the silliness of 4'33" and you try to explain to them how some people find _it_ profound and they roll their eyes and say wtf in various ways,
> 
> I will add that I understand what Cage was getting at and I don't consider him silly so much as people who have made far more out of 4'33" than I think Cage ever intended. And repeating what I've said in the past, selling a track of 4'33" and buying it on iTunes is the ultimate silliness.


Honestly, I can't imagine it is difficult to distinguish between works by Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Stravinsky and 4'33" when speaking to anyone.


----------



## Harrison Clark

This thread has made me crack up so badly, what a way to enter a classical forum


----------



## Chromatose

mmsbls said:


> Ever since 1952, 4'33" has never been classified as music by most people. What do you mean the start of it not being classified as music? The only people who view it as music are those who have analyzed music for decades, who have written about music in journals, and who have discussed details of music with other experts. Those people couldn't care less about the general public's view just as physicists are not swayed by comments on physics forums.
> 
> Who's the 3rd rate comedian?


Let me preface this by saying I enjoy a great deal of 20th century music including serial works so I'm not a hater trying to tear you down. You do make some excellent points frequently but concerning this particular "piece" (if you can even call it that) your thoughts are quite obtuse.

Firstly I love it how you suggest only experts and scholars consider it (4'33") music, so in other words anyone who disagrees with this is a dilettante... What presumption.

By the way the physics analogy is nonsensical because the two subjects are incompatible. It's all for the better that physicists ignore what some egotistical undergraduate posts on a physics site, whereas anyone with a pulse can have a valid opinion of music (as wonderful and profound as music is it won't help us solve complex problems concerning space and time) It all comes down to taste and preference, only factual data becomes good physics.

If you ask me you've bought into the pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, post-modern nonsense that tries to justify laughable performance art like 4'33" as a genuine piece of serious music.


----------



## Bettina

Harrison Clark said:


> This thread has made me crack up so badly, what a way to enter a classical forum


Welcome to TC. Today's flurry of polls might have made a bad impression, but I promise that we don't spend _all _our time arguing about Schoenberg and Cage. It goes in phases.


----------



## mmsbls

Chromatose said:


> Let me preface this by saying I enjoy a great deal of 20th century music including serial works so I'm not a hater trying to tear you down. You do make some excellent points frequently but concerning this particular "piece" (if you can even call it that) your thoughts are quite obtuse.
> 
> Firstly I love it how you suggest only experts and scholars consider it (4'33") music, so in other words anyone who disagrees with this is a dilettante... What presumption.
> 
> By the way the physics analogy is nonsensical because the two subjects are incompatible. It's all for the better that physicists ignore what some egotistical undergraduate posts on a physics site, whereas anyone with a pulse can have a valid opinion of music (as wonderful and profound as music is it won't help us solve complex problems concerning space and time) It all comes down to taste and preference, only factual data becomes good physics.
> 
> If you ask me you've bought into the pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, post-modern nonsense that tries to justify laughable performance art like 4'33" as a genuine piece of serious music.


I think you have misunderstood me. On several TC threads including this one I have stated that I do not consider 4'33" music. On other threads I have given detailed reasons for my view.

I mistakenly wrote that "The only people who view it as music are ... experts." That of course is wrong. There are obviously non-experts who view it as music. And of course there are plenty of very reasonable people who disagree that 4'33" is music.


----------



## Chromatose

mmsbls said:


> I think you have misunderstood me. On several TC threads including this one I have stated that I do not consider 4'33" music. On other threads I have given detailed reasons for my view.
> 
> I mistakenly wrote that "The only people who view it as music are ... experts." That of course is wrong. There are obviously non-experts who view it as music. And of course there are plenty of very reasonable people who disagree that 4'33" is music.


Fair enough you are correct I did misunderstand your position, my apologies for getting up on my high horse, I doff my proverbial hat to your reasonable explanation and again sorry if I came off as brusk.


----------



## mmsbls

Chromatose said:


> Fair enough you are correct I did misunderstand your position, my apologies for getting up on my high horse, I doff my proverbial hat to your reasonable explanation and again sorry if I came off as brusk.


We've all mistaken others' comments. While I don't accept Cage's vision of sounds, I think some people are a bit too quick to criticize and perhaps don't understand what led Cage to his view.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> I've raised this before, but since this subject is mentioned: Why does classical music get saddled with this 'sounds, even background sounds are music' premise? What does any of this have to do with classical music? Might as well assign it to pop music or country music for that matter if one insists on calling it music.


First, Cage's 'proposal' was to the music community that was listening at the time (and anyone else who might be interested I'm sure) and to which he presumably belonged.

Second, you can safely reject his proposal for yourself, but don't feel compelled to reject it for anyone else willing to accept it. It's of the same order as 'Beethoven is the greatest': we can all get along and enjoy what we want without feeling obliged to bow before someone else's opinions.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I'm still waiting for the Tape Manipulation version of 4'33"...............


----------



## Nereffid

DaveM said:


> I've raised this before, but since this subject is mentioned: Why does classical music get saddled with this 'sounds, even background sounds are music' premise? What does any of this have to do with classical music? Might as well assign it to pop music or country music for that matter if one insists on calling it music.


Might have something to do with several centuries' worth of classical-music advocates insisting that popular music is mundane and incapable of being profound, intellectual or philosophical... ?


----------



## arpeggio

I make a silly joke and look what happens


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> First, Cage's 'proposal' was to the music community that was listening at the time (and anyone else who might be interested I'm sure) and to which he presumably belonged.
> 
> Second, you can safely reject his proposal for yourself, but don't feel compelled to reject it for anyone else willing to accept it. It's of the same order as 'Beethoven is the greatest': we can all get along and enjoy what we want without feeling obliged to bow before someone else's opinions.


How can I reject it for anyone else willing to accept it? I presented my opinion as strongly as possible which is different than saying, 'You all better agree with me or else...!'


----------



## shangoyal

The 4'33" is so good that we're all listening to it all the time, on repeat.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> On several TC threads including this one I have stated that I do not consider 4'33" music.




No, 4'33" is not "music." It's a duration of time in which Cage invites you to listen to the sounds around you as "music."

The real question then becomes: "Do you consider the sounds around you to be music? Can you listen to sounds in this way?"

Which leads to further philosophical speculation: "What is music? What is sound?"

Which leads untimately to: "Who am I? What are my prejudices, and my preferences? Am I flexible enough to consider random sounds as "music," or do I want to cling desperately to my own notion of what music is supposed to be?"

Which leads to: "Am I ready to go out there into the world and fight for this idea of what I think music is? Am I prepared to die for it? To kill for it?"


----------



## Dan Ante

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Stephen Colbert had a cat perform it. NOLA The Cat Performs John Cage's 4'33" :


That is much better and just about sums up 4:33


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> No, 4'33" is not "music." It's a duration of time in which Cage invites you to listen to the sounds around you as "music."
> 
> The real question then becomes: "Do you consider the sounds around you to be music? Can you listen to sounds in this way?"
> 
> Which leads to further philosophical speculation: "What is music? What is sound?"
> 
> Which leads untimately to: "Who am I? What are my prejudices, and my preferences? Am I flexible enough to consider random sounds as "music," or do I want to cling desperately to my own notion of what music is supposed to be?"
> 
> Which leads to: "Am I ready to go out there into the world and fight for this idea of what I think music is? Am I prepared to die for it? To kill for it?"


Or is one going to cling desperately to the notion that random sounds are music to the point of life and death zealotry? Why would anyone who joins a classical music forum need to have their flexibility questioned because they don't accept the premise that random sounds are music? And why classical music? Try floating this random sound theory in a pop music forum.

In fact, the one place that this might be accepted is in an enhanced consciousness forum in the same category as mindfulness and/or meditation which I actually feel have value.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Dan Ante said:


> That is much better and just about sums up 4:33


Its Purrrrrrrrrrrfect


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> *Which leads untimately to*: "Who am I? What are my prejudices, and my preferences? Am I flexible enough to consider random sounds as "music," or do I want to cling desperately to my own notion of what music is supposed to be?"
> 
> Which leads to: "Am I ready to go out there into the world and fight for this idea of what I think music is? Am I prepared to die for it? To kill for it?"


Does it 'ultimately' lead to that question? I don't see that as anything other than a jump according to your whim. This idea of a pantheistic music, music in everything and everywhere waiting to be heard with the 'right' ears, strikes me as a rather spurious pseudo-philosophy.
There are indeed isolated, naturally occurring sounds we find pleasing and fascinating, but I don't think you can demonstrate that they are 'music' without reference to organised music. Appreciating sounds doesn't have to be achieved by turning it into music. A musician may be the one who recognises sounds (or not), but that is neither necessary nor a seal of approval of it being officially 'music'. The nature of sound does not come under the category "music".


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> No, 4'33" is not "music." It's a duration of time in which Cage invites you to listen to the sounds around you as "music."
> 
> The real question then becomes: "Do you consider the sounds around you to be music? Can you listen to sounds in this way?"
> 
> Which leads to further philosophical speculation: "What is music? What is sound?"
> 
> Which leads untimately to: "Who am I? What are my prejudices, and my preferences? Am I flexible enough to consider random sounds as "music," or do I want to cling desperately to my own notion of what music is supposed to be?"
> 
> Which leads to: "Am I ready to go out there into the world and fight for this idea of what I think music is? Am I prepared to die for it? To kill for it?"


Random sounds don't become music merely because someone contrives to have us notice them. This has nothing to do with one's fexibility or one's prejudices, with "clinging to anything, or, goodness me, with dying or killing. It has to do with the function and value of words.

Hmmm... Are we who distinguish music from environmental noise in danger here? Or have we been invited to witness a martyrdom? Isn't there enough of that sort of thing going on?


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> No, 4'33" is not "music." It's a duration of time in which Cage invites you to listen to the sounds around you as "music."


I agree with this - especially the "Cage invites you" part.



millionrainbows said:


> The real question then becomes: "Do you consider the sounds around you to be music? Can you listen to sounds in this way?"


No to the first. My response to the second is "Can you taste chocolate as strawberry?" And I'm not being silly but rather making a serious point.



millionrainbows said:


> Which leads to further philosophical speculation: "What is music? What is sound?"


The first is philosophical, but the second is not. It's physics.



millionrainbows said:


> Which leads untimately to: "... Am I flexible enough to consider random sounds as "music," or do I want to cling desperately to my own notion of what music is supposed to be?"


Are you flexible enough to taste chocolate as strawberry or do you want to cling desperately to your own notion of what chocolate tastes like?

I don't think it's obvious that 4'33" is not music. In fact when I first came to TC I probably would have said it was. The various threads here made me think about the question and helped me better define the attributes of music in my view. I eventually felt confident that my best understanding of music did not include 4'33". There's nothing good or bad about that. Cage's work challenged me to think about the nature of music. Good for him.


----------



## Dan Ante

Of course it could be 4 foot 33 inches, just sayink.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Dan Ante said:


> Of course it could be 4 foot 33 inches, just sayink.


Thats a big cat


----------



## Larkenfield

What proceeds anything that's performed in a concert hall? What does the conductor wait for? What does the soloist wait for before playing? What does a singer wait for before vocalizing? Silence! Cage simply made a point about its importance, and once a person can sit still for 4 minutes and 33 seconds the work of Cage's piece is over.

Cage was a serious student of Zen and meditation in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s. 4'33" is very much in keeping with that philosophy of silence. But people can't do it, because one of the hardest things in the world is to still one's thoughts.

Other musicians, conductors and composers have pointed out the importance of silence. In fact it's the canvas upon which all music is performed. Cage, again, simply made an entire point of it, and some consider this a very important point indeed, because once a person can set aside the resistance to sitting still for that relatively short length of time, they may have a profound realization of the essential power of inner stillness and silence, regardless of what else may be going on around them. _--Lark_

_A painter paints pictures on canvas. But musicians paint their pictures on silence. --Leopold Stokowski

Music and silence combine strongly because music is with silence, and silence is full of music. --Marcel Marceau

When I am silent, I fall into the place where everything is music. --Rumi_


----------



## Dan Ante

Larkenfield said:


> Other musicians, conductors and composers have pointed out the importance of silence. In fact it's the canvas upon which all music is performed.i[/I]


Its not the same, in 4'33 there is no music at all, the silence in music that you mention is the silence between notes so when silence is bracketed by notes it has great importance it really is that simple.


----------



## ArtMusic

Dan Ante said:


> Its not the same, in 4'33 there is no music at all, the silence in music that you mention is the silence between notes so when silence is bracketed by notes it has great importance it really is that simple.


Agree entirely.


----------



## Dan Ante

ArtMusic said:


> Agree entirely.


One thing that I don't like is when the work is being edited for putting to a CD the last note is cut off short instead of letting it decay into a final silence.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

The ultimate Coda


----------



## Dan Ante

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> The ultimate Coda


Precisely.................


----------



## christomacin

Strange Magic said:


> Insects have six legs. If I find an ant with 5 legs, is it an insect?


That would be a gimpy insect on Medicare.


----------



## Larkenfield

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Is the experience of listening to 4'33' the same in air as water ?


----------



## Merl

Oh god, is this thread still going? Please moderators, put it to sleep. Like a 5 legged insect, it just goes round in circles. Please kill it!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Q A 5 legged insect, goes round in circles. How long does it take to complete a cycle............?


----------



## Pugg

> The artistic merit of 4'33''


Four minutes and 33 seconds wast of ..................


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Pugg said:


> Four minutes and 33 seconds wast of ..................


Hast thou the timing of the insect?


----------



## Room2201974

My comp and theory prof always had fun with 4' 33". He used to say, "Loved the title. Hated the music." Then he would say, "You know 4' 33" is in three movements. Which one is your favorite?" He'd let the chuckles die down and then with a sly smile would add, "Defend your position!"

Cage's book _Silence_ made more sense to me after I learned the Segovia Method!


----------

