# John cage 4'33" - music or junk????



## thatperson

There is often controversy about John Cage's 4'33", a piece where the performer(s) play nothing, and the music is the silence.

link: 




To me, the silence is just as important as the sound that an orchestra can produce.
For example, the ending of the Mahler 6 is different from when the audience starts clapping the moment it ends, and when the audience remains silent.





(watch from 8 minutes, 47 seconds)

vs.





(watch from 3 minutes, 56 seconds)

4'33", in my opinion, is a unique piece of music that should be in the same rank as Beethoven, Bruckner, and Mahler symphonies.
Any opinions on this matter?


----------



## Argus

It's art. That is all.

Oh, and an argument waiting to happen.


----------



## tgtr0660

It's a novel idea. And the concept behind it is obviously interesting and worthy of an analysis.

But it tends to the junk side. After all, what makes silence interesting is that it comes between moments of _music._ Silence is not that interesting per se. It helps create tension or drama and it serves other musical purposes but silence per silence's sake is just pretentiousness.


----------



## jhar26

tgtr0660 said:


> It's a novel idea. And the concept behind it is obviously interesting and worthy of an analysis.


If it was a track on a Britney Spears album with a highbrow explanation in the booklet of the album everybody would ridicule her for it. The name of the 'composer' may be someone we're supposed to take seriously, but it's still 4 minutes and 33 seconds of nothing.


----------



## World Violist

There's been a thread on this already... I think... maybe not. I just recall one, and searches don't back me up. maybe it was a different thread.

Anyway, I think 4'33" is a great work of art. Whether it's musical art, I'm not so sure. But it is art.


----------



## Sid James

A difficult question (of course that's what Cage wanted us to to - provoke us to think), but i'd also say it's "art" & sit on the fence a little.

In any case, Cage wrote much actual music besides, as I have discovered lately by buying a CD of his music. There's alot of variety - blending of recorded music & frequencies, radio broadcast with live players, use of different instruments (prepared piano, toy piano & even bells, a carillon). & we mustn't forget his new ways of writing down musical notation, using graphs, charts & on clear plastic (so it could be reversed).

There's some more discussion of Cage the composer here:

http://www.talkclassical.com/4342-john-cage.html


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

4:33 is little more than intellectual Onanism... of the same camp as Duchamp's _Fountain_ or Manzoni's _Artist's ****_. Like Duchamp's _Fountain_ it is probably far overrated among Cage's oeuvre... or rather far too discussed by critics because it makes a perfect theme for the written word... because it is really more of an idea about art/music than it is a work of music in which the sensual elements of sound merge with sound. Recently I have been listening to Cage's _Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano_ and I honestly find that these are indeed quite intriguing pieces... even poetic. 4:33 pales along side of these compositions. To place 4:33 in the same rank as Beethoven or Mahler's symphonies, however, is simply retarded.


----------



## thatperson

Thank you for your reply.
hahaha im not insulted, i just appreciate your honest opinion.


----------



## Elgarian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> 4:33 is little more than intellectual Onanism... of the same camp as Duchamp's _Fountain_


And yet the _Fountain_ has become an icon of 20th century art, because it raised certain fundamental perceptual and philosophical questions about the nature of art. It's impossible to contemplate _Fountain_ without considering those questions - like, for example, what are the valid materials for making art? Paint and canvas? Is collage acceptable? If so, what minimum number separate collage elements may we use? ten? two? or how about one? What if the work consists of only one collage element, itself? What difference does its title make? Does it matter if it's signed? What if the signature isn't the name of the actual maker... and so on.

If you're interested only in works of art made with paint on canvas, then Duchamp's _Fountain_ will seem unnecessary; superfluous. But if you're interested in exploring what art _is_, then ... well, it's potentially an important perception-changing object. But while I certainly acknowledge that, I wouldn't want to hang it on my wall.

I presume Cage's 4:33 is the same sort of thing in music. It raises similar kinds of questions; may be of considerable importance, even. But while I might acknowledge that, I wouldn't buy the CD.


----------



## Romantic Geek

As far as I'm concerned, 4'33" is pretentious art. (You can see my argument in the hating on composers thread). 4'33" attempts to do the impossible, make the audience become the artist. But as far as I'm concerned, art must begin with a concept. 4'33" is Cage's concept. It is his creation. An audience certainly can react to this creation (just like how a viewer can react to a painting done by an elephant.) However...the audience doesn't "create" the art. It's simply the creation of a composer trying to do what is simply impossible.

Music history shouldn't waste time on concept art like this, but rather look at the composers who actually accomplished something meaningful. As far as I'm concerned, this piece is the antithesis of modern "music" at its worst.


----------



## Guest

Romantic Geek said:


> ...this piece is the antithesis of modern "music" at its worst


This can be read in two, antithetical, ways.


----------



## Romantic Geek

...this piece is the antithesis of modern "music"

sorry...what i meant...


----------



## Gangsta Tweety Bird

i heard something close to true silence once and it was better than any piece of music ive ever heard not that this has very much to do with 4'33"


----------



## rojo

When I studied at McGill, they had a small anechoic chamber on campus. I went inside it, and the experience was quite memorable. A most bizarre sensation. Have no idea whether the chamber's still there.

I don't think I was even aware of this work before encountering the chamber. (Probably hadn't gotten to 20th c. music history and theory yet; that was in the last year.) Had I been aware of it, I surely would have performed it in there. 

About the question. Why are there only two options, again? Can't the work be something other than either music or junk? I guess I should be grateful that there isn't a poll. lol


----------



## muxamed

Can you recommend a good recording of John Cage's 4'33"?


----------



## Guest

If I have to choose between music and junk, I choose junk. It most definitely isn't music. No music is being performed. If we were all standing in a completely dark room (as much as is possible), and I told you that it was light, a new way to look at light, a new concept of light, you would cry **** Is it a clever trick? Certainly. How many people have paid money for 4'33"?


----------



## Scott Good

music

the "silence", (which doesn't exist), is about directing the audience to that silence, at that point in time. it is to show the uniqueness of all "silence".

it is about being aware of sound - something few are, as it takes discipline and attention. it is about the liberation of sound from the word meaning, not the opposite, as it cannot be described in any way except it's sonic quality (such as happy, or sad, or longing, or heroic, or patriotic etc etc). as cage relates from reading kant, there are only two things that do not require meaning outside of pleasure - music and laughter. interesting idea.

it is intentional. it has a beginning and an end. it is music.

perhaps this clip of cage about coca cola bottles will help make sense of what he is trying to do. just listen to 3min.






i can't compare it to mahler, but perhaps somewhat to the _art of fugue_ of bach, or xeankis' _metastasis_, as both are trying to do the same thing at their root as 4'33''- describe sound as a unique sensation outside of words and meaning. mahler never did anything like that. his music bleeds meaning, and i also love him for that as well, but differently.


----------



## Tapkaara

Who wants to guess my answer to the question posed in this thread? Need I even say it? Perhaps a poll would be in order...Finlandia vs. 4'33'' could be a good one...


----------



## starry

Concept art rather than music.


----------



## Elgarian

rojo said:


> Can't the work be something other than either music or junk?


Please select an answer from the following options:
1. Yes.
2. No.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

And yet the Fountain has become an icon of 20th century art, because it raised certain fundamental perceptual and philosophical questions about the nature of art. It's impossible to contemplate Fountain without considering those questions - like, for example, what are the valid materials for making art?

Duchamp's Fountain was not intended to do any such thing. The "philosophical" questions it raises were raised in the mind of later critics and theorists... especially as art education shifted from "art schools" to colleges and universities and the center of focus shifted from the visual and formal elements of art to the notion of art as ideas and words.

Duchamp's Fountain was little more than a prop in an elaborate comic performance piece. In response to the reputation the artist had garnered via his Nude Descending a Staircase at the Armory Show in New York, he was invited to be a guest curator at a new exhibition in New York. Those behind the show had prided themselves on being progressives and declared that the show would be open to all entries: no work of art would be refused. This performance was in the tradition of the French salon jokes (one artist in the late 1800s entered a blank canvas complete with a placard intended to accompany the piece, in which he declared that he did not wish to impose his vision on the audience, but rather allow them to create their own image in their mind's eye). Duchamp sent a mass-produced urinal signed by the fictive artist, R. Mutt. When the curators of the show refused the work as not being art, Duchamp quit in mock indignation. He then wrote several commentaries in support of the work, again under fictive names. The notion that the work raised fundamental questions about the nature of perception of art and perception is ridiculous... as if artists had not been groping with such from time immemorial. Duchamp's performance simply pushed things to an absurd extreme... worthy of a laugh... but not to be taken seriously as art any more than the above-mentioned blank canvas.

Paint and canvas? Is collage acceptable? If so, what minimum number separate collage elements may we use? ten? two? or how about one? What if the work consists of only one collage element, itself? What difference does its title make? Does it matter if it's signed? What if the signature isn't the name of the actual maker... and so on.

Questions of this sort have been bandied about by artists forever... quite often over drinks. Picasso had already challenged many of the boundaries between art and reality by employing collage and assemblage elements.

If you're interested only in works of art made with paint on canvas, then Duchamp's Fountain will seem unnecessary; superfluous. But if you're interested in exploring what art is, then ... well, it's potentially an important perception-changing object. But while I certainly acknowledge that, I wouldn't want to hang it on my wall.

The problem with the Fountain and the works which it inspired, such as Joseph Kosuth's entire oeuvre or Manzoni's can of artist's **** is that they deal with little more than questions about the nature of art... they are merely "art about art". As such, in the larger scope of things, they are rather juvenile... worthy of an art school sophomore passionately arguing the eternal question of "what is art?" over beer and pizza... but ultimately they are of but mental ************... certainly not worthy of profound contemplation.

I presume Cage's 4:33 is the same sort of thing in music. It raises similar kinds of questions; may be of considerable importance, even. But while I might acknowledge that, I wouldn't buy the CD.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

i can't compare it to mahler, but perhaps somewhat to the art of fugue of bach

Oh, please! And let us compare a Manzoni's can of artist's **** to the Sistine Ceiling while we're at it.


----------



## Argus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> i can't compare it to mahler, but perhaps somewhat to the art of fugue of bach
> 
> Oh, please! And let us compare a Manzoni's can of artist's **** to the Sistine Ceiling while we're at it.


Why not compare? Why can you compare some things and not others?

I don't understand how you can compare it to Bach's Art of Fugue yet not anything by Mahler.

I presume you believe the Sistine Chapel to be 'better' than Manzoni's Artist's ****. But why?

I know I have quoted two different people but I am equally puzzled by both comments.


----------



## Elgarian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Duchamp's Fountain was not intended to do any such thing.


Works of art often have an impact beyond the intention of the artist. My point was not about what Duchamp had intended (I expect he would have been suitably amused by its now iconic status), but about the fact that it _has_ become an icon of 20th century art. It's seen as a conceptual turning point. You may disagree with that conception of it, but still, it has been enormously influential.



> Picasso had already challenged many of the boundaries between art and reality by employing collage and assemblage elements.


Yes of course - artists have used a range of materials as long as there has been art. The particular issue that's raised here is about the concept of the 'ready-made'.



> The problem with the Fountain and the works which it inspired, such as Joseph Kosuth's entire oeuvre or Manzoni's can of artist's **** is that they deal with little more than questions about the nature of art... they are merely "art about art". As such, in the larger scope of things, they are rather juvenile


Indeed they are 'art about art', and the fact that they clearly don't interest you explains your attitude to them. Personally, I find questions about the nature of art both fascinating and important. Juvenile? Well, there are many ways to look at such issues, sometimes in words, where the necessary arguments can be _said_; but some things, as Wittgenstein points out, can only be _shown_. Duchamp's fountain can assist in the contemplation of these things in that kind of way. It may not assist _you_, and that's fair enough. But to call it juvenile on that basis seems unnecessarily dismissive of the opinions of others who sincerely find value in it. It reminds me of the "set 'em up and knock 'em down", "black or white" tussle of the 'Mozart - God or Garbage?' debate, and makes me long for a more nuanced approach.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I presume you believe the Sistine Chapel to be 'better' than Manzoni's Artist's ****. But why?

I know I have quoted two different people but I am equally puzzled by both comments.

O God! Another relativist. All art is equal. There is no "good" no "bad".


----------



## Argus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I presume you believe the Sistine Chapel to be 'better' than Manzoni's Artist's ****. But why?
> 
> I know I have quoted two different people but I am equally puzzled by both comments.
> 
> O God! Another relativist. All art is equal. There is no "good" no "bad".


Oy Vey. Another question dodger.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I don't call Duchamp's Fountain "juvenile" simply because it does nothing for me. Schoenberg's later music does nothing for me, either... but I would not call it "juvenile". Rather, it strikes me as "juvenile" because it is essentially little more than a joke... a clever work of art about art in which the artist takes an idea to the logical/illogical absurdist extreme. Any student of an art school... which I once was... has seen endless examples of such clever, clever boys. The work has nothing whatsoever to add to larger issues of love, sex, death, God, loss, struggle, passion, pain, etc... which art is able to deal with. 

One can only imagine the profound thought process of an artist like Manzoni: "Look at those stupid art collectors, They'd pay a fortune for any piece of crap by Picasso. Hell, I'd bet they'd pay a fortune for his actual ****. That gives me a great idea: I'll put some poo in a can and charge 'em an equivalent of the going rate for gold. I'll become a literal alchemist... turning doo-doo into gold! Har har har! What a clever, clever boy I am!"


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Oy Vey. Another question dodger.

There are questions that are so stupid they are beneath answering.


----------



## Argus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Oy Vey. Another question dodger.
> 
> There are questions that are so stupid they are beneath answering.












Jeremy Paxman dissapproves of your flimsy response.


----------



## Scott Good

Argus said:


> Why not compare? Why can you compare some things and not others?
> 
> I don't understand how you can compare it to Bach's Art of Fugue yet not anything by Mahler.
> 
> I presume you believe the Sistine Chapel to be 'better' than Manzoni's Artist's ****. But why?
> 
> I know I have quoted two different people but I am equally puzzled by both comments.


Hi Argus,

Thank you for the probing and not insulting question - such a rarity it seems.

Perhaps I should reframe my original thought - it's not that one can't compare 4'33'' to Mahler, but rather I see no ultimate point in trying to make the comparison.

I will endeavor to explain this idea a bit further. The focus of comparisons in music can be under many parameters. We could compare the scientific parameters - loudness, length, pitch, rhythm. All easily compared with statistical, numeric evidence. We could go a bit further into the more esoteric and not easily defined quarters, like style, and timbre, which are partially measurable, but containing elements beyond the scope of scientific evidence - they are cultural. Or, we could eschew all of this and discuss intent.

It seems to me that the scientific parameters do us little good when discussing 4'33. Although (I'm having new thoughts now), the timing of movements and overall length are an integral part of it's experience, so, can be compared to other music in such a way, including Mahler.

Style...timbre...well, perhaps there are many that would like to put cage in the camp of avant-garde or such a thing. I'm not concerned with this, as the act of grouping works in such a way goes directly to numbing the uniqueness of each achievement. One misses the point by whitewashing over what I believe is the most important aspect of understanding 4'33'' - the intent. (note: This kind of comparing also shows to be much more useful in cross genre comparisons as well. We can group from different styles of music particular pieces in terms of what they are trying to say - love or rage or nationalism for instance, but trying to compare Mozart to Lennon in terms of counterpoint yields few satisfying results, and nothing is gained in terms of real understanding through the comparison, thus pointless).

So, it is through intent that I find the most valuable comparison of Bach's work to 4'33''. Notice, I am not comparing Bach to Cage, just these particular works. First off, I am not saying they are the same! Just that they can be compared. The goal of The Art of Fugue was not to tell a story, or relate concepts such as nationalism or or even dogma. It is a study in sound, and the nature of sounds. It is in this purely sonic intent that I find interesting comparisons to 4'33''. Both of these works are attempting to point towards sounds as something in and of themselves profound, without relating to non-sonic qualities. I don't feel the same way, or at least to the same extent, about the WTC, as it is imbued with all kinds of non-musical references relating to dance, national culture, modern thought vs. traditional etc etc.

And in both cases (4'33'' and AoF), it is somewhat disingenuous to read more into these works than what they are offering. Not that these kinds of thoughts can be fully escaped, but, it is best for the listener to focus on just the sound, and not import extraneous meaning. I know of no works by Mahler that this kind of thinking would apply.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Toccata

World Violist said:


> There's been a thread on this already... I think... maybe not. I just recall one, and searches don't back me up. maybe it was a different thread.
> 
> Anyway, I think 4'33" is a great work of art. Whether it's musical art, I'm not so sure. But it is art.


Was it perchance this one? http://www.talkclassical.com/4629-silence-music.html

Cage was at the centre of that discussion, not surprisingly. It looks like the whole subject is now being discussed all over again, Duchamp's "Fountain" and all.

It's called "re-inventing the wheel".


----------



## Elgarian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Rather, it strikes me as "juvenile" because it is essentially little more than a joke...


But again, you see, we're not talking about the same thing. Joke or not, it has entered cultural consciousness in a significant way. That's what interests me, primarily. (After all one could see the whole of Dadaism as just one big prank.) Something about the fountain has changed our perceptions about the relation between art and the materials of art.

And you're right, it isn't about the great themes of love, death, and so on - as you said, it's art about art. But since art is one of the most significant and potentially profound of human activities, the contemplation of the nature of art is a non-trivial thing to engage in. I'm not concerned with 'art as a prank', neither am I defending it; I'm concerned with how the object under discussion became a cultural art icon, and what that means. It's a 'philosophy of art' problem, and a difficult one. To set the fountain against the Sistine chapel distracts from the real issue. (In that context, a Bewick woodcut would seem no less insignificant.)

To get back to somewhere close to on-topic: I suppose the same is true of 4:33. No one (I presume) would sensibly talk about it as the same sort of thing as a Mahler symphony. I presume that it isn't that kind of art. And it's a lot easier to whistle.


----------



## Elgarian

Opal said:


> It's called "re-inventing the wheel".


We do a lot of that at TC.


----------



## starry

muxamed said:


> Can you recommend a good recording of John Cage's 4'33"?


This is why it's concept art, it's something to be seen. The pianist approaches the piano, sits down etc....

And if you see it as music I assume it would under chamber music and not orchestral.


----------



## Toccata

Elgarian said:


> We do a lot of that at TC.


Really? I have only been here five minutes and very easily found that old thread after I spotted that someone recalled one similar to this. I had a quick look through the old one and found all the same arguments being trotted out again now. How tedious.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Cage worked hard to organise the chance methods that would determine the duration of this piece. I think he was trying to say something about the nature of sound and how we can never escape it. We will hear the music of the world as long as we live.


----------



## starry

Well I may not even have been a member when the old thread was made, so I think it's unlikely I ever posted in it or saw it. The same may be the case for some others in this thread.


----------



## Jaime77

John Cage: Music or Junk? neither


----------



## Jaime77

and both


----------



## Elgarian

Opal said:


> I had a quick look through the old one and found all the same arguments being trotted out again now. How tedious.


You could ask for your money back?


----------



## Guest

It might help to consider what 4'33" actually is, what it actually does, what it actually sets out to achieve.

It actually is a piece set out in three short sections, each labelled with the musical term "tacet." It is not a piece about silence (which Cage had determined did not actually exist), but about intention.

It actually shifts the focus from the performer(s)--it is "for any instrument or group of instruments"--to the sounds the composer has not intended, the sounds in the hall wherever it's performed.

It actually sets out to achieve inclusivity. Western art music had been going along for some time being exclusive--some sounds musical, some not, and some sounds part of the piece and some sounds not. 4'33" sets out to include any sound as part of Music.

(Have I actually used the word "actually" too much?)


----------



## Scott Good

Elgarian said:


> And you're right, it isn't about the great themes of love, death, and so on - as you said, it's art about art.


Sorry to be a broken record, but, it isn't really art about art, but rather it is about sound. If we say it is about art, then it is performance art. But since it is about sound, it is music.

I'm not trying to be coy, and I can see why one would think it is about art. But I think Cage is giving us something greater than art commentary - that is what Manzoni did by pooing in the can and selling it as if it were gold- he is commenting on the art world, and it's economics and fake hero worship and that kind of thing - and yes it is a joke - nothing wrong with making a joke of this kind. But Cage is attempting to direct attention to sound - to get us to pay attention. And that in doing so will discover pleasures outside of the confines of art. He said "it seems when I hear what most people call music, I am actually hearing someone talking to me. but I don't need someone to talk to me, as sounds themselves are interesting enough. the sound simply gives me pleasure in it's activity."

I have been through several deep listening exercises that have shown me that before, I really wasn't hearing sound. I was imposing meaning on sound - but it really doesn't have to mean anything. It can titillate our brains in such complex ways that meaning will only disrupt and detour the deeper pleasure offered. But society is moving away from this awareness. Like StLukes keeps trying to imply, all art can be compared. But when the brains responses to different arts are compared, we see drastic differences. Simply put, music goes deep into out heads, and triggers all areas in an astonishing array of combinations. By attaching words, we direct these impulses, and shut some down.

Let me try to parallel. Let's say you want to play catch. You throw the ball back and forth, during which the brain is highly active to make astonishingly quick calculations, and viola, you catch the ball. Then try again, but this time, talk your way through it - up it goes...ok...now it's coming down...how strong is the wind...what is th...bang! It hits you on the head, because you no longer see the ball in motion, but in moments because the conscious brain cannot see the motion. Or, try to impose great meaning on it - if I don't catch this ball, I'm going to be a huge failure...your heart rate raises - you second guess your self...bang! It hits you on the head again. Point (weak as it is - best I can think of now), that imposing meaning and thought onto activities doesn't always make the experience better. If you want to catch the ball, you should release thoughts, and allow the mind to do the work. Then, catching and throwing become pleasure. We might need to build the skills by gradual increases in distance and speed to develop coordination. But we don't bring out calculators.

Hummm...not completely convinced of this argument, but I'll let it stick.

(btw, the reason I go on and on is that I didn't always think this way. I used to be quite like others, saying this was junk, and anti music. But someone argued me relentlessly to the point where I began to reconsider my position - that I might just be missing something. So, I went out and read a bunch of Cage, listened to and performed his music, and also that of many of his "disciples" who have continued his work (Hildegard Westercamp, and R.M. Schafer are two Canadians who have done great work in this regard). And then, to be cliche, I got it - big time. It was as if someone tore off a layer of plastic wrap that had been covering my head. And you know, everything became more beautiful - especially sounds. I also love Cage because he said "do what you want in music - there are no rules."(paraphrase) It helped me to ignore fashion and simply work with sounds that I thought to be beautiful and stimulating. He also said "don't be like me", and, I'm not. The music I make is very different. As well, certain ideas of his I'm not interested in, such as the separation of composer and performer. For me, they are one. That is how I write. I'm also not very interested in his poetry. But, most of what he said has resonated with me.)


----------



## World Violist

Opal said:


> Was it perchance this one? http://www.talkclassical.com/4629-silence-music.html


Yes, it was. I was looking for 4'33" and I apparently overlooked that one.


----------



## Sid James

I've just finished reading Australian musicologist & composer Andrew Ford's book "Illegal Harmonies" about the music of the C20th. In it, he talks at length about Cage's concept of "illegal harmonies," harmonies that are incidental to our lives, like the background noise we always hear in our homes (eg. fridges or other home appliances - even radios) or traffic, aeroplanes overhead, this kind of thing. These are perhaps the types of noises that Cage was thinking about when he created 4'33", things that we dismiss but are always there. In the concert hall these would be rustling feet/programmes, coughing, sneezing, even the breathing of the person next to you or the hum of air-con (if your hearing is so sensitive). As people have pointed out above, it's not rubbish (& not pretentious), but like many pieces (eg. Cage's works for live instruments & taped/recorded sounds), it incorporates sounds that the composer (perhaps?) has less control over.


----------



## JSK

As much as a bunch of these avant garde composers wrote music which a lot of people consider not music, I greatly appreciate their explorations of sound techniques. Although not a huge Cage fan, I feel like 4-33 gives him more of a bad rep than he deserves. His music for prepared piano is quite good, featuring very interesting colors and rhythms.


----------



## jhar26

I once saw an art exibit on television. One of the works was a white bathtub with a few scratches on it. The artist explained that it symbolized the oppression against black people in modern society. If I had closed my eyes and had just listened to this guy going on and on about the merits of his work and everything it stood for I would have imagined it to be a work of art of the magnitude of te Sistine Chapel. But when I would have opened my eyes all I would have seen would just be a bathtub with some scratches on it.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Elgarian said:


> We do a lot of ["re-invention"] at TC.


Automatic nominee for the category "Best Use of an Emoticon!"


----------



## Elgarian

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Automatic nominee for the category "Best Use of an Emoticon!"


You've made my day, CTP. I very rarely use emoticons, but there's nothing so encouraging as _being understood_.

Top o' the afternoon to ye, Sir!


----------



## Guest

4'33" is sound, not music. Not all sound is music, but all music consists of sound. Just because someone proposes to not play any music, and calls it music, does not make it music. If I were to take a blank piece of paper and call it literature, it would not be literature simply because I defined it as such. It is the absence of literature. 

What John Cage produced with 4'33" is the sounds of an audience reacting to the absence of music. Nothing more. I find nothing avant garde about it. I find it lazy. I think people look for deeper meaning in it because it makes them look sophisticated, to question what the "true" meaning of something is. 

John Cage went into a "quiet" room, heard his heart beat and some other bodily functions, and he comes out and "writes" 4'33". Beethoven lost his hearing, and truly experienced loss of sound, and he proceeded to write the 9th symphony, the Missa Solemnis, the Grosse Fuge and his last 5 string quartets, his last 5 piano sonatas, and the Diabelli Variations.


----------



## Argus

DrMike said:


> 4'33" is sound, not music. Not all sound is music, but all music consists of sound. Just because someone proposes to not play any music, and calls it music, does not make it music. If I were to take a blank piece of paper and call it literature, it would not be literature simply because I defined it as such. It is the absence of literature.
> 
> What John Cage produced with 4'33" is the sounds of an audience reacting to the absence of music. Nothing more. I find nothing avant garde about it. I find it lazy. I think people look for deeper meaning in it because it makes them look sophisticated, to question what the "true" meaning of something is.
> 
> John Cage went into a "quiet" room, heard his heart beat and some other bodily functions, and he comes out and "writes" 4'33". Beethoven lost his hearing, and truly experienced loss of sound, and he proceeded to write the 9th symphony, the Missa Solemnis, the Grosse Fuge and his last 5 string quartets, his last 5 piano sonatas, and the Diabelli Variations.


How can not all sound be music? The only thing that something requires to be described as music is sound. You could argue that 4'33'' is not sound but performance art as the sound's from the audience and not the performer don't constitute the work. The sounds in the concert hall or wherever could still be music but not a part of 4'33''. However, if you accept that the sounds that occur during the performance but not by the peformer do constitute 4'33'', then how can it be anything but music.

To use your literature metaphor to explain, I could produce a book absent of any words, just blank pages. Then encourage the owners of the book to write in it and claim the contents to be part of the original work by me. It would still be literature but would it be my art or the audience(owner's) art? That is what I believe to be the main contention about Cage's famous work. Whether the music during 4'33'' can be classed as the piece itself or as something separate.

However, I have not seen the score for 4'33'' so don't know the composers specifications and intentions.

As for the Beethoven comparison. Old Ludwig carried on what he did all his life, write music. Johnny Boy did something never done before. All subjectivity aside you could at least give him credit for the idea or even the balls to attempt what he did.


----------



## Aramis

I have an idea for a piece as genious as Cage's 4'33. 

It will contain solo violin and instruction for a listener that he should take pencil and follow what he hears with it - follow the bow, to be more precise. He should stick to the tempo of bowing. When the pitch is changing he should change pencil direction properly, depending on how much lower/higher will be the pitch. Pause means that he should take pencil off the paper and follow the same direction with the same tempo until new pitch will appear telling him what to do now. 

And if he will follow these instructions correctly the music will make him draw a cute, little piglet. 

What say you, dare not to disapprove my idea, it would mean that you're an idiot, ignorant, and ordinary *****.


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> How can not all sound be music? The only thing that something requires to be described as music is sound. You could argue that 4'33'' is not sound but performance art as the sound's from the audience and not the performer don't constitute the work. The sounds in the concert hall or wherever could still be music but not a part of 4'33''. However, if you accept that the sounds that occur during the performance but not by the peformer do constitute 4'33'', then how can it be anything but music.
> 
> To use your literature metaphor to explain, I could produce a book absent of any words, just blank pages. Then encourage the owners of the book to write in it and claim the contents to be part of the original work by me. It would still be literature but would it be my art or the audience(owner's) art? That is what I believe to be the main contention about Cage's famous work. Whether the music during 4'33'' can be classed as the piece itself or as something separate.
> 
> However, I have not seen the score for 4'33'' so don't know the composers specifications and intentions.
> 
> As for the Beethoven comparison. Old Ludwig carried on what he did all his life, write music. Johnny Boy did something never done before. All subjectivity aside you could at least give him credit for the idea or even the balls to attempt what he did.


How can all sound be music? If I sneeze, is that music? Were I to record myself sneezing, could I call that music, and be heralded as a genius?

For that matter, are we to also call the various audience noises frequently captured in live recordings as "music?"

These ideas aren't new, daring, ballsy explorations of what music is, rather cheapening of what music is. Were we to accept Cage's logic, then we would be forced to accept a recording of farts as music.


----------



## jhar26

DrMike said:


> These ideas aren't new, daring, ballsy explorations of what music is, rather cheapening of what music is. Were we to accept Cage's logic, then we would be forced to accept a recording of farts as music.


Closer to the truth than you might think, actually. Look at this 'masterpiece' from conceptual artist Wim Delvoye.....

http://www.artnewsblog.com/2006/08/****-art-cloaca-machine.htm


----------



## Guest

jhar26 said:


> Closer to the truth than you might think, actually. Look at this 'masterpiece' from conceptual artist Wim Delvoye.....
> 
> http://www.artnewsblog.com/2006/08/****-art-cloaca-machine.htm


It really amazes me. Only in "the arts" is such latitude given to definitions. Have the audience sit for 4'33" listening to . . . nothing, and call it music. Have an "artist" crap in a bag and call it . . . "art."

If someone were to ask a seamstress for a shirt, and they were handed a ball of yarn, would they herald that as a ballsy interpretation of clothing? If an engineer is told to build a highway, and he comes back after drawing some lines in the dirt, has he designed the highway of the future? Expanded our understanding of modern transportation?

How would you compare and contrast various "performances" of 4'33"? Oooh, my favorite is the one where the guy coughed really loud! No, I liked the one with the squeaky chairs! No, I think the best one is where the guy sitting at the piano, doing nothing, accidentally (or was it on accident?) farts!

Sometimes nothing is something - Seinfeld was a show about nothing. With 4'33", though, nothing truly is nothing. It reminds me of the movie Office Space, where the main character decides to not do anything at work anymore, and then gets heralded as a genius, and gets promoted.

Incidentally, I checked - you can buy 4'33" on iTunes for $1.99, although several people have complained that you only get 4'31" (no doubt tongue-in-cheek). I'll cut you all a discount - send me $1.50, and I'll actually give you 4'35" of me sitting on my couch reading to myself! Listen carefully, and you might hear pages turning. Or I might clear my throat. Each recording will be unique - I will read a different book silently to myself for each recording! Be careful, though - when you load it on your iPod, make sure you know when it is on - you might be tempted to look down to see if your headphones became unplugged, or you accidentally hit pause.


----------



## Argus

DrMike said:


> How can all sound be music? If I sneeze, is that music? Were I to record myself sneezing, could I call that music, and be heralded as a genius?
> 
> For that matter, are we to also call the various audience noises frequently captured in live recordings as "music?"
> 
> These ideas aren't new, daring, ballsy explorations of what music is, rather cheapening of what music is. Were we to accept Cage's logic, then we would be forced to accept a recording of farts as music.


I would happily accept a recording of farts or sneezes to be music. I'd accept an audio recording of anything as music as long as it wasn't nothing. All music _is_ sound and any sound _can_ be music.

How can something cheapen what music is, when music has no value in the first place?

In what way weren't Cages ideas new, daring or ballsy? Daring or ballsy is arguable but new is surely an applicable term. I can't think of any previous musicians who did what he did.


----------



## Argus

DrMike said:


> If someone were to ask a seamstress for a shirt, and they were handed a ball of yarn, would they herald that as a ballsy interpretation of clothing? If an engineer is told to build a highway, and he comes back after drawing some lines in the dirt, has he designed the highway of the future? Expanded our understanding of modern transportation?


Shirts and motorways tend to have a function rather than being purely aesthetic. If Cage had been commissioned to compose a ballet score and presented 4'33'' I could understand the dissapproval but he created the art for it's own sake, not to serve a specific purpose, and to make people think. If Cage's intentions were to provoke thoughts and discussions with 4'33'' then it clearly succeeds and therefore, like the shirts and motorways you mention, fulfills a function. If Cage didn't intend to convey anything then the art needs no such justification.


----------



## Scott Good

Argus said:


> I would happily accept a recording of farts or sneezes to be music. I'd accept an audio recording of anything as music as long as it wasn't nothing. All music _is_ sound and any sound _can_ be music.


Yes! And you know, to 7 year old boys, it might be their favorite song! 



Argus said:


> How can something cheapen what music is, when music has no value in the first place?


So true. I don't think many people understand this in the consumer world. How can something they love so much have no value?

Musicians on the other hand, a different story.



Argus said:


> In what way weren't Cages ideas new, daring or ballsy? Daring or ballsy is arguable but new is surely an applicable term. I can't think of any previous musicians who did what he did.


Well that's not true. There are previous "no note" pieces. From Wiki:

* Alphonse Allais's 1897 Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man, consisting of nine blank measures. Allais's composition is arguably closer in spirit to Cage's work; Allais was an associate of Erik Satie, and given Cage's profound admiration for Satie, the possibility that Cage was inspired by the Funeral March is tempting. However, according to Cage himself, he was unaware of Allais's composition at the time (though he had heard of a nineteenth century book that was completely blank).[14][page needed]

* Erwin Schulhoff's 1919 "In futurum", a movement from the Fünf Pittoresken for piano. The Czech composer's meticulously notated composition is made up entirely of rests. Cage was, however, almost certainly unaware of Schulhoff's work.

* Yves Klein's 1949 Monotone-Silence Symphony (informally The Monotone Symphony, conceived 1947-1948), an orchestral forty minute piece whose second and last movement is a twenty minute silence (the first movement being an unvarying twenty minute drone).

Umm, did anyone do any reading about the piece before they commented?


----------



## thatperson

Aramis said:


> I have an idea for a piece as genious as Cage's 4'33.
> 
> It will contain solo violin and instruction for a listener that he should take pencil and follow what he hears with it - follow the bow, to be more precise. He should stick to the tempo of bowing. When the pitch is changing he should change pencil direction properly, depending on how much lower/higher will be the pitch. Pause means that he should take pencil off the paper and follow the same direction with the same tempo until new pitch will appear telling him what to do now.
> 
> And if he will follow these instructions correctly the music will make him draw a cute, little piglet.
> 
> What say you, dare not to disapprove my idea, it would mean that you're an idiot, ignorant, and ordinary *****.


It would be a very good idea.
I would like to see the mood of the musical composition to match the drawing, and the drawing be on a digital screen so that the audience could see the progress.

But try to refrain from calling people bad names for disagreeing with you; people have the right to say what they want, even though they might sound like/be a jerk.
This forum is virtually all based on opinions, and everyone's gotta respect others' opinions.
Just something for everyone to think about


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

The only thing that differentiates "sound" from "music" is the pretense that particular sounds are music, or acknowledgment of certain sounds as music.

It's really not that foreign a concept in our day and age, where traditionally non-musical "sounds" are incorporated into songs and deemed "music" on a regular basis. I've heard popular music songs built around sirens, gun shots, etc.


----------



## TWhite

I've practiced it frequently on my piano at home, but I don't think I'm quite ready to play it in public.

Tom


----------



## rojo

some guy said:


> (Have I actually used the word "actually" too much?)


Actually, no.



Elgarian said:


> Please select an answer from the following options:
> 1. Yes.
> 2. No.


Oh dear, must I?



Tapkaara said:


> Perhaps a poll would be in order...Finlandia vs. 4'33'' could be a good one...


Oh please... no more... I beg you...

lol


----------



## JSK

I always thought it might be fun to publish an oboe concertino where the oboe plays A4 and the other instruments in the orchestra aleatorically mess with the tunings of their instruments/open strings. I should ask for royalties whenever it is performed.


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> I would happily accept a recording of farts or sneezes to be music. I'd accept an audio recording of anything as music as long as it wasn't nothing. All music _is_ sound and any sound _can_ be music.
> 
> How can something cheapen what music is, when music has no value in the first place?
> 
> In what way weren't Cages ideas new, daring or ballsy? Daring or ballsy is arguable but new is surely an applicable term. I can't think of any previous musicians who did what he did.


"All music is sound and any sound can be music."
I would accept this. However, in reference to 4'33", I would remind you that not all sound IS music. Consider this logic applied to any other medium - for that is sound's relationship to music - like, for example, water. All oceans contain water. Any water can be ocean water. That does not mean that I can point to a glass of water and say, "that must be the ocean."

Music has no value? Then why are we all here on this forum? Music is an intangible that does, in fact, have value. In some cases - such as the buying and selling of musical scores, recordings, or selling tickets to a performance - there is an actual monetary value applied to music. But beyond that, there is most definitely a value to music, and it can be cheapened. Consider other intangibles that we place value on. The love that a parent has for a child is definitely intangible, yet there is a value there, as it can be incredibly beneficial to both the parent, and the developing child. It can be cheapened, for example, when a parent exploits that love to exact things from the child, or when the child is exploited.

Or consider life itself. Very much intangible. Nobody can put a real price on life. And yet we all put some value on life, to some extent. Why else are we so constantly obsessed with health and healthcare, and the cost of such? Why do doctors make so much money? Why are people willing to pay ransoms to have a loved one returned? And there most definitely ways to cheapen life. Some would argue that pornography cheapens the beauty of women. Some argue that abortion cheapens human life, allowing people to end a human life for a broad spectrum of reasons, from the petty to the life threatening. Others argue that the value of all animal life is cheapened by such actions as killing animals for food or for clothing, or for mere sport.

Generally, the value placed on such intangibles is decided on a societal level, unless you believe that things like life have an intrinsic value. Music, over time, has generally been in this category, having value as placed on it by society. This may explain why different musical styles have sprung from different areas of the globe, particularly when communication between them was limited.

So I would argue that music does, in fact, have value, beyond any commercial value. That value is determined by society. We erect structures all over the world where music may be played. We organize celebrations to award music that we value highly. We pay teachers at all levels of the education system to instruct about music. Why? Because we value music. One person does not get to re-define what music is, because to do such does, in fact, cheapen the value of music. If John Cage's thoughts on what music was were broadly accepted, and "compositions" such as 4'33" were to proliferate from the musicians of our day, I suspect the interest in "music" would dwindle, and the value of their music would decline. Where, but in small niches, would there be an intense interest in exploring their music? Would you predict the erection of grand structures, such as the Sydney opera house, with the thought in mind to "perform" 4'33"?

4'33" was an experiment by Cage to determine whether he could apply his definition of what music is to the broader music-listening world. While it may have remained "music" to him and a few devoted followers, at a societal level, it has not stood the test of time. Now, while me may debate whether the broader society is simply not cultivated to appreciate such creations, that is really too intellectually lazy to assert. There is certainly a large enough music-appreciating population in the world at large that has rejected Cage's experiment.


----------



## Scott Good

DrMike said:


> Or consider life itself. Very much intangible. Nobody can put a real price on life. And yet we all put some value on life, to some extent. Why else are we so constantly obsessed with health and healthcare, and the cost of such? Why do doctors make so much money? Why are people willing to pay ransoms to have a loved one returned? And there most definitely ways to cheapen life.


Ok, yes. I think that Argus was talking about value as in tangible value. If we can offer up intangible value - unmeasurable value, than yes, of course, it has value. Then anything has value.

But in terms of tangible value, I don't believe (personally), that music has value. It is only ideas about sound, not objects. CD's and concert halls and all that are not music, but mediums through which music can be heard - not the music it'self. Otherwise, it is my belief that we cheapen music, just like we cheapen life by putting $$ on it. At least, I believe this is the moral way to be. Life, and music, transcend the notion of tangible value, like love. There are many very ancient wisdom's that discuss this as well.

As I said (and I know you wish I go away, but I can't with these topics), musicians have value, as do doctors. We pay for their expertise which = time. Time devoted to learning and skill building and implementation. If we don't pay them, they will not have the time to do the tasks we need them to do - provide health or provide music.

Btw, I wouldn't underestimate the wide impact that Cage has had on the world of music. I have heard many say the the "avant guarde" has been a failed experiment. But, under close inspection, it's ideas can be seen to have permeated throughout society, and can be seen bearing influence, small and great, in all cultural and philosophical ideas and activities. We cannot turn back the clock, nor can we reverse evolution. We can only move forward. To try and do otherwise would be futile.


----------



## SPR

Goodness!

I mean, I have not been back to talk classical lately... its been a long time. But I must say I find it pretty amusing that something that came up so long ago is still on the front burner!

http://www.talkclassical.com/3781-composers-works-you-struggle-5.html

laugh. the old "4 minutes and 33 seconds". Sheesh. ;-p


----------



## TresPicos

One theme throughout music history is the gradual opening of our minds to what music really can be. We discovered that it didn't have to be beautiful, that it didn't have to be tonal, that it didn't have to have rhythm etc.

Same thing throughout art history, where we would sooner or later see something like this:










And eventually an artist will present just an empty canvas or an emtpy room or just emptiness as art, or just silence as music, and we will push (or at least discuss) the boundaries of art and music even further. In that respect, Duchamp's Fountain and Cage's 4'33'' are crucial milestones and definitely not junk.


----------



## Scott Good

TresPicos said:


> One theme throughout music history is the gradual opening of our minds to what music really can be. We discovered that it didn't have to be beautiful, that it didn't have to be tonal, that it didn't have to have rhythm etc.
> 
> Same thing throughout art history, where we would sooner or later see something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And eventually an artist will present just an empty canvas or an emtpy room or just emptiness as art, or just silence as music, and we will push (or at least discuss) the boundaries of art and music even further. In that respect, Duchamp's Fountain and Cage's 4'33'' are crucial milestones and definitely not junk.




Thank you! Great post. First sentence says so much. One small comment - music, in my definition (organized sound through time) must have rhythm, as it is the measure of time, even if it is just start and stop. But I think you meant meter, which is absolutely right. Also, at the roots of the classical system is Gregorian Chant, which is for most intents and purposes, ametric.

Btw, on an art thread, I used something very similar to your example. Although mine is an actual photo of the sky. For a second I thought you were quoting!

http://www.talkclassical.com/6831-art-thread-3.html#post73690


----------



## starry

TresPicos said:


> One theme throughout music history is the gradual opening of our minds to what music really can be. We discovered that it didn't have to be beautiful, that it didn't have to be tonal, that it didn't have to have rhythm etc.


Well yes of course, but where it is just silence and the background noise that isn't arguably an artistic creation in a purely *musically* creative sense. You could say it was in an installation or concept art if it was an event you attended. But as someone said nobody would buy a cd of this piece. Similarly if it was a painting where there wasn't one, where the viewer had to imagine one was there (of if the painting was whatever piece of of wall it was supposed to be on) then again that would not be printed in a book on paintings. It would be an event someone would attend to get the experience.


----------



## motpasm23

TresPicos said:


> One theme throughout music history is the gradual opening of our minds to what music really can be. We discovered that it didn't have to be beautiful, that it didn't have to be tonal, that it didn't have to have rhythm etc.
> 
> Same thing throughout art history, where we would sooner or later see something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And eventually an artist will present just an empty canvas or an emtpy room or just emptiness as art, or just silence as music, and we will push (or at least discuss) the boundaries of art and music even further. In that respect, Duchamp's Fountain and Cage's 4'33'' are crucial milestones and definitely not junk.


Ha, I was waiting for someone to mention Yves Klein. Though that would be more akin to someone scoring a piece for a single note to be played for a long duration (sort of like Riley's "In C" but without any motifs whatsoever).

4:33 is purely an academic piece of music (yes, music. Unfortunately for some, art is anything the artist decides it is and that applies to all its subsets). The better question is it a good one? No, not really. It's momentarily appealing intellectually, but quickly seems to be subsumed by its inherent contradictions. Couldn't the performer also play a few random notes on the piano, to emphasize that music (or at least a random tone sequence) itself is part of the sound of the universe? If traffic outside and audience breathing are pulled to light, why not performer sneezing?

The real visual art analogy of this piece would be simply placing a frame on the wall (I know someone's done it, but I can't remember who first did). I admit, though, these conceptual, talentless tricks have just as important a place in the oeuvre of any given genre as those which actually require genius.


----------



## starry

motpasm23 said:


> Ha, I was waiting for someone to mention Yves Klein. Though that would be more akin to someone scoring a piece for a single note to be played for a long duration (sort of like Riley's "In C" but without any motifs whatsoever).
> 
> 4:33 is purely an academic piece of music (yes, music. Unfortunately for some, art is anything the artist decides it is and that applies to all its subsets). The better question is it a good one? No, not really. It's momentarily appealing intellectually, but quickly seems to be subsumed by its inherent contradictions. Couldn't the performer also play a few random notes on the piano, to emphasize that music (or at least a random tone sequence) itself is part of the sound of the universe? If traffic outside and audience breathing are pulled to light, why not performer sneezing?
> 
> The real visual art analogy of this piece would be simply placing a frame on the wall (I know someone's done it, but I can't remember who first did). I admit, though, these conceptual, talentless tricks have just as important a place in the oeuvre of any given genre as those which actually require genius.


So basically you're saying you agree with me.


----------



## Guest

motpasm23 said:


> Ha, I was waiting for someone to mention Yves Klein. Though that would be more akin to someone scoring a piece for a single note to be played for a long duration (sort of like Riley's "In C" but without any motifs whatsoever).
> 
> 4:33 is purely an academic piece of music (yes, music. Unfortunately for some, art is anything the artist decides it is and that applies to all its subsets). The better question is it a good one? No, not really. It's momentarily appealing intellectually, but quickly seems to be subsumed by its inherent contradictions. Couldn't the performer also play a few random notes on the piano, to emphasize that music (or at least a random tone sequence) itself is part of the sound of the universe? If traffic outside and audience breathing are pulled to light, why not performer sneezing?
> 
> The real visual art analogy of this piece would be simply placing a frame on the wall (I know someone's done it, but I can't remember who first did). I admit, though, these conceptual, talentless tricks have just as important a place in the oeuvre of any given genre as those which actually require genius.


So art is anything the artist says it is? So how do we determine who the artists are? Can anyone be? Do you just declare yourself an artist, and then, by default, anything you create is art? That seems rather arbitrary. That is the funny thing about art and music - artists and musicians get to put out whatever they want, and then expect us all to accept that it is art/music. If only the rest of us got to operate under those parameters. But then, I guess that whether or not they are artists and their output is art, ultimately, if they want to make a living out of it, they will ultimately have to produce something that has an appeal beyond their own mind.

Sorry, I just don't buy it. But then I guess that time is the great judge of such things. No doubt there were numerous individuals over the centuries that fashioned themselves as artists and musicians, but nobody remembers them because by an large, nobody else thought they were. Kind of like the countless "actors" and "writers" swarming Los Angeles who can't seem to convince anybody else that they are actors and writers.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

DrMike said:


> If John Cage's thoughts on what music was were broadly accepted, and "compositions" such as 4'33" were to proliferate from the musicians of our day, I suspect the interest in "music" would dwindle, and the value of their music would decline. Where, but in small niches, would there be an intense interest in exploring their music?


This is a ridiculous statement. I can't even begin to go into the ways that he more than anyone paved the way for our current musical climate, or the number of "serious" and "popular" musicians (indeed some of the most well known) that have been influenced by him.



> Would you predict the erection of grand structures, such as the Sydney opera house, with the thought in mind to "perform" 4'33"?


Sure. It's already happened in at least one case that I know of, and certainly more than that. If you study the history and constructions of performance spaces you would know better.



> 4'33" was an experiment by Cage to determine whether he could apply his definition of what music is to the broader music-listening world. While it may have remained "music" to him and a few devoted followers, at a societal level, it has not stood the test of time. Now, while me may debate whether the broader society is simply not cultivated to appreciate such creations, that is really too intellectually lazy to assert. There is certainly a large enough music-appreciating population in the world at large that has rejected Cage's experiment.


Hmm. I don't think so. Let's consider this video: 




It's recent, not from the _radical_ 60s, has over a million views and "was chosen to the TOP 10 video on Classical Music on the WeShow Awards US Edition."

A silly experiment that hasn't stood the test of time? I think the people in that video, and anyone who has experienced the piece for themselves would disagree.



> So art is anything the artist says it is? So how do we determine who the artists are? Can anyone be? Do you just declare yourself an artist, and then, by default, anything you create is art? That seems rather arbitrary. That is the funny thing about art and music - artists and musicians get to put out whatever they want, and then expect us all to accept that it is art/music. If only the rest of us got to operate under those parameters.


Ah, but that's the thing about Cage. What is art? Traditionally, yes, it is what the artist says it is. Someone declares a sound art and them the artist, it's art. Beethoven writes a symphony as art, it is art. However, as I mentioned in the "Great Composers You Hate" thread, Cage was all about removing the artist from art. Art is not what someone else tells you is art, for every single person art is what they perceive in the world around them and find aesthetically beautiful, appealing and enriching. That's what 4'33" is all about.

And what I find somewhat ironic is the people who form Cage's most virulent opposition, those who claim to hate Cage and his works, are often the ones who unknowingly adopt his outlook rather viciously and in a perverted way, denouncing this and that as not worthy of being called art or music.


----------



## Scott Good

DrMike said:


> Kind of like the countless "actors" and "writers" swarming Los Angeles who can't seem to convince anybody else that they are actors and writers.


They are actors and writers...just nobody want to pay them.

I believe everyone is an artist, and can make art. But, I'm not going to buy everything I see. In essence, we are talking about the difference between amateur (for love), and professional (for money) which you will be happy to hear puts all the distinction in the beholder (that be you).

Although in the case of many artistic endeavors, there is a middle man - the producer, or the curator, or the music director etc. They assemble art into a cohesive package, and hope to titillate the viewer with their choices. In this way, many of us are artists. For instance, we paint our houses, assemble furniture, put up flowers, and hang paintings and pictures of our loved ones. We put on music and assemble an aesthetic environment that we hope when our guests come over, we will feel relaxed, and full of happiness and laughter.

No two homes are identical.

Is this not art? Aren't there some homes that are welcoming, and others not so much, just as pieces of music are?

Would you pay to go in someones house? Well, if it used to be Beethoven's, Edison's or Napoleon's you might. Do you think that because I respect Cage and think that a blue canvass might have artistic appeal I don't understand why a symphony orchestra is worth paying for? In fact, that I lecture, and petition, and give interviews on why they are important institutions for our society? Yet, I still think 4'33'' is music, and it has profoundness.

They are not in conflict. Well, not for me.


----------



## starry

Scott Good said:


> They are actors and writers...just nobody want to pay them.
> 
> I believe everyone is an artist, and can make art. But, I'm not going to buy everything I see. In essence, we are talking about the difference between amateur (for love), and professional (for money) which you will be happy to hear puts all the distinction in the beholder (that be you).
> 
> Although in the case of many artistic endeavors, there is a middle man - the producer, or the curator, or the music director etc. They assemble art into a cohesive package, and hope to titillate the viewer with their choices. In this way, many of us are artists. For instance, we paint our houses, assemble furniture, put up flowers, and hang paintings and pictures of our loved ones. We put on music and assemble an aesthetic environment that we hope when our guests come over, we will feel relaxed, and full of happiness and laughter.
> 
> No two homes are identical.
> 
> Is this not art? Aren't there some homes that are welcoming, and others not so much, just as pieces of music are?
> 
> Would you pay to go in someones house? Well, if it used to be Beethoven's, Edison's or Napoleon's you might. Do you think that because I respect Cage and think that a blue canvass might have artistic appeal I don't understand why a symphony orchestra is worth paying for? In fact, that I lecture, and petition, and give interviews on why they are important institutions for our society? Yet, I still think 4'33'' is music, and it has profoundness.
> 
> They are not in conflict. Well, not for me.


Music happens in the mind, the surroundings I play music in have no bearing on the music whatsoever. I could shut my eyes and listen to music. The music takes me somewhere else, or it connects to me within myself. And isn't most art made for love (for money as well, but not just).


----------



## starry

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Ah, but that's the thing about Cage. What is art? Traditionally, yes, it is what the artist says it is. Someone declares a sound art and them the artist, it's art. Beethoven writes a symphony as art, it is art. However, as I mentioned in the "Great Composers You Hate" thread, Cage was all about removing the artist from art.


But Cage created actual music in other pieces.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

So art is anything the artist says it is? So how do we determine who the artists are? Can anyone be? Do you just declare yourself an artist, and then, by default, anything you create is art? That seems rather arbitrary.

The concept that art is whatever the artist deems is art is grossly flawed. On the most obvious level it ignores the fact that a great deal of what we deem as art was in no way intended as art... or the creator never would have thought of it as art or himself as an artist in any way approaching our current notions. Let us, for example, take this work:










or this work:










The medieval stone-cutters, master-builders, architects, sculptors, glaziers, scribes, calligraphers, and painters were most certainly thought of as "craftsmen"... but not "artists". The visual arts were not even recognized among the "liberal arts" until after the Renaissance. It's quite likely that they thought of themselves as "craftsmen" employing their skills in the service of God... but "art"? Never. The mere concept would have been almost blasphemous. We, however, recognize these works as "art" without the least question. The same holds true of literature. The first novels: Richardson, Fielding Defoe, etc... were certainly "writing"... but they were not literature... they were not Art. The theater was thought of in the same manner. Shakespeare didn't even bother to publish his plays, and when Ben Jonson published his, the very notion was thought of as audacious and absurd. Even in our own time we need only to look back upon early photography, film, and TV to recognize how it was often seen as little more than a form of documentation or entertainment... certainly not art. How many films were lost to time because the studios thought so little of preserving them?

The reality is that it is not the artist who decides what is or is not art... but rather the audience. I may insist that what I have created is a work of art, but unless it is accepted as such it doesn't much matter what I think. It is certainly the audience who also decides the merit of the said work of art. The fact that Yves Klein's paintings or Marcel Duchamp's urinal or Piero Manzoni's can of artist's poo or John Cage's 4:33 are open to question by an audience comprised of those who are not completely ignorant of art suggests that at the moment we may need to accept that they are indeed "art"... but just how good or important they may be is not something that has been generally agreed upon.

That is the funny thing about art and music - artists and musicians get to put out whatever they want, and then expect us all to accept that it is art/music.

While I have little if any use for works of art such as Manzoni's poo or Cage's 4:33, I don't imagine that the artists... that any artists imagine that everyone will appreciate their work. I believe the artist should create that which he or she believes in with the knowledge that there is surely an audience for almost anything. Not every work appeals to every audience... and it is absurd to expect it would... and insulting to assume that if a work of art doesn't appeal to a certain audience this is the fault of the audience or a measure of their intellect. It is for this reason I take offense at the presumption by some that to dislike Cage or Stockhausen or Reich... or Wagner or Brahms or Hildegard of Bingen for that matter... is the sign of ignorance... musical immaturity... or close-mindedness.


----------



## starry

But alot of people dislike things without really ever properly trying to listen or understand them. That kind of blindness leads to musical judgements which I will never trust.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

starry said:


> But Cage created actual music in other pieces.


He was concerned with asking questions, chance, freeing music from the composer etc., even if he used different means and methods in different pieces. Like, Cage didn't put crap in his prepared pianos to 'experiment with traditional instruments', but to create a convenient outlet for his experiments with reapplying the emphasis of sound to time.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

But alot of people dislike things without really ever properly trying to listen or understand them. That kind of blindness leads to musical judgements which I will never trust.

Certainly... and I have no use for the opinions based such... even when they agree with my own. At the same time we do not have the time to invest into an in-depth exploration of each and every painting, symphony, opera, poem, novel, etc... We sometimes base our judgment upon what has given us the most pleasure in the past.


----------



## Scott Good

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The concept that art is whatever the artist deems is art is grossly flawed. On the most obvious level it ignores the fact that a great deal of what we deem as art was in no way intended as art... or the creator never would have thought of it as art or himself as an artist in any way approaching our current notions.




Grossly flawed?

Well, on this first point, we should consider that a word can evolve in meaning. This discussion is about what we think of art now, not then. I would also say that a word like "god" also falls under this category. It cannot mean the same as it did due to scientific and philosophical advancements. It has changed.

Heck, when was the word art even invented? In what language? Is it ubiquitous across cultures?

Were there no trees before we had the word tree?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> We, however, recognize these works as "art" without the least question. The same holds true of literature. The first novels: Richardson, Fielding Defoe, etc... were certainly "writing"... but they were not literature... they were not Art. The theater was thought of in the same manner. Shakespeare didn't even bother to publish his plays, and when Ben Jonson published his, the very notion was thought of as audacious and absurd.


This all goes to strengthen my point. We should not import past meanings to present meanings. Otherwise, we get no where. Imagine if we didn't have Shakespeare plays now, just because the word art was being used in this way? No, I like the modern idea better.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Even in our own time we need only to look back upon early photography, film, and TV to recognize how it was often seen as little more than a form of documentation or entertainment... certainly not art. How many films were lost to time because the studios thought so little of preserving them?


Our time? This isn't my time, not even my grandparents (who are all passed away)

Cage said "I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. ". Something to consider.

And again, because of the old way to view art, we, and all of future time, has lost these documents. Again I ask, is this good, and should we continue this behavior?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> The reality is that it is not the artist who decides what is or is not art... but rather the audience. I may insist that what I have created is a work of art, but unless it is accepted as such it doesn't much matter what I think. It is certainly the audience who also decides the merit of the said work of art. The fact that Yves Klein's paintings or Marcel Duchamp's urinal or Piero Manzoni's can of artist's poo or John Cage's 4:33 are open to question by an audience comprised of those who are not completely ignorant of art suggests that at the moment we may need to accept that they are indeed "art"... but just how good or important they may be is not something that has been generally agreed upon.


Well, obviously they are important, at least in terms of impact! Look at how they invoke discussion that ties all kinds of concepts and perspectives together. I have used 4'33'' as a teacher many times, especially with young students. Man, does it make their brains fire up for deep philosophical thought and discussion.

Also, you seem to imply that the artist isn't the audience. A strange notion. They are the first audience, wouldn't you say. Or, would you like the artist to not consider themselves and what they find beautiful and meaningful into their work. Humm, sounds like a bad situation to me.

Of course, your next paragraph shows that you indeed believe the artist to be central in the work of art. So why try to strip away this hierarchy with consumerist thinking? IE, art is what is bought, and how many people buy it.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> While I have little if any use for works of art such as Manzoni's poo or Cage's 4:33, I don't imagine that the artists... that any artists imagine that everyone will appreciate their work. I believe the artist should create that which he or she believes in with the knowledge that there is surely an audience for almost anything. Not every work appeals to every audience... and it is absurd to expect it would... and insulting to assume that if a work of art doesn't appeal to a certain audience this is the fault of the audience or a measure of their intellect.


Humm. Well, aside from this being a straw man to the discussion at hand, you are creating a strange little double standard. On one hand, you repeatedly state that the audience (not including artist) decides what art is, yet at the same time absolve them from any responsibility to that task.

Again, Cage has a two responses:

"If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all. "

and

"The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason. "

So, to restate the point, everything has the potential to be interesting and beautiful. The reception in this way is up to the receiver. That being said, I will heed to the argument that we simply don't have time to find these things in all things. I will also heed to the idea that some works of art are harder to absorb than others. But, to know that the potential exists is what I find liberating. I also like having the responsibility on my shoulders, as a sense of responsibility imbues an active, rather than passive participation.


----------



## starry

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But alot of people dislike things without really ever properly trying to listen or understand them. That kind of blindness leads to musical judgements which I will never trust.
> 
> Certainly... and I have no use for the opinions based such... even when they agree with my own. At the same time we do not have the time to invest into an in-depth exploration of each and every painting, symphony, opera, poem, novel, etc... We sometimes base our judgment upon what has given us the most pleasure in the past.


Judgement should be reserved where people have not given adequate time and consideration to a piece/style, unfortunately this is rarely the case in my experience. Basing a judgement on what has given us the most pleasure in the past (which may be something with a completely different style and intent to what may be presently being considered) is very faulty.


----------



## starry

When I was at school in the 80s I'm sure a music teacher once asked the class to just be silent for a minute and then asked us after what we heard in the background sound. So that was the same principle as Cage, but it wasn't presented as a Cage piece it was simply a concept. I wonder if before Cage other people have mentioned the random background noises that would be heard if someone was quiet. They just didn't present it as music before.

Art can be both just done for love/personal expression and something to be sold/given to an audience. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

And artists often talk about themselves being hugely original and not having anything to do with the past. But I don't fully believe it, they build what they do on what their predecessors did and are also influenced by their contemporaries.


----------



## motpasm23

DrMike said:


> So art is anything the artist says it is? So how do we determine who the artists are? Can anyone be? Do you just declare yourself an artist, and then, by default, anything you create is art? That seems rather arbitrary.


Yep. You can thank Duchamp for taking this to the extreme long before Cage or anyone else, really. Art does not require a message nor is it necessarily an expression of the artist. If it's in a gallery (framed as art), it's art. Arbitrary, yes. Unfortunate, yes.


----------



## Scott Good

motpasm23 said:


> Yep. You can thank Duchamp for taking this to the extreme long before Cage or anyone else, really. Art does not require a message nor is it necessarily an expression of the artist. If it's in a gallery (framed as art), it's art. Arbitrary, yes. Unfortunate, yes.


Why unfortunate? Now we can move on, and forge new art without artificial boundaries. Isn't this good? I'm grateful that this has happened, and that it did before my time.

Not so sure about this "not expression of an artist" statement. Could you elaborate?

Btw, what is the message of a Mozart piano sonata? Does the message of the Ring enhance, or distract from the experience? For me, it distracts, so I ignore the message and enjoy the meaningless but beautiful sound.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Well, on this first point, we should consider that a word can evolve in meaning...

Heck, when was the word art even invented? In what language? Is it ubiquitous across cultures?

Were there no trees before we had the word tree?


We are not talking about an evolution of words. The ancient Greeks and Romans were quite clear that their sculptors and poets were "artists". The same is true of the poets of classical China. This concept was was not something held by craftsmen or their audiences during the middle ages (nor in many other cultures). Painting and sculpture were but "crafts"... a form of skilled labor not far removed from that of the iron smith or stone mason. The point, of course, which you have gleaned over, is that something is not recognized as art until a wider audience recognizes it as such. Had Piero Manzoni attempted his poo stunt 100 years earlier it would have been forgotten as a joke... as many similar jokes were forgotten. Our era... for better or worse... has greatly expanded the the definition of art until we have the notion that everything CAN be art... and eventually everything IS art... in which case nothing is art because we no longer need the very concept or term denoting something separate from everything else.

But really... all this is buy sophomoric mental ************... worthy of the college student arguing the meaning of art and definition of music over beer and pizza... but not the something worthy of creating art about.

We should not import past meanings to present meanings. Otherwise, we get no where. Imagine if we didn't have Shakespeare plays now, just because the word art was being used in this way? No, I like the modern idea better.

Again, I am not suggesting that we employ dated concepts of what defines art. I am suggesting that as this thread itself proves there is plenty of debate about the merit of expanding what we define as art or music so broadly that they mean all... and nothing. I am also questioning the certitude that something akin to Cage's 4:33 should be recognized as a major work of art when so many who are not ignorant of art and music continue to exhibit such doubt.

Even in our own time we need only to look back upon early photography, film, and TV to recognize how it was often seen as little more than a form of documentation or entertainment... certainly not art. How many films were lost to time because the studios thought so little of preserving them?
Our time? This isn't my time, not even my grandparents (who are all passed away)


Certainly we can all search for the least flaw in an argument and suggest that such invalidates the argument as a whole. OK, perhaps I should have suggested that in contrast to Shakespeare's era, we have instances far closer to us in history... such as photography, film, and TV... in which creative endeavors were only accepted as works of art after the passage of time. Even more recently we might assume that within the field of comic books, CGI, and video games there might be some works of such merit that future generations hold them up as exemplary achievements of art.

Cage said "I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. ". Something to consider.

Deep thinker, that Cage. Of course James Joyce said it a bit earlier when he declared "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake." The problem is that history of Modernism itself has shown that the "new" ideas... ideas of progress and social engineering could lead to some results as scary as anything achieved by old ideas.

And again, because of the old way to view art, we, and all of future time, has lost these documents. Again I ask, is this good, and should we continue this behavior?

Somehow I don't think the world would be seriously bereft if every recording and score of 4:33 were lost.

SLG (quote)-The fact that Yves Klein's paintings or Marcel Duchamp's urinal or Piero Manzoni's can of artist's poo or John Cage's 4:33 are open to question by an audience comprised of those who are not completely ignorant of art suggests that at the moment we may need to accept that they are indeed "art"... but just how good or important they may be is not something that has been generally agreed upon.

Well, obviously they are important, at least in terms of impact! Look at how they invoke discussion that ties all kinds of concepts and perspectives together. I have used 4'33'' as a teacher many times, especially with young students. Man, does it make their brains fire up for deep philosophical thought and discussion.

Of course there is a great film of an elephant painting which is used in nearly every art school and art education department to spur on philosophical questions of "what is art?" This does not mean that the elephant paintings are great art... or even art.

Also, you seem to imply that the artist isn't the audience. A strange notion. They are the first audience, wouldn't you say. Or, would you like the artist to not consider themselves and what they find beautiful and meaningful into their work. Humm, sounds like a bad situation to me.

How do I imply that the artist isn't part of the audience? By suggesting that one voice does not make something fact? I may declare myself President of the United States all I wish to... but until I am recognized as such by a majority of those whose opinion matters, I am but kidding myself or delusional. I can record all matter of noises, or a single note that is played continuously for 23 years, or compose a score for piano that exists beyond the range of the piano and declare that I am a brilliant composer pushing the boundaries of what music can be... but until a good number of others accept this position, I don't think my opinions hold much sway.

Of course, your next paragraph shows that you indeed believe the artist to be central in the work of art. So why try to strip away this hierarchy with consumerist thinking? IE, art is what is bought, and how many people buy it.

That's the usual lame method of twisting any suggestion that art is a two-way process... a form of communication that requires an audience and a creator: any suggestion of the opinion of the audience is dismissed as pandering to consumerism. And yet certainly the art of Haydn, Mozart, Shakespeare, or Michelangelo involved a consideration of the audience. Somehow I don't think 4:33 would have flown with the Prince Nikolaus Esterházy nor Manzoni's poop can with Pope Julius II. A Shakespeare's plays prove, better than almost anything, considering the needs, wants, or desires of the audience need not mean eliminating aesthetic brilliance and creativity. Nor do we need assume that considering an audience means aiming for the broadest and largest possible audience. As I stated before, there is surely an audience for nearly anything... but one should not blame one audience for rejecting a work or being left indifferent to it if one creates in clear opposition to their desires/needs/wants. I would be foolish to complain that the audience for my paintings is so limited were I to paint 12X22' abstract paintings.

...you are creating a strange little double standard. On one hand, you repeatedly state that the audience (not including artist) decides what art is, yet at the same time absolve them from any responsibility to that task.

What is their "responsibility"? You're not actually embracing the Romanticized notion of the artist whose only responsibility is to "self expression"... and if that work is ignored or rejected its all the audience's fault... "they don't understand poor me." In the first place... quite often they understand the artist and the art quite well... and they still think its crap. In the second place... what is the audience' "responsibility?" Are they expected to invest endless effort into understanding arcane or absurd concepts of art, music, and literature and then to embrace it... no matter how painful... uninspiring... annoying... ugly... it may seem. My sole responsibility as a member of the audience is to my own personal pleasure. Nothing else. Some works certainly have demanded more effort upon my part... but I was repaid in full. If I find, however, that a work of art is endlessly demanding... and affords me little of no pleasure... I have no responsibility to continue down that road.

Again, Cage has a two responses:

"If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all. "

Brilliant... of course Pavlov would concur. Its called "conditioning". I suppose if I keep looking at Thomas Kinkade paintings or listening endlessly to Lady Gaga I will come to a point where I almost imagine I like them.

"The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason. "

Of course it may be that something like "beauty" is not open to rational interpretation or reduction to reason. On the other hand... I can give you a lot of reasons why I don't find Thomas Kinkade's paintings or Lady Gaga's music to be "beautiful".

So, to restate the point, everything has the potential to be interesting and beautiful.

But that is quite different from suggesting that everything IS beautiful.

The reception in this way is up to the receiver.

Yes... yes... "all art is subjective"... its all just opinions... but then again some opinions are better than others. The crux of the argument seems to be the assumption that opinions of those who embrace 4:33 or Manzoni's poop can is better than those who reject the same. Yet it would seem that there are a good many here who are not ignorant of music (or art) who are not sold.

That being said, I will heed to the argument that we simply don't have time to find these things in all things. I will also heed to the idea that some works of art are harder to absorb than others. But, to know that the potential exists is what I find liberating. I also like having the responsibility on my shoulders, as a sense of responsibility imbues an active, rather than passive participation.

But again you are suggesting that those who reject 4:33 simply do so out of ignorance... that if they were willing to put forth the effort they would recognize the brilliance of the work. There are two distinct possibilities: Someone dislikes a specific work of art because it is extremely challenging and they have yet to be able to grasp it... and someone dislikes or is left indifferent to a specific work of art in spite of putting forth the effort and understanding the artist's intention because it is just bad... stupid... trite...(Thomas Kinkade, Lady Gaga, 4:33?)


----------



## Zanralotta

I once performed the piece with my current orchestra as an encore to Shostakovich's 5th symphony (my conductor didn't want to destroy the effect of the finale by playing another piece, but we thought it was a bit embarrassing not to play any encore at all, so we compromised).

People liked it very much.


----------



## Guest

I keep hearing this same reiterations - all music is noise/sound, and all noise/sound can be music. That doesn't mean that all noise/sound IS music, as has already been stated.

All snow is water. All water has the potential to be snow. But not all water is snow - it requires some exterior force to become such. And it isn't even merely by dropping the temperature of the water - that only yields ice. There is a creative force required. The water must evaporate, ascend, form together with other water molecules, drop below a certain temperature threshold to become snow and fall from the sky. Looking at snow and water from a different perspective, or in a different light, is not going to change this. 

Or more applicable to art - all art paintings are made of paint (and some "canvas"), and all paint can be part of a painting. But not all paint is art. 

Definitions do evolve, yes. But evolution is not a single process. It is the accumulation of events. One aberration in a population does not equal evolution. It is a mutation. And it will require time to determine whether it then becomes the norm. It really is quite interesting how ideas and definitions evolve in a way remarkably similar to organic evolution. Some new idea or definition emerges, and if it has broad enough appeal, it eventually becomes accepted. Those that do not meet that threshold are discarded. 

So the question is, then, whether years from now 4'33" will be viewed as one of a series of intermediaries in the continuing evolution of music, or if it will be viewed as a curiosity, a dead-end branch off of the music ancestral tree that was selected against.

My bet is that it will be the latter. Maybe I will be wrong. But as a musical expression, I don't see it gaining great traction. What would be the draw to come together to hear your own noises, or the noises of the audience around you, as nothing is being played? I already get bored listening to the audience before a movie starts, and that is with the ridiculous commercials playing in front of me on the screen. 

And besides, is this really a novel concept? Hasn't it existed long before Cage? Isn't it what we previously called intermission? A period where you have to hear the people around you while no music is being played? Or the period where you are sitting in your seat prior to the performance beginning?


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Is all sound music? Not necessarily, but all sound has the _potential_ to be music. There is no authority that decides what is music and what isn't, so all it takes is one mind to hear or appreciate a sound as music for it to be so. If I make a recording for myself of my upcoming weeks grocery list, and I don't consider it musical, then it's likely not music. All it is to me is a list of items. However, that doesn't mean that I couldn't reevaluate the sounds of my recording later as music, or that someone else couldn't hear my recording and consider it music. For example, I'd like to bring up an idea explored on a brilliant radio program called "Radiolab" that can be found on NPR, in their show titled "Musical Language" where they consider what music is. Probably the best radio show going for my money, and I would suggest everyone check it out to really understand this example (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/), but I'll try to spell it out here. On it they tell of this story of a professor of psychology at the University of California San Diego. She was doing post-production on speech recordings, and she had put this phrase on a loop to fine tune it (digitally smoothing out sounds in her speech like hard "ps" that were too sharp). This phrase was "sometimes behave so strangely". So she has this on a loop, leaves the room, closes the door, and forgets about it. Later as she's standing in the kitchen making tea, this loop is going on in the background. All of a sudden she notices the loop again and thinks "Is that someone singing?" But she realizes, no, that's just myself. Talking. But as you listen to this phrase over and over, it really sounds like it is being sung to a catchy little ditty. And as they point out, once you hear it as music, it's almost impossible to hear it as anything else. It sounds like speech to begin with, but then when you come to that phrase, it sounds like she is breaking into song. Basic speech somehow turned into song. As they go on to say, this is because language and music are related, we use the pitch of our voice to convey message and meaning. But anyways. I don't want to go off on a tangent. The point is: not all sound is music because we don't perceive much of it as music, and we don't place that pretense on it.

This is not an idea that anyone could invent or had to invent. Bach didn't create the notes he used to compose his music, he just used them as a means to an end, and the same can be said of Cage. He didn't invent the sounds of the concert hall, but he harnessed them in his piece. It's simply something Cage brought to the forefront. If I were to play an Ab, rest for 4 minutes and 31 seconds, and then play another Ab, people understand that as music. And tonal music at that! But just sitting and listening to sounds around them? Most do not, and most of the time I do not. But there's no reason why they can't be. Let's consider other sounds that weren't created to be music, but when placed in a "musical context" (like in a concert hall, as a "piece" hint hint), suddenly are heard as such. I can't begin to comprehend how many artists or albums I've heard that contain ambient sounds like cars driving by, airplanes flying overhead, or the ocean as either a context for a piece of music or tacked on to an end of a song. Suddenly they are being transformed into something that adds to the musical experience. Then there are pieces of music that take recordings of people saying things, anything, from counting numbers to reciting something, and place it in their song. Context context context.


----------



## Johnny

I've only just discovered this now. And had never heard of John Cage.

If this wasn't meant as a parody, then he is a strong contender for the most prententious idiot ever. Other contenders would include anyone who takes this seriously. 

I suppose he could have "written" it as a publicity stunt. 

An appropriate eye-roll for this would leave me blind.

. . Or is it just a parody that nearly everyone is in on?


----------



## Argus

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Is all sound music? Not necessarily, but all sound has the _potential_ to be music. There is no authority that decides what is music and what isn't, so all it takes is one mind to hear or appreciate a sound as music for it to be so. If I make a recording for myself of my upcoming weeks grocery list, and I don't consider it musical, then it's likely not music. All it is to me is a list of items. However, that doesn't mean that I couldn't reevaluate the sounds of my recording later as music, or that someone else couldn't hear my recording and consider it music. For example, I'd like to bring up an idea explored on a brilliant radio program called "Radiolab" that can be found on NPR, in their show titled "Musical Language" where they consider what music is. Probably the best radio show going for my money, and I would suggest everyone check it out to really understand this example (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/), but I'll try to spell it out here. On it they tell of this story of a professor of psychology at the University of California San Diego. She was doing post-production on speech recordings, and she had put this phrase on a loop to fine tune it (digitally smoothing out sounds in her speech like hard "ps" that were too sharp). This phrase was "sometimes behave so strangely". So she has this on a loop, leaves the room, closes the door, and forgets about it. Later as she's standing in the kitchen making tea, this loop is going on in the background. All of a sudden she notices the loop again and thinks "Is that someone singing?" But she realizes, no, that's just myself. Talking. But as you listen to this phrase over and over, it really sounds like it is being sung to a catchy little ditty. And as they point out, once you hear it as music, it's almost impossible to hear it as anything else. It sounds like speech to begin with, but then when you come to that phrase, it sounds like she is breaking into song. Basic speech somehow turned into song. As they go on to say, this is because language and music are related, we use the pitch of our voice to convey message and meaning. But anyways. I don't want to go off on a tangent. The point is: not all sound is music because we don't perceive much of it as music, and we don't place that pretense on it.
> 
> This is not an idea that anyone could invent or had to invent. Bach didn't create the notes he used to compose his music, he just used them as a means to an end, and the same can be said of Cage. He didn't invent the sounds of the concert hall, but he harnessed them in his piece. It's simply something Cage brought to the forefront. If I were to play an Ab, rest for 4 minutes and 31 seconds, and then play another Ab, people understand that as music. And tonal music at that! But just sitting and listening to sounds around them? Most do not, and most of the time I do not. But there's no reason why they can't be. Let's consider other sounds that weren't created to be music, but when placed in a "musical context" (like in a concert hall, as a "piece" hint hint), suddenly are heard as such. I can't begin to comprehend how many artists or albums I've heard that contain ambient sounds like cars driving by, airplanes flying overhead, or the ocean as either a context for a piece of music or tacked on to an end of a song. Suddenly they are being transformed into something that adds to the musical experience. Then there are pieces of music that take recordings of people saying things, anything, from counting numbers to reciting something, and place it in their song. Context context context.


Good post. Pretty close to my own opinion on the noise/music question. Once one _allows_ a sound to be music, it then becomes such.



> I've only just discovered this now. And had never heard of John Cage.
> 
> If this wasn't meant as a parody, then he is a strong contender for the most prententious idiot ever. Other contenders would include anyone who takes this seriously.
> 
> I suppose he could have "written" it as a publicity stunt.
> 
> An appropriate eye-roll for this would leave me blind.
> 
> . . Or is it just a parody that nearly everyone is in on?


That's most people's initial reaction.


----------



## Guest

Johnny said:


> I've... never heard of John Cage.


I'm incredulous.



Johnny said:


> If this wasn't meant as a parody, then he is a strong contender for the most prententious idiot ever.


And you're basing this on what? On what you've derived from an online music forum thread? (And, just by the way, what would this piece be parodying, if it were a parody? A parody is a reworking of something for comic effect. What "something" did you have in mind?)


----------



## TresPicos

Johnny said:


> I've only just discovered this now. And had never heard of John Cage.
> 
> If this wasn't meant as a parody, then he is a strong contender for the most prententious idiot ever. Other contenders would include anyone who takes this seriously.
> 
> I suppose he could have "written" it as a publicity stunt.
> 
> An appropriate eye-roll for this would leave me blind.
> 
> . . Or is it just a parody that nearly everyone is in on?


It wasn't meant as a parody or a publicity stunt. It was meant as a mind-opener. To make us think about what music really is. Which is a process that has been going on for centuries and won't stop just because your head hurts.

It is of course very easy to laugh at conceptual art for its surface appearance, but then you also reveal that you lack the insight or mental capabilities to grasp that conceptual art is about _the idea_. Which would make you look almost like a...


----------



## Johnny

Have you heard the story about the Emperor's new clothes?


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Johnny said:


> Have you heard the story about the Emperor's new clothes?


Where's the correlation to 4'33" exactly? The piece contains _imaginary_ sounds?


----------



## Guest

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Is all sound music? Not necessarily, but all sound has the _potential_ to be music. There is no authority that decides what is music and what isn't, so all it takes is one mind to hear or appreciate a sound as music for it to be so. If I make a recording for myself of my upcoming weeks grocery list, and I don't consider it musical, then it's likely not music. All it is to me is a list of items. However, that doesn't mean that I couldn't reevaluate the sounds of my recording later as music, or that someone else couldn't hear my recording and consider it music. For example, I'd like to bring up an idea explored on a brilliant radio program called "Radiolab" that can be found on NPR, in their show titled "Musical Language" where they consider what music is. Probably the best radio show going for my money, and I would suggest everyone check it out to really understand this example (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/), but I'll try to spell it out here. On it they tell of this story of a professor of psychology at the University of California San Diego. She was doing post-production on speech recordings, and she had put this phrase on a loop to fine tune it (digitally smoothing out sounds in her speech like hard "ps" that were too sharp). This phrase was "sometimes behave so strangely". So she has this on a loop, leaves the room, closes the door, and forgets about it. Later as she's standing in the kitchen making tea, this loop is going on in the background. All of a sudden she notices the loop again and thinks "Is that someone singing?" But she realizes, no, that's just myself. Talking. But as you listen to this phrase over and over, it really sounds like it is being sung to a catchy little ditty. And as they point out, once you hear it as music, it's almost impossible to hear it as anything else. It sounds like speech to begin with, but then when you come to that phrase, it sounds like she is breaking into song. Basic speech somehow turned into song. As they go on to say, this is because language and music are related, we use the pitch of our voice to convey message and meaning. But anyways. I don't want to go off on a tangent. The point is: not all sound is music because we don't perceive much of it as music, and we don't place that pretense on it.
> 
> This is not an idea that anyone could invent or had to invent. Bach didn't create the notes he used to compose his music, he just used them as a means to an end, and the same can be said of Cage. He didn't invent the sounds of the concert hall, but he harnessed them in his piece. It's simply something Cage brought to the forefront. If I were to play an Ab, rest for 4 minutes and 31 seconds, and then play another Ab, people understand that as music. And tonal music at that! But just sitting and listening to sounds around them? Most do not, and most of the time I do not. But there's no reason why they can't be. Let's consider other sounds that weren't created to be music, but when placed in a "musical context" (like in a concert hall, as a "piece" hint hint), suddenly are heard as such. I can't begin to comprehend how many artists or albums I've heard that contain ambient sounds like cars driving by, airplanes flying overhead, or the ocean as either a context for a piece of music or tacked on to an end of a song. Suddenly they are being transformed into something that adds to the musical experience. Then there are pieces of music that take recordings of people saying things, anything, from counting numbers to reciting something, and place it in their song. Context context context.


I fully agree that any number of sounds can have the potential to be musical. But so many things have the potential for something greater than themselves without being that greater thing. Think molecularly. An oxygen atom has the potential to be breathable oxygen when paired with a similar oxygen atom, yet on its own it is not, and when combined with two other oxygen atoms, becomes a completely different species altogether, known as ozone. Or were that single oxygen atom combined with 2 hydrogen atoms, it would become water.

Or perhaps the sound can serve to accentuate music, yet on its own is not music. Think of it like salt in food. Certainly salt adds a great deal of flavor to a meal, but it, in and of itself, is not food. In that same vein, silence can certainly be incorporated into musical pieces to accentuate certain parts - whether that silence is the music played very softly, or actual rests in the music.

If Cage's point was to get us to appreciate the sounds around us - and sometimes I think we do tend to be so absorbed in noise that we don't stop and actually listen - then the point is well taken. There is much beauty in the natural world. Certainly many of us have sought out a quiet place where we can "hear ourselves think" to relax. But to say that this is music seems to require far too much willful suspension of disbelief.

I have no problem with concept art. But there must be a concept. Perhaps it is my scientific background. I don't blindly accept conclusions from a scientist simply because he/she is a scientist. In that same vein, I don't accept all the creations of a musician as music simply because he/she is a musician.


----------



## Guest

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Where's the correlation to 4'33" exactly? The piece contains _imaginary_ sounds?


Whether you agree with the correlation, it seems pretty obvious - The emperor was given nothing, and told it was clothes. He chose to believe it, while others saw him and recognized that he, in fact, had nothing on. Couldn't we view it as an experiment in broadening our definition of clothing? What is clothing? Couldn't it be anything that separates our skin from the exterior elements? In that case, could we not consider ourselves clothed in microbes? Or our own body hair? Were we to shed our "clothing" and step into a pool, are we truly skinny dipping, or are we merely exchanging clothing of fabric for clothing of water? Or could we not broaden it to consider our own atmosphere as clothing against the relative emptiness of outer space?

The same could be argued here. Cage presented an audience with nothing - no performance, rather they sat for 4 minutes and 33 seconds listening to nothing more than their own sounds and the sounds around them, but nothing from a performer. Some people have chosen to believe that this is music. But others look at it and claim that there is, in fact, no music in 4'33".


----------



## Guest

TresPicos said:


> It wasn't meant as a parody or a publicity stunt. It was meant as a mind-opener. To make us think about what music really is. Which is a process that has been going on for centuries and won't stop just because your head hurts.
> 
> It is of course very easy to laugh at conceptual art for its surface appearance, but then you also reveal that you lack the insight or mental capabilities to grasp that conceptual art is about _the idea_. Which would make you look almost like a...


Do you know for certain that it wasn't, in fact, meant as parody or a publicity stunt? Why couldn't it have been?

It is very easy to dismiss critical opinions of conceptual art by claiming the audience lacks the mental capability to grasp the idea. But that assumes that the "artist's" idea is above criticism. The artist might consider their work the art of enlightenment - that doesn't mean it is. It may very well be that the idea itself is laughable. As with anything else, there are good and bad artists and musicians. Not all music is good. Not all art is good. And some is definitely worthy of scorn.


----------



## Argus

DrMike said:


> As with anything else, there are good and bad artists and musicians. Not all music is good. Not all art is good. And some is definitely worthy of scorn.


Not this again.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

DrMike said:


> I fully agree that any number of sounds can have the potential to be musical. But so many things have the potential for something greater than themselves without being that greater thing. Think molecularly. An oxygen atom has the potential to be breathable oxygen when paired with a similar oxygen atom, yet on its own it is not, and when combined with two other oxygen atoms, becomes a completely different species altogether, known as ozone. Or were that single oxygen atom combined with 2 hydrogen atoms, it would become water.
> 
> Or perhaps the sound can serve to accentuate music, yet on its own is not music. Think of it like salt in food. Certainly salt adds a great deal of flavor to a meal, but it, in and of itself, is not food. In that same vein, silence can certainly be incorporated into musical pieces to accentuate certain parts - whether that silence is the music played very softly, or actual rests in the music.


The only thing restricting any sound from being music is your perception of it as non musical. You're analogies are very cute and everything, but I don't see how they really hold up when we are talking about the relationship of sound and music. If sound is heard as music, it is music. I used those examples of ambient sounds because they are sounds not created to be music, not generally considered to be music, but when placed on an "album" full of "music", all of a sudden listeners hear it as music, sounds to listen to and consider and digest. The sounds haven't "combined" with other sounds like your oxygen atoms, they are just heard in a different way.



> If Cage's point was to get us to appreciate the sounds around us - and sometimes I think we do tend to be so absorbed in noise that we don't stop and actually listen - then the point is well taken. There is much beauty in the natural world. Certainly many of us have sought out a quiet place where we can "hear ourselves think" to relax. But to say that this is music seems to require far too much willful suspension of disbelief.


I don't think there needs to be a point, and don't know that 4'33" has one. No more than I can name the point of a Beethoven symphony. There are sounds to be heard in the piece, and either you enjoy them or you do not.



> In that same vein, I don't accept all the creations of a musician as music simply because he/she is a musician.


Neither do I. And the interesting thing about 4'33" is that it is up front with placing the burden of pretense on the listener, where with most music the pretense is applied by the composer. I hear it as music because when I've listened to the piece I understood it as such, you don't hear it as music because you don't perceive it that way. Fair enough. I know many people who don't consider this music either, yet I do:


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

DrMike said:


> Whether you agree with the correlation, it seems pretty obvious - The emperor was given nothing, and told it was clothes. He chose to believe it, while others saw him and recognized that he, in fact, had nothing on. Couldn't we view it as an experiment in broadening our definition of clothing? What is clothing? Couldn't it be anything that separates our skin from the exterior elements? In that case, could we not consider ourselves clothed in microbes? Or our own body hair? Were we to shed our "clothing" and step into a pool, are we truly skinny dipping, or are we merely exchanging clothing of fabric for clothing of water? Or could we not broaden it to consider our own atmosphere as clothing against the relative emptiness of outer space?
> 
> The same could be argued here. Cage presented an audience with nothing - no performance, rather they sat for 4 minutes and 33 seconds listening to nothing more than their own sounds and the sounds around them, but nothing from a performer. Some people have chosen to believe that this is music. But others look at it and claim that there is, in fact, no music in 4'33".


Heh. This notion of equating music with clothing is very limited. Music is a lot more powerful than that and such an analogy strikes me as very silly. But then again, I don't think like a scientist when it comes to art.


----------



## Guest

A correlation that doesn't exist, but that seems obvious. Hmmm. Now THAT sounds like the emperor's new clothes!

What Cage offers in 4'33" is sounds that you don't ordinarily think of as musical. He offers a _something,_ in other words. "Silence" as Cage found for himself, and as anyone else can find for themselves by listening, is full of sound. The sounds we call by the name silence are ordinarily the sounds that we ignore or at least try to. The sounds that are always happening, but that might annoy us if they take place in the middle of a nice Mozart symphony. But what if someone coughs or opens up a nice hard candy out of that crinkly, crackly wrapping they come in during 4'33"? Heigh presto!! Not annoying any more. (Or, at the very least, capable of being less than annoying. They are not, anyway, interrupting anything--they _are_ the thing!)

In the emperor's new clothes, you have a nothing offered for a something. In 4'33", you have one something offered in the place of another something. (Besides, let us not forget the whole point of Andersen's story. We do know the story, don't we? Or has it become simply a phrase?)

[Oh, by the way, Poppin', great youtube clip! In fact, that's a CD I have. I should put that on before the neighbors get home from work!!]]


----------



## Sid James

some guy said:


> ...The sounds we call by the name silence are ordinarily the sounds that we ignore or at least try to...


As I said above, these sounds are what Cage called "illegal harmonies," the sounds of modern life that are around us but we ignore every day. In 4'33" Cage was trying to make us more aware of these sounds, albeit limited to the concert hall. I don't know why some people just can't accept that this was what he was simply trying to do - it wasn't a stunt - that was the essence of this piece...


----------



## Guest

Andre, I've been thinking about something that might be an answer to your question, and that is that most people don't like music.

They like silence even less, though. I walked past a store one day that was playing a simple bass rhythm over its speakers. No tune, no drums, no vocals, just "doom. doom doom... doom. doom doom." Over and over again. That's all that was needed. Anything to fight what some people have called the almost universal fear of silence. Once that fear is overcome, any elaboration is just so much icing. (Or is it any icing is just so much elaboration? I can never remember.)

Even a very musically knowledgable friend of mine.... I noticed the other day that I can't ever really have a conversation about music with him. He loves a great number of pieces, and a handful of "great" composers. He's in the music business, too. But you mention something outside his "zone," and you get a dismissive sneer. Because, I concluded, he's not really interested in music. If he were, he would be always listening to new things, either new generally or just new to him. Because the world of music is infinite, after all. Or at least really really big. And he's not interested in anything beyond Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. (That's only a slight exaggeration--but it is his exaggeration.) Even pieces that he doesn't know well by those people will be shrugged off. And that even though he also reports being recently overwhelmed by the _Missa Solemnis,_ one of his former shrugs.

People fear silence. And to counter their fear they need someone else to break it, even with something so simple as "doom. doom doom." Embrace the silence? Inconceivable!!

[Note: use of the word "people" in this post is a gross exaggeration and should not be taken literally as meaning every single individual person in the world.]


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

And you're basing this on what? On what you've derived from an online music forum thread? (And, just by the way, what would this piece be parodying, if it were a parody? A parody is a reworking of something for comic effect. What "something" did you have in mind?)

Certainly you are right, Some Guy. How dare he think to make a judgment of Cage's "masterpiece" without having ever heard the piece. Which recording do you recommend?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It is of course very easy to laugh at conceptual art for its surface appearance, but then you also reveal that you lack the insight or mental capabilities to grasp that conceptual art is about the idea. Which would make you look almost like a... 

This is the sort of pretentious crap that I repeatedly rail against. It seems all well and fine here to insinuate that that someone who dislikes certain aspects of contemporary music... certain contemporary composers... or certain contemporary works of music is close-minded, ignorant, or even "lacking in insight or mental capabilities"... but if the tables are turned and someone challenges these assumptions... well then off we go crying to...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

As with anything else, there are good and bad artists and musicians. Not all music is good. Not all art is good. And some is definitely worthy of scorn.

Not this again.

Oh dear... another person who doesn't embrace the ridiculous notion of aesthetic relativism or the notion that all art and all artists are equal. If you knew anything about art or artists at all you'd knew that not even they believe such an absurd notion in response to their own work. Any artist has individual works that were successful... works that are mediocre... and works that he or she is embarrassed to claim as their own. But of course you are free to champion your notion that everyone and everything is equal. It only proves my point the point that everyone is not.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

As this absurd thread expands ever more and more I find that no seems to have noticed a certain irony in the fact that a brief piece of silence seemingly needs volumes of critical commentary to argue for its very legitimacy as a work of music... let alone as a "good" or "mediocre" or "bad" piece of music. Funny... for all the innovation wrought by Wagner or Debussy there seems to have been little doubt that the works were actually "music". Hmmmm...??


----------



## Guest

It's not hard to see why.

Cage was setting out to redefine the nature of music and the relationship between music and listener. That's a little more radical, and perhaps a little less easy to accept, than any of the innovations Wagner or Debussy made, innovations that got them plenty of flack, anyway, from audiences and critics alike.

So if there's irony, it doesn't reside where St puts it.

(Funny, the last four posts to this absurd and ever expanding thread have been by StlukesguildOhio.)


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

some guy said:


> [Oh, by the way, Poppin', great youtube clip! In fact, that's a CD I have. I should put that on before the neighbors get home from work!!]]


Haha! I find it's more fun to wait until they're already home. 



> That's a little more radical, and perhaps a little less easy to accept, than any of the innovations Wagner or Debussy made, innovations that got them plenty of flack, anyway, from audiences and critics alike.


So very true. It's downright funny to think of all the flack a work like Wagner's _Tristan und Isolde_ took in the 19th century. One of the reasons that the opera was not staged until five years after the full score was published is that many singers found these weird successions of notes impossible to learn and to remember, while many orchestral players complained that what they were being asked to play was not music. They could not understand it. And these were professional musicians.

And I know it's popular to rail against fans of contemporary music because they are so snobby and love to form their own little exclusive clubs and think that they are all so intellectually superior to everyone else. It's a popular conception and there are certainly people who fit that bill. But most of the time I witness very little of that going on. I don't think I saw any of that in this thread until Cage admirers were called pretentious idiots. I've enjoyed reading the thoughts of several posters here who have politely and clearly shared their insights into 4'33".

I've come across snobby fans of all sorts of music from Mozart and John Coltrane admirers to classic rock fanatics who put people down for just not getting what they get. They aren't concentrated in one particular area.


----------



## Guest

Poppin' Fresh said:


> And I know it's popular to rail against fans of contemporary music because they are so snobby and love to form their own little exclusive clubs and think that they are all so intellectually superior to everyone else. It's a popular conception and there are certainly people who fit that bill. *But most of the time I witness very little of that going on.*


QFT!!

(emphasis mine)


----------



## TresPicos

StlukesguildOhio said:


> This is the sort of pretentious crap that I repeatedly rail against. It seems all well and fine here to insinuate that that someone who dislikes certain aspects of contemporary music... certain contemporary composers... or certain contemporary works of music is close-minded, ignorant, or even "lacking in insight or mental capabilities"... but if the tables are turned and someone challenges these assumptions... well then off we go crying to...


Sorry, I was in a bad mood after that "pretentious idiot" thing.

Of course it's perfectly fine to dislike anything for any reason, including contemporary music, or conceptual art for that matter. But when you go beyond "I don't like it" or "I don't get it" and claim that very different music is not music and very different art is not art and that those who don't get that are "idiots", then the open-minded, the avant-garde and the fans of invention (who are probably okay with the "pretentious" part, though) will most likely dismiss you together with the close-minded, ignorant, "music should be beautiful and paintings should be realistic" crowd.

And which reaction is more open-minded anyway? "Silence? Cool! Slinky? Cool! Toy piano? Cool!" or "Silence? Stupid! Slinky? Stupid! Toy piano? Stupid!"

/TresPicos, the snobby moron


----------



## Johnny

Your definition of open-minded doesn't seem to have room for considering anything pretentious crap. There is a difference between someone being open to any kind of music, not prejudging it, listening to it with an "open mind", etc, and someone not being able to just sit back and realise that something is just pretentious nonsense. Seriously, that old childrens story, "The Emperor's New Clothes", you should read it.

I have an idea for a restaurant. You could have really extensive menus. A huge selection of wonderful sounding foods to choose from. Then, no matter what the people order, you bring out absolutely nothing for each course. Just empty plates. And empty glasses. The people will call you revolutionary. You will become famous. People will have long debates over what you meant by that. They will have really fruitful and intelligent conversations about whether what you have served is actually "food". What do we mean by "food" anyway? Is it art? Do you consider it to be art?

I've already started an art gallery of blank white pieces of paper.

If anyone calls me on any of these two enterprises, I can just say they don't "get" it. If someone points out that my two enterprises are smack-in-the-face worthy, they, by definition, are not openminded.

And regarding whether or not something is music or art. Sorry to be stating the obvious, but that just depends on what defintion you choose to use for those terms. Neither term is rigorously defined. Even if everyone in the world agreed on some rigorous definition of music and art, and it was clear that when using these two definitions that some particular thing is in fact art and music, or just art and not music, or neither, or whatever. So what? Whether we all agree to call it art/music or agree to say it is not art/music, doesn't change what it is. It's still going to be what you can see/hear/etc in front of you.


----------



## TresPicos

Johnny said:


> *Your definition of open-minded doesn't seem to have room for considering anything pretentious crap. *There is a difference between someone being open to any kind of music, not prejudging it, listening to it with an "open mind", etc, and someone not being able to just sit back and realise that something is just pretentious nonsense. Seriously, that old childrens story, "The Emperor's New Clothes", you should read it.
> 
> I have an idea for a restaurant. You could have really extensive menus. A huge selection of wonderful sounding foods to choose from. Then, no matter what the people order, you bring out absolutely nothing for each course. Just empty plates. And empty glasses. The people will call you revolutionary. You will become famous. People will have long debates over what you meant by that. They will have really fruitful and intelligent conversations about whether what you have served is actually "food". What do we mean by "food" anyway? Is it art? Do you consider it to be art?
> 
> I've already started an art gallery of blank white pieces of paper.
> 
> If anyone calls me on any of these two enterprises, I can just say they don't "get" it. If someone points out that my two enterprises are smack-in-the-face worthy, they, by definition, are not openminded.
> 
> And regarding whether or not something is music or art. Sorry to be stating the obvious, but that just depends on what defintion you choose to use for those terms. Neither term is rigorously defined. Even if everyone in the world agreed on some rigorous definition of music and art, and it was clear that when using these two definitions that some particular thing is in fact art and music, or just art and not music, or neither, or whatever. So what? Whether we all agree to call it art/music or agree to say it is not art/music, doesn't change what it is. It's still going to be what you can see/hear/etc in front of you.


Well, I can think of _one _thing...


----------



## Johnny

I don't suppose, by any chance. anyone agrees with me?


----------



## jhar26

Johnny said:


> I don't suppose, by any chance. anyone agrees with me?


I find it strange (and funny, I must admit) that for the second time in a relatively short tme 4'33" is being discussed at lenght here actually. Being dumber than the average poster, for me there has to be some craft involved in the creation of a work for it to qualify as art....but what do I know? It works as a comedy routine I guess, good for a laugh. I could also publish a book called "433" with 433 empty pages and come up with some smart-*** explanation that it's my intention to question what literature is and that the 'reader' can make up his own words as he goes through the pages.


----------



## Johnny

Normally if I happen across something so ridiculous, I try and just ignore it. But this was an exceptional case. I saw/heard of this "piece" yesterday for the first time. Watched the youtube video in the thread's opening post. My faith in humanity dropped to an alltime low. I still kinda wish I had just ignored it though. I am weak.


----------



## Guest

Johnny said:


> And regarding whether or not something is music or art. Sorry to be stating the obvious, but that just depends on what defintion you choose to use for those terms. Neither term is rigorously defined.


Food, however, _is_ "rigorously defined," so the foodless restaurant is not a parallel situation. Only your blank paper idea is that. And in both cases, you've not come up with anything yourself, only recyclings of other people's ideas. And you've not come up with them out of any desire to say anything significant, about life or art or the institutions of art, but simply to make a non-artistic statement about art you don't like or don't get.

So your ideas could indeed be judged as pretentious crap. (And since you weren't really planning to open a foodless restaurant, you won't take this last comment of mine personally, I trust!)

By the way, how recently have you read the Andersen story? The way you keep trying to make it germane to this conversation makes me think that one or two details of that may have slipped out of your memory.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Food, however, is "rigorously defined," so the foodless restaurant is not a parallel situation. Only your blank paper idea is that. And in both cases, you've not come up with anything yourself, only recyclings of other people's ideas. 

And so you believe 4:33 was a truly innovative and original idea? I suppose if we forget Duchamp, and Malevich' white on white painting that amounted to little more than a blank canvas... not to mention the entire history of the _blague_ or the artist's salon joke... including the one from the late 19th century in which an artist submitted for exhibition a blank canvas with a placard declaring that he did not wish to impose his vision upon the viewers, but rather to allow them to create their own image in their mind's eye. Duchamp's infamous _Fountain_ was a work within this tradition. What changed from the _blague_ and Duchamp's original performance to mid-20th century theory is that what was once little more than a joke is discussed by some as if it were a creation of the most profound thought. And then one wonders why some may show a degree of doubt?


----------



## Options

4:33 is only another piece that makes a statement like any piece, all you jealous fools quit flicking your fingers like you're living such pains.
The work of Cage demonstrates complexities of computational modularity in a defined form.
It's an utter travesty to ignore this for the pursuit of purity. Grab the pulse, you have all missed the point by a mile.


----------



## Sid James

some guy said:


> Andre, I've been thinking about something that might be an answer to your question, and that is that most people don't like music...
> 
> Even a very musically knowledgable friend of mine.... I noticed the other day that I can't ever really have a conversation about music with him. He loves a great number of pieces, and a handful of "great" composers. He's in the music business, too. But you mention something outside his "zone," and you get a dismissive sneer. Because, I concluded, he's not really interested in music. If he were, he would be always listening to new things, either new generally or just new to him. Because the world of music is infinite, after all. Or at least really really big. And he's not interested in anything beyond Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven...


Yes I wonder who, among the people above who can't accept 4'33" as a genuine piece of art (or yes, music), have actually heard any of Cage's other works (in which there is notated music)? I think some people do have a problem of not being able to accept figures like Cage as an influential composer in his own right. It's as if their understanding of "modern classical music" is limited to Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ (1913). What about the rest of the century? What about the composers of today? They are stuck in a way of thinking of music which has more to do with the "grand narratives" interpretation of art of the C19th than that of today. Love him or loathe him, Cage's thinking was definitely in tune with trends of his own time (& even relevant today) than merely regurgitating what had gone on in the past. This, to the conservatives, is the most shocking aspect of his art. & yes, there were precursors to 4'33" in all the arts, but that shouldn't mean that we can't remember it as a significant milestone in the musical thinking of the C20th.

Ok I'll stop my (small) rant now. Did anyone else also notice that, a funny thing about 4'33" is that it's been 'orchestrated?'...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Yes I wonder who, among the people above who can't accept 4'33" as a genuine piece of art (or yes, music), have actually heard any of Cage's other works (in which there is notated music)?

That would be me... and I would assume more than a few others. I actually own two Cage discs and quite like his works for prepared piano.

I think some people do have a problem of not being able to accept figures like Cage as an influential composer in his own right. It's as if their understanding of "modern classical music" is limited to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (1913). What about the rest of the century? What about the composers of today? They are stuck in a way of thinking of music which has more to do with the "grand narratives" interpretation of art of the C19th than that of today.

Andre... don't make assumptions about what those who question a given composer or given work of music may or may not know, understand, or appreciate of music. While I find Cage's 4:33 t have been little more than a piece of musical mental ************, I juts may actually own, listen to, and appreciate more music by living composers than you. It may actually be that those whose thinking is "stuck" are those who accept everything that was hoisted upon them by Modern and Contemporary art theorists and apologists. 

Love him or loathe him, Cage's thinking was definitely in tune with trends of his own time (& even relevant today) than merely regurgitating what had gone on in the past. This, to the conservatives, is the most shocking aspect of his art. & yes, there were precursors to 4'33" in all the arts, but that shouldn't mean that we can't remember it as a significant milestone in the musical thinking of the C20th.

Being of one's time may be one of the least important aspects of any work of art. Many of the greatest artists were quite out of step with the trends of their time... whether we are speaking of the apparent "conservatism" of J.S. Bach or Brahms... or the manner in which a composer like Bruckner struggled against the dominant critical thinking of the time... or the manner in which a composer such as Beethoven so pushed the envelop that his late quartets, for example, left many baffled. Somehow I doubt that 4;33 will be more remembered 100 years from now than Barber's adagio or Copland's _Apalachian Spring_.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> It may actually be that those whose thinking is "stuck" are those who accept everything that was hoisted(sic) upon them by Modern and Contemporary art theorists and apologists.


Wow.

Most baseless speculation, ever.

But how it simplifies everything. Yes, I (for instance) read a bunch of theorists and apologists for modern and contemporary art, then I went to some museums and some concerts and boy howdy, were those theorists and apologists ever right!! And now I'm stuck, enjoying all this contemporary crap because I've been brainwashed. Yes, that must be it.

Well, that lets all the naysayers off the hook, all right.


----------



## Argus

Argus said:


> It's art. That is all.
> 
> Oh, and an argument waiting to happen.


The second post in this thread turned into a pretty prescient prediction.



> Somehow I doubt that 4;33 will be more remembered 100 years from now than Barber's adagio or Copland's Apalachian Spring.


Post a similar thread to this about _Appalachian Spring _or _Adagio for Strings_ and see if it gets anywhere near the amount of discussion/posts in the same time frame as this thread. What makes you believe things will change so much in 100 years. I like both works but one is more well known as the theme from Platoon than as a stand alone piece. Who's to say what will be best remembered but the impact or aftershocks from 4'33'', for me, will be more influential on future minds than art that adhered to the existing boundaries of it's time.

As for the visual arts references a few people like to make, a blank canvas is still a physical object whereas 4'33'' puts the emphasis on the audience to provide the physical object(or in this case, sound). Gormley's _One & Other_ would be a closer comparison as Gormley himself doesn't create the peformances but gets people to do it for him. Comparing restaurants and oxygen atoms to music is just missing the point entirely.


----------



## starry

Andre said:


> Love him or loathe him, Cage's thinking was definitely in tune with trends of his own time (& even relevant today) than merely regurgitating what had gone on in the past.


But do any of the *best* composers really just regurgitate what has gone on in the past? All composers have to draw on the past, they can't build from nothing. It's a matter of putting their own personal stamp on the art.

The 20th century was full of experimentation, and some of that will be relatively forgotten in the future. Ultimately all that will matter is who did good well crafted creative music and who didn't (in whatever style).


----------



## Johnny

I wouldn't be surprised if Cage's thing lives on. No more than my restaurant and gallery ideas would. I've seriously never encountered anything so ridiculous in my life. And some of the things people say with regard to it leave me wondering how the buildings stay up and planes stay in the sky.


----------



## Johnny

Seeing as the points I've made have been completely missed, maybe somebody can address this post from the first page:



jhar26 said:


> If it was a track on a Britney Spears album with a highbrow explanation in the booklet of the album everybody would ridicule her for it. The name of the 'composer' may be someone we're supposed to take seriously, but it's still 4 minutes and 33 seconds of nothing.


----------



## Guest

You've made points? The only things I've seen so far in your posts have been incredulity and sarcasm.

As for jhar's post from the first page, that point has been "addressed" numerous times on this thread. Perhaps you've "missed" those points!

One needn't step back too far from this discussion to see what's happening. There are a couple of people who slam the piece without really thinking about it, whose only contribution to it has been to quibble with the explanations the others have given, often distorting those explanations so that they're easier to dismiss. Otherwise, the other posters have pretty patiently explained, over and over again, in what way 4'33" can be considered music.

Perhaps it's time for those of us who love music to acknowledge that jhar26, Johnny, and StlukesguildOhio are not here to talk about music but to score debating points. If we stop "debating" with them, they won't be able to do that. And so what if they keep slamming contemporary art and music, in this or any thread? Will that really have any effect on the value or the durability of the art they attack? Probably not. I feel that the only thing we accomplish by trying to defend 4'33" is to legitimize the attacks.

Since they're not legitimate, I think maybe I should stop!

[Note: I've only been in this, or in any thread like it, on the off chance that there are people reading it who might not know much about contemporary art but who are intrigued, who want to get beyond the petty, niggly quibbling that goes on about anything even slightly outside some chimerical norm. So if I make any more contributions to this thread, it's for you people, and not because I'm inconsistent!

I'm not inconsistent! I'm not I'm not I'm not.

Well, maybe a little.]


----------



## jhar26

some guy said:


> Perhaps it's time for those of us who love music to acknowledge that jhar26, Johnny, and StlukesguildOhio are not here to talk about music but to score debating points.


Say what? The others can speak for themselves if they wish to do so, but I'm not here to score debating points. And I don't think I'm ridiculing modern music and/or art either.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

As someone who has experienced 4'33" in person (twice in fact), I can honestly say they were among the most memorable and profound concerts I've attended. I found it penetrating and enlightening degree that was greater than a lot of music by some of the most revered composers in history. The tension in the auditorium was palpable, and it was fascinating how everyone was attempting to be as still and quiet as possible, but once one person adjusted themselves in their seat or coughed than it kind of reverberated around the room and several others would do the same thing. Refreshing would probably be the best way to describe the entire experience. And I can assure you that I wasn't influenced by any discourse or so-called "apologists". My reaction was completely sincere. I don't even think I was aware of much of the debate about it when I first heard it. I'm sure there are a select few who pretend to embrace the piece to feel better about themselves or try to appear smart or open-minded. Of course there are those types in any group.

Now, I imagine most people who had a similar type of transforming experience with a piece of music might be a little disconcerted if others came along and told them it wasn't actually music at all, or lashed out at it as "mental ************". All one can really do in those instances is to explain the virtues they see in the work, which is exactly what several posters here have done. But I'm not surprised at the hostility and confusion that's been displayed against 4'33". People's conceptions of music involve a lot of conditioning and pre-conceived beliefs, and they often get offended by works that challenge what they believe. You can see this everywhere, all the time, and in the silliest ways. If this wasn't so, how could my parents come into my room when I was 12, while I was blasting Nirvana, and tell me "turn off that noise and listen to some _real_ music"? How is it that there are those who don't consider Schoenberg music, but just a bunch of random sounds? Or reactions to rap that I've come across stating it's just some guy talking over some beats! That's not music! I've even talked to people who don't consider something music unless it has a melody. Heh. Music is perception, and telling others that sounds they hear are not music has always struck me as a fruitless endeavor.

I'm not particularly concerned with what music lives on or doesn't, all I can control is my experience of it. But I can't help but think that those who believe the piece will just go away after a while are just doing so because of their personal dislike of it. It's impossible to know of course, but all the evidence I see points to the contrary.


----------



## Johnny

Do you mind me asking you something?

Are you religious? Do you believe in astrology? Do you believe in alternative medicine?

Are you one of those people?

Just curious.


----------



## Guest

jhar26 said:


> Say what? ...I'm not here to score debating points. And I don't think I'm ridiculing modern music and/or art either.


jhar, I just went back over the whole thread, thinking I might have to apologize! All I found was that I should have added DrMike to the list.

Review your posts. I think you may find that they're just derogatory. Here's one that illustrates what I would take as existing only to score a debating point. Just so you know what I mean by that. (We may disagree about what constitutes "scoring debating points" of course.)

"I once saw an art exibit on television. One of the works was a white bathtub with a few scratches on it. The artist explained that it symbolized the oppression against black people in modern society. If I had closed my eyes and had just listened to this guy going on and on about the merits of his work and everything it stood for I would have imagined it to be a work of art of the magnitude of te Sistine Chapel. But when I would have opened my eyes all I would have seen would just be a bathtub with some scratches on it."


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Johnny said:


> Do you mind me asking you something?
> 
> Are you religious? Do you believe in astrology? Do you believe in alternative medicine?
> 
> Are you one of those people?
> 
> Just curious.


One of "those" people? Haha. Nice.

The answer to all your questions is no.


----------



## SPR

// _ random comment - lets keep the commentary regarding others presumed motives out of this, yes? I think everyone here certainly means well. _ //


----------



## jhar26

some guy said:


> jhar, I just went back over the whole thread, thinking I might have to apologize! All I found was that I should have added DrMike to the list.
> 
> Review your posts. I think you may find that they're just derogatory. Here's one that illustrates what I would take as existing only to score a debating point. Just so you know what I mean by that. (We may disagree about what constitutes "scoring debating points" of course.)
> 
> "I once saw an art exibit on television. One of the works was a white bathtub with a few scratches on it. The artist explained that it symbolized the oppression against black people in modern society. If I had closed my eyes and had just listened to this guy going on and on about the merits of his work and everything it stood for I would have imagined it to be a work of art of the magnitude of te Sistine Chapel. But when I would have opened my eyes all I would have seen would just be a bathtub with some scratches on it."


Well, I'm not really interested in discussing 4'33" any further since it seems to be such a sensitive subject that I feel like I'm walking on eggshells whenever I say something about it, so I will refrain from doing so after this post.

I posted the bathtub thing because my reaction to that was sort of the same as my reaction to 4'33". It has nothing to do with my opinion about modern art or music (often I don't even have an opinion about it, positive OR negative, I must admit). But just because 4'33" gets nothing more than a shrug of the shoulders from me doesn't mean that I slam all modern art - that's quite a stretch you're making there.


----------



## Johnny

What is/was the response then to the Britney Spears post?


----------



## SPR

Poppin' Fresh said:


> ...Music is perception, and telling others that sounds they hear are not music has always struck me as a fruitless endeavor.


I would conditionally grant you that statement simply because the more people have tried to define music, the harder it gets to nail it down. Having not read the past 30 additions to this thread however, I would also tend to draw the line at silence or stillness. So, convincing someone that stillness is a kind of music may be equally fruitless, would you agree? Art? - yes you can argue that point (I think I referenced a can of poo in some older thread here...there are any number of threads on what art is, which of course will never be resolved...) but music? I am not so sure.


----------



## Johnny

Quote from part of one of my posts:

And regarding whether or not something is music or art. Sorry to be stating the obvious, but that just depends on what defintion you choose to use for those terms. Neither term is rigorously defined. Even if everyone in the world agreed on some rigorous definition of music and art, and it was clear that when using these two definitions that some particular thing is in fact art and music, or just art and not music, or neither, or whatever. So what? Whether we all agree to call it art/music or agree to say it is not art/music, doesn't change what it is. It's still going to be what you can see/hear/etc in front of you.


----------



## SPR

Johnny said:


> Quote from part of one of my posts:
> 
> And regarding whether or not something is music or art. Sorry to be stating the obvious, but that just depends on what defintion you choose to use for those terms. Neither term is rigorously defined. Even if everyone in the world agreed on some rigorous definition of music and art, and it was clear that when using these two definitions that some particular thing is in fact art and music, or just art and not music, or neither, or whatever. So what? Whether we all agree to call it art/music or agree to say it is not art/music, doesn't change what it is. It's still going to be what you can see/hear/etc in front of you.


Hmm? If "everyone in the world agreed on some rigorous definition", then there would be no question what your supposed "new thing" is. Im not sure I understand your point here beyond saying that everything is art and everything is music.


----------



## Johnny

Where did I say everything is art and everything is music?

What I mean is that debating whether this 433 (for example) is art/music doesn't really matter. People have their own varyingly vague definitions of what they mean by art/music. So you're not really getting anywhere. My point is that, whether we were all to agree that it is in fact music and art, or agree that it is neither, or whatever. . . . so what? It's still going to be the same thing you can see in the first post's video. How does coming to the conclusion that it is in fact art/music, or not art/music, make any difference to your opinion of it? You can see it there in front of you! Right now! 

Does anybody here understand me. . ? Maybe somebody can make this clearer than me. . ?

It's kind of like hearing a piece of music. And you're not sure what genre it is exactly. A debate on what genre it "should" be considered hardly matters for deciding an opinion on the piece of music! 

I really don't know how to make this any clearer.

If anyone does follow what I mean, I'd appreciate them saying so, so this maybe wasn't a complete waste of time. Maybe such a person could make this clearer than me.


----------



## SPR

laugh.

Lets assume I understand you completely.

Can we separate art from music in this discussion and preceed with the music argument? I think the 2 have very different applications and its not easy to keep lumping them together or using them interchangably. Artistic merit will of course be debated endlessly until the end of time. Lets assume that 4'33" is an artistic ejaculation of the highest order, if only for the sake of the socratic method. We can then be done with that issue.

What about silence or near silence being viewed as music? That, I have a hard time with... as sound is the medium of music. Yes, yes... you can argue that your own heartbeat and the sound of yourself breathing was exactly Cages point. I would put forth that it is splitting hairs at that point, and that stillness does not equate to music. (*sigh* I know... the music of life... etc)

In this respect the title of the thread 'music or junk' may be a bit confusing if you are trying to answer 2 questions at the same time... 1) is it art? (or junk) and 2) is it music?

I would say 1) yes, since it is presented as art I suppose I have little choice and 2) no.


----------



## Johnny

There is just no way I was that unclear. I'm trying to be as patient as I can, but I'm starting to think you're just winding me up.

I did not say that art and music were interchangeable. Seriously, read my posts again.

I said the debate about whether the thing is art or music doesn't matter for deciding an opinion on it.

Four different situations, 1 We all agree it is art and music, 2 We all agree it is art, but not music, 3 We all agree it is music, but not art, 4 We all agree it is neither art nor music.

Or, if this makes it simpler, 1 We all agree it is music, 2 We all agree it isn't music.

SO WHAT?

Who cares whether a particular person decides to call it music or not!? That does not change what you can see in the video. That's what it is. How does it make the slightest bit of difference to your opinion of it whether it is "technically music" or "technically not music"? 

If you watch a film in the cinema, you'll come out with a particular opinion of it. You may have liked it, you may have not liked it. Then maybe somebody asks you what genre it was. You're not quite sure. You start debating about whether it should be considered a "Psychological Thriller" or and "Action Thriller" or whatever. You hardly think such a debate would have any sort of bearing on your opinion of the film?

How does coming to the conclusion that 433 is music or isn't music make any difference? 

Sure, people are welcome to go discuss what they think the best definition of "music" is. I personally can't see the point, but people are of course welcome to do so. I cannot see though, how anyone's opinion of 433 is dependent on whether it is "technically music" or "technically not music".


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

SPR said:


> I would conditionally grant you that statement simply because the more people have tried to define music, the harder it gets to nail it down. Having not read the past 30 additions to this thread however, I would also tend to draw the line at silence or stillness. So, convincing someone that stillness is a kind of music may be equally fruitless, would you agree? Art? - yes you can argue that point (I think I referenced a can of poo in some older thread here...there are any number of threads on what art is, which of course will never be resolved...) but music? I am not so sure.


I'm really not out to convince someone that anything is music. Because you're right, that would be an equally fruitless enterprise. One can't tell another how to perceive a sound. My only goal has been just explain why I, and others, see it as music.

As for drawing the line at silence -- I'm not surprised. Many people do. But as others here have already pointed out, and as Cage himself observed, when most people think of silence, they think of the state of being completely and utterly without sound. But that state of being does not actually exist. Silence itself is relative. And it is the absence of silence, not the absence of sound, that truly defines the limitations of music.


----------



## SPR

Poppin' Fresh said:


> I'm really not out to convince someone that anything is music. Because you're right, that would be an equally fruitless enterprise. One can't tell another how to perceive a sound. My only goal has been just explain why I, and others, see it as music.
> 
> As for drawing the line at silence -- I'm not surprised. Many people do. But as others here have already pointed out, and as Cage himself observed, when most people think of silence, they think of the state of being completely and utterly without sound. But that state of being does not actually exist. Silence itself is relative. And it is the absence of silence, not the absence of sound, truly defines the limitations of music.


well said. I can agree with that.

(almost)  I think my musical silence threshold is slightly higher than yours.

cheers,

-S


----------



## TresPicos

For those here who don't consider 4'33'' music, would one short single note in the middle of the work have made any difference? And if so, would a 2 million year long work with only rests except for one short single note after 1,8 million years also be music?


----------



## starry

Silence can of course be used within a musical piece and indeed has been in the past quite obviously.


----------



## Johnny

TresPicos said:


> For those here who don't consider 4'33'' music, would one short single note in the middle of the work have made any difference? And if so, would a 2 million year long work with only rests except for one short single note after 1,8 million years also be music?


Who cares? Seriously. Whether you call 433 music or not doesn't change the fact it's 4minutes and 33seconds of somebody not playing their instrument. Whether you call it music or not doesn't change that fact.

Same goes for anything, including the one note thing.


----------



## TresPicos

Johnny said:


> Who cares? Seriously. Whether you call 433 music or not doesn't change the fact it's 4minutes and 33seconds of somebody not playing their instrument. Whether you call it music or not doesn't change that fact.
> 
> Same goes for anything, including the one note thing.


Who cares??? Have you looked at the thread title lately?


----------



## Johnny

Do you think coming to a conclusion on whether 433 is music or not should/would alter your opinion of it?


----------



## TresPicos

Johnny said:


> Do you think coming to a conclusion on whether 433 is music or not should/would alter your opinion of it?


Whether it is music or not would actually _be _an opinion.


----------



## Johnny

I know. But could you please answer the question?

There is no way you don't understand what I mean.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

But how it simplifies everything. Yes, I (for instance) read a bunch of theorists and apologists for modern and contemporary art, then I went to some museums and some concerts and boy howdy, were those theorists and apologists ever right!! And now I'm stuck, enjoying all this contemporary crap because I've been brainwashed. Yes, that must be it.

Well, that lets all the naysayers off the hook, all right.

And yet you fail to see the double standard... the pretentiousness of suggesting that those who favor other musical eras... or even contemporary composers other than those favored by yourself are "closed-minded". In other words... if I don't like what you like I'm closed-minded... but if you don't like what I like its because your tastes are superior to mine? Is that how it works?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Post a similar thread to this about Appalachian Spring or Adagio for Strings and see if it gets anywhere near the amount of discussion/posts in the same time frame as this thread. 

And what does that prove? Controversy equals quality? I would assume that you might post a similar thread about Bach's _Well Tempered Clavier_ or Mozart's _Marriage of Figaro_ and there would not be as much dialog as this post has spawned. Am I to assume that Cage is a greater composer than Bach and Mozart?


----------



## Johnny

StlukesguildOhio, do you by any chance understand and/or agree with anything I said? Or am I actually losing my mind?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Perhaps it's time for those of us who love music to acknowledge that jhar26, Johnny, and StlukesguildOhio are not here to talk about music but to score debating points.

Who is "we"? Perhaps its time "we" ignore Some Guys continual assumptions that everybody whose musical tastes do not agree with his own are idiots who know nothing about music. Perhaps its time "we" accept the notion that one can passionately love music and yet dislike certain works and certain composers... even some of those that Some Guy assumes we should all embrace.


----------



## Sid James

I agree with Poppin Fresh - music is perception. & I agree that seeing 4'33" on Youtube is different from actually seeing it done live. A significant thing about Cage's 4'33" is that it must be experienced first hand by the listener to make a real impact. & I think it makes an important point about how we see music in general - whether it be a recording or live performance - the ball is truly in the court of the listener. It's all about what the individual perceives, feels, hears rather than what the composer's intentions are.


----------



## starry

Andre said:


> I agree with Poppin Fresh - music is perception. & I agree that seeing 4'33" on Youtube is different from actually seeing it done live. A significant thing about Cage's 4'33" is that it must be experienced first hand by the listener to make a real impact. & I think it makes an important point about how we see music in general - whether it be a recording or live performance - the ball is truly in the court of the listener. It's all about what the individual perceives, feels, hears rather than what the composer's intentions are.


But the composer fundamentally controls what the listener hears. The listener's perception is affected by all kinds of other things, such as their knowledge of the musical style, how concentrated they are, the performance of the work...


----------



## Sid James

That's true to a degree, starry. I might also add that there are many variables outside a composer's control, like say the venue, the performers, even say the price of tickets. & on a recording there are similar things he/she cannot control. Musically speaking, Cage introduced an element of chance into his music - from notating it on pieces of plastic that could be reversed or turned upside down, to not specifying the order of movements, to allowing two or three works to be performed simultaneously. As I said before, he was going against the "grand narratives" interpretation/production of music that was dominant from the time of the early C19th onwards. For example, there probably is no "best" recording of a Cage work, because there are so many variables, they are all too different to be compared in the way performances of a Beethoven symphony could be...


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Perhaps its time "we" ignore Some Guys continual assumptions that everybody whose musical tastes do not agree with his own are not idiots who know nothing about music. Perhaps its time "we" accept the notion that one can passionately love music and yet dislike certain works and certain composers... even some of those that Some Guy assumes we should all embrace.


I _do_ assume that people whose tastes are different from mine are _not idiots,_ yes. Is that a bad thing? (And I do guess that the "not" in front of "idiots" was _not_ what you meant to say!)

I do _not_ assume that everyone should embrace the composers whose work I defend on these forums. I would like to see less unsupported denigration, yes. I never go on Bax threads, for example, to bash that composer. I hate his music, but why trample all over others' evident delight in him? I would like to see a similar restraint in other posters, but I'm not likely to get that.

No, it's not that there should be no criticism of Cage, or Manzoni or Klein or anyone else. But let's have some real criticism, not just bad-mouthing. Here, for example, is a real criticism of 4'33": it doesn't really set sounds free to be enjoyed for themselves, it aestheticizes them. By framing them, and putting them in a concert setting, it turns them into music and continues to keep us unable to listen to them and enjoy them for themselves.

You see the difference between that and the negative remarks about 4'33" on this thread? The ones on this thread, even the ones bolstered by drawing parallels to other productions of other artists, have been personal attacks: Cage is an idiot. The people who think this is art are idiots. The piece is junk. It's not art. Assertions, merely. Expressions of personal distaste. Well, fine. expressions of personal distaste are all well and good, if what you want is to find out something about the taster. But if we want to find out anything about 4'33" and its place in the world of music and of art generally, then we have to go down the path illustrated by what I called a "real criticism," the path of understanding and thought, not of uninformed reaction and sarcasm.

Fun though the sarcasm is!!


----------



## Johnny

". .It's not art. ." Have you read any of my posts? 

And how does a sound become music just because you hear it in a concert hall? What kind of bizarre definition of music are you working with? Of course, you're welcome to such a definition if you want. Whatever.

Your last paragraph. . seriously, WTF? 

You people make no sense whatsoever. I've tried to be patient. But you are just not making sense. I've made a few lengthy posts, and it's as if you've just ignored them completely. Or read bits of some, and extracted some completely warped bizarre meaning from them, as evidenced by the replies. Maybe I'm not being clear, but I actually manage to communicate with people on a daily basis in the real world and have never come across such a collective and wide missing of my point(s).

someguy even admitted that the two ideas I suggested (restaurant and gallery) could be considered pretentious crap. Why does a blank musical score deserve a different standard? I could defend either enterprise in the same empty way. I could say how I want you to consider the images going through your mind for that brief moment you spend looking at each of my blank canvasses. The images/thoughts are being "framed". I could have some irrelevant discussion about whether or not it is art or not. I could assert that anyone who calls my gallery pretentious crap to be just "not open-minded". That they are just making baseless assertions. That they just don't "get" it. They are uninformed. I could say to people "Yes, but what do you mean by 'art'?" (I could go on constructing this hypothetical thing, but surely any idiot could fill in the rest.) Philosophers and art-ologists could get phds out of in depth discussions about my masterpiece gallery. Discussing about what it all meant, etc,etc, etc. 
It would all be pathetic nonsense. Somebody needs to just stand back and realise that what that IT'S JUST BLANK PIECES OF PAPER! Get over yourselves!

I'm tempted to try and make a thread, with a blank post in it. It would be revolutionary. People are accustomed to see specific, restricting, text in posts/threads. Maybe I could make people just absorb the words that are already in their mind. They can spend as long as they want absorbing it in. And whenever they come back to view the thread they'd have a different experience. It would be a masterpiece of truly infinite content!

The fact you can't see how that story I've referred to ("The Emperor's New Clothes") is related to this situation, in a way I suppose, says it all.

Again, I ask, if somebody has read what I've said and agrees (Surely somebody has?), could they please say so? And, if they want, maybe try and make what I said clearer than I did. 

Maybe most people are more sensible than I am and just avoided the thread.

Hopefully I won't feel the urge to post here again. I'm an idiot for even trying.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

You see the difference between that and the negative remarks about 4'33" on this thread? The ones on this thread, even the ones bolstered by drawing parallels to other productions of other artists, have been personal attacks: Cage is an idiot. The people who think this is art are idiots. The piece is junk. It's not art

I made repeated comments to the effect that I may accept Cage's _4:33_ as Art... considering that the definition of Art is so broad that it virtually cannot be agreed upon... and considering that a good number of those with a certain degree of knowledge about art and music accept the work as such. On the other hand, I have questioned just how good or important the work is... and this, it would seem, is not something universally agreed upon by those with a good deal of knowledge and interest in art. Does that mean I dismiss the whole of Cage's oeuvre? Actually, I can't recall any such suggestion by anyone here, but speaking for myself I do recall making it quite clear that I actually own a few of Cage's works on disc... and quite enjoy a few... although I would not put him anywhere near the top of my pantheon of great composers.

It is intriguing that there is a thread on "Mozart, Genius or Junk" or something to that effect. This thread deals with a composer who is far more central to the whole of Western music... far more universally acknowledged as a major composer... and yet attacks upon his work have not devolved into insinuations that those of an opposing or alternative point of view "lack the insight or mental capabilities to grasp that conceptual art is about the idea..." Yes, similar accusations came from both sides of the argument... and one is not surprised when there is such a divide between those who imagine that to embrace the _avant garde_ means one must dismiss those who dislike certain strains of contemporary art and music as "stuck in the past"... "stuck with what they are used to or what they find as safe" while on the other hand we have those who suspect that the whole of Modernist experimentation is some abomination... or con-job hoisted upon them by a group of pretentious twits who embrace this art merely as a means to make themselves feel oh so superior to the lesser mortals. If anything, I have merely suggested that the reality may lie somewhere in between. To my thinking, opera, German lieder, Baroque music, Renaissance music, Medieval music are just as demanding of the audience... and just as far removed from Romanticism as Modernism... the followers of each of these sub-categories of music are perhaps no less limited in scale than that for contemporary music... yet I have rarely ever read of the HIP Baroque fan or tied-in-the wool medievalist suggesting that those who don't share their particular passion are somehow close-minded, lacking in intellectual abilities, or not truly music lovers. It seems that a greater respect for opposing opinions might be something needed on both sides of this debate.


----------



## Gangsta Tweety Bird

dunno if its actually been said in this thread (lots of people seem to think it has, i dont remember reading ti but then again i didnt read very closely) but maybe people who cant appreciate John Cage really ARE just plain dumber. and thats ok not everyone can be a genius. at least you can take pride in the fact you dont like crazy frog. crazy frog is pretty cool though


----------



## Johnny

That is definitely a possibility.

But it's also equally possible that people who worship the moon are just smarter than those who don't worship the moon.

I don't think either scenario is all that likely.

Maybe I'm just to stupid to realise that the moon is in fact, GOD. Who knows? I guess we'll never know.


----------



## Argus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Post a similar thread to this about Appalachian Spring or Adagio for Strings and see if it gets anywhere near the amount of discussion/posts in the same time frame as this thread.
> 
> And what does that prove? Controversy equals quality? I would assume that you might post a similar thread about Bach's _Well Tempered Clavier_ or Mozart's _Marriage of Figaro_ and there would not be as much dialog as this post has spawned. Am I to assume that Cage is a greater composer than Bach and Mozart?


You should know from my previous posts that I wasn't referring to the quality of the works. I was responding to your implication that those two works would be remembered long after 4'33'' was consigned to the music historians textbooks. I wasn't talking about the WTC or the Marriage of Figaro. Those are over 200 years old already and continue to be talked about, the Copland and Barber are less than a century old. So controversy does't equal quality but contoversy normally equals remembrance, influence and divisiveness. Examples would include Tristan und Isolde, Rite of Spring, God Save the Queen, Relax etc but 4'33'' is easily top of the heap as can be evidenced even in this thread.

As for your last sentence, you already know I am of the opinion that it is a meaningless statement, unless you mean 'greater' as in size/mass then Cage would probably be behind Bach but in front of Copland, Barber and Mozart.

As for that Britney Spears point, I'll try to provide an answer. First retrograde the question to be 1952 applicable and imagine 4'33'' hasn't occured yet. I'll replace Spears with Perry Como. If Perry Como performed a piece of music consisting of 4'33'' of 'silence' in front of his audience who expected the regular Como style, they would surely be puzzled thinking he was waiting for something to happen. This would not be Como's fault but the particular audience he was popular amongst would be unlikely to understand exactly what he was trying to convey. However, if he then explained what he was trying to do like Cage did, the academics would take notice and eventually the work would be seen as highly regarded as Cage's has. If Como then continued in his normal style for the rest of his career, the 4'33'' piece would be seen as an extraordinary blip, a moment of profound genius. Or not. Cage created the piece and that's what we have to discuss.


----------



## TresPicos

Johnny said:


> Do you think coming to a conclusion on whether 433 is music or not should/would alter your opinion of it?


No. I have already come to the conclusion that 4'33'' _is_ music (and art), and my opinion that it's _not _junk will not change.

I'm sorry that I can't give you a hypothetical answer, but I just can't imagine what it would be like to not appreciate cool inventions like 4'33''.


----------



## Huge

I personally think it's a load of drivel. 

Give me Beethoven or Bruckner (to name but 2), any day of the week.

However this is only MY personal opinion. I would not sink so low as to assume people were stupid just because they did like it.

Art is such a subjective thing anyway, only a true fool would try and say "that's art, but that isn't".


----------



## Mozartgirl92

I´m a big fan of most kinds of music but my feeling with Cages 4´33 is that it is a piece of nothing, maybe I´m lacking education but that´s my view on this whole debate.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Mozartgirl92 said:


> I´m a big fan of most kinds of music but my feeling with Cages 4´33 is that it is a piece of nothing, maybe I´m lacking education but that´s my view on this whole debate.


That may be true but you can't deny that it's a very good piece of nothing, carefully crafted and possibly divinely inspired. It's my favourite track when I have a headache.

The work reminds of a (modern) garden centre I visit occasionally. There is a path which runs through an amusement area. In the middle of one of the paving slabs on the ground there is a brass plaque of about 10 cm x 10 cm with the following inscription: _"In 1834 on this spot precisely nothing happened"_


----------



## Guest

I look forward to the day when this does not have to be said again:

4'33" is not about nothing. It is about substituting one sort of something for another sort of something. It is about including the types of something that had previously been excluded from music. 

They are not, by the way, excluded any more, as any survey of new musics will reveal. (Francisco Lopez's Untitled #123, for example has long (ten, fifteen, twenty minute) sections where no sounds come from the loudspeakers.)


----------



## Andy Loochazee

some guy said:


> 4'33" is not about nothing. It is about substituting one sort of something for another sort of something. It is about including the types of something that had previously been excluded from music.


I hardly think that is a fair description. The "something" that Cage included was uninterupted silence for a significant length of time. Silence was obviously part of music before that time but it featured in much smaller measured doses that did not dominate completely the work in question.

To call 4'3" music would be like calling a Big Mac which is bereft of the burger, cheese, bread roll, etc a "meal". Funny kind of meal, no?


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Andy Loochazee said:


> I hardly think that is a fair description.


It's a perfect description, because it's absolutely true. Your food analogy was totally inaccurate and entirely misses the essence of 4'33".

But this has already been discussed and explained ad nauseum throughout this thread.


----------



## TresPicos

Poppin' Fresh said:


> It's a perfect description, because it's absolutely true. Your food analogy was totally inaccurate and entirely misses the essence of 4'33".
> 
> But this has already been discussed and explained ad nauseum throughout this thread.


What he said.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Poppin' Fresh said:


> It's a perfect description, because it's absolutely true. Your food analogy was totally inaccurate and entirely misses the essence of 4'33".
> 
> But this has already been discussed and explained ad nauseum throughout this thread.


There is nothing wrong with my Big Mac analogy. A Big Mac is junk food, and a Big Mac without a Big Mac is a waste of space, just like this whole thread.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Ok then. You're the boss.


----------



## superhorn

Well, I can say one thing for it. It's the only piano work I can play ! It's an amusing gimmick, but that's all it is. Cage wasn't really a composer, but a creator of gimmicks.


----------



## Argus

superhorn said:


> Well, I can say one thing for it. It's the only piano work I can play ! It's an amusing gimmick, but that's all it is. Cage wasn't really a composer, but a creator of gimmicks.


Cage wrote music so is therefore a composer.



> To call 4'3" music would be like calling a Big Mac which is bereft of the burger, cheese, bread roll, etc a "meal". Funny kind of meal, no?


So many poor analogies in this thread.


----------



## Guest

Andy, the "something" I was referring to consists of sounds, absolute silence being for all practical purposes a null set. So as any other piece of music consists of sounds, so too does 4'33" consist of sounds.

Super, you've apparently not spent much time with Cage's rather large oeuvre. When you have listened to at least one piece from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, then you may find that your assessment is rather wide of the mark. (In any case, "gimmick" is such an obvious derogation. It has no content, or whatever content the user wants to give it. Let's see, pizzicato. That's a gimmick. Obviously won't catch on! Gimmick means "whatever I don't approve of." Not very useful except for belittling. _Only_ useful for belittling, I should say.)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

So many poor analogies in this thread.

Ain't it ironic that the guy who is so gung-ho about relativism and art and the notion that one cannot suggest that one composer or one piece of music is better or worse than another (let alone "good" or "bad") is so quick to offer up his judgments upon the appropriate use of analogies. Must be a master of literature as well as metal "music".


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Unfortunately some continue to insist upon thinking.


----------



## jhar26

some guy said:


> Andy, the "something" I was referring to consists of sounds, absolute silence being for all practical purposes a null set. So as any other piece of music consists of sounds, so too does 4'33" consist of sounds.


Since Cage doesn't prescribe the sounds that are to be made during 4'33" but that the piece is nevertheless about sound, would it therefore be fair to say that the real composers are the members of the audience who may laugh or cough (or whatever) while 4'33" is in progress? So, is the audience in your view 'the real' composer of 4'33" and not John Cage?


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...the guy who is so gung-ho about relativism and art and the notion that one cannot suggest that one composer or one piece of music is better or worse than another (let alone "good" or "bad") is so quick to offer up his judgments upon the appropriate use of analogies. Must be a master of literature as well as metal "music".


Ad hominem. Stick to the ideas and the things said and leave off the remarks about the people doing the saying. (Be nice if you could rely on words yourself, too, and leave off the , but I don't want to ask for too much all at once.)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I have no problem utilizing the words alone (although I am a visual arts person) but it often seems that there are those who are a bit challenged when it comes to recognizing sarcasm, irony, or any attempts at humor (lame as they may be) and so a little  is a helpful means of pointing them in the right direction.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Ad hominem. Stick to the ideas and the things said and leave off the remarks about the people doing the saying...

Ad hominem arguments are in no way inherently fallacious. It seems more than legitimate to question the assumption of relativism and an absence of any "good" nor "bad" when it comes to our judgments regarding music, and then to turn around and make a blanket statement about the intrinsic merits of the use of an analogy by another. Again... "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so?"


----------



## Guest

I was actually calling for you to be polite, not to be logical. That's why I didn't say anything about your making a logical fallacy (which indeed you did not).


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

jhar26 said:


> Since Cage doesn't prescribe the sounds that are to be made during 4'33" but that the piece is nevertheless about sound, would it therefore be fair to say that the real composers are the members of the audience who may laugh or cough (or whatever) while 4'33" is in progress? So, is the audience in your view 'the real' composer of 4'33" and not John Cage?


That's an interesting question. That's definitely a way to look at it (besides the piece breaking down the barrier between _performer_ and audience), and I think that's the way John Cage would have liked to look at it. His intention as a composer was to create situations in which sounds could simply be, create activities in which sound could happen, and to abandon the role of composer as the ultimate controlling authority.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Well its definitely not music. Whether it is junk or not depends on the listener's perspective, I suppose.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I was actually calling for you to be polite, not to be logical. That's why I didn't say anything about your making a logical fallacy (which indeed you did not).

Outside of a slight bit of sarcasm (which the poster in question has directed equally to me at times) I don't see that questioning a logical inconsistency is being impolite... but I guess that depends upon the individual interpretation. I'll say no more.


----------



## Jaime77

i love junk music - is an invention and why not - music or not... whatever it's all good... creative... i admire john cage... he went his own way


----------



## MessiaenIsGod

I wouldn't call it junk or music. 4'33" is merely a way of inducing an audience to listen to the world around them, something that we naturally ignore most of the time.


----------



## TresPicos

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> *Well its definitely not music*. Whether it is junk or not depends on the listener's perspective, I suppose.


Thank you so much for presenting that final piece of the puzzle! We have definitely spent enough time trying to figure this thing out by ourselves.


----------



## Argus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Ad hominem. Stick to the ideas and the things said and leave off the remarks about the people doing the saying...
> 
> Ad hominem arguments are in no way inherently fallacious. It seems more than legitimate to question the assumption of relativism and an absence of any "good" nor "bad" when it comes to our judgments regarding music, and then to turn around and make a blanket statement about the intrinsic merits of the use of an analogy by another. Again... "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so?"


Is the quote function inherently 'bad' or is it that highlighting quoted text in red is 'good'?

Also, you've not yet explained to me why the Sistine Chapel is a better work of art than Manzoni's ****.



> Since Cage doesn't prescribe the sounds that are to be made during 4'33" but that the piece is nevertheless about sound, would it therefore be fair to say that the real composers are the members of the audience who may laugh or cough (or whatever) while 4'33" is in progress? So, is the audience in your view 'the real' composer of 4'33" and not John Cage?


I made this point earlier in the thread. Post #50. Thats the real contention point for me.


----------



## Aramis

> Also, you've not yet explained to me why the Sistine Chapel is a better work of art than Manzoni's ****.


Sistine Chapel doesn't stink.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Also, you've not yet explained to me why the Sistine Chapel is a better work of art than Manzoni's ****.

Sistine Chapel doesn't stink. 

That about covers it.


----------



## Johnny

Does it? Or is it a convenient way for you to avoid answering his question?


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

TresPicos said:


> Thank you so much for presenting that final piece of the puzzle! We have definitely spent enough time trying to figure this thing out by ourselves.


I looked at the question from the original poster and then answered it. If my answer repeats what somebody has said in the 13 pages this thread consists of, then I'm sorry my reply was unsatisfactory. But thank you for the slice of unnecessary malicious sarcasm.


----------



## Guest

Josef, the unwritten law is that if you see an ongoing thread you want to respond to, you pretty much have to at least scroll through the responses to see what's already been said. That's not only a courtesy to everyone who has either been following the thread since its inception (or to everyone who has jumped in late after at least scrolling through et cetera), but is also just good sense. Be fair. If you went to the U.S. Patent Office with a wheel you'd just invented, there'd be a lot more than just some mild sarcasm!!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

At the risk of veering things a little off-topic, I'd like to address what appears to be a misconception concerning the standard of discourse on this forum...


StlukesguildOhio said:


> Ad hominem arguments are in no way inherently fallacious.


One might feel that an ad-hominem argument brings up a legitimate point, but it happens to be a Terms of Service violation _here_. Here is the second paragraph of the "Guidelines for General Behavior" found in the Guidelines & Terms of Service:

*Do not post comments about another members person or »posting style« (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.*

So (to paraphrase the words of another moderator elsewhere) play the ball, and not the man- okay?!


----------



## Drayhn

Its an experience for the audience, it doesnt make sense to watch a video of it. The music is hearing your neighbor scratching themselves, moving their shoes, sneezing, maybe contagious laughter from people. Its always a different performance based on the moment.


----------



## norman bates

i prefer ligeti's 0:00.
However, in the purest cagean spirit, i think that the best thing to to when listening to 4:33 is to fart. After all, even the stink is a perfume.


----------



## Guest

Sorry to trample all over your nice joke, but "0:00" really is a piece, and it's by Cage.


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> Sorry to trample all over your nice joke, but "0:00" really is a piece, and it's by Cage.


are you sure? i have not _listened _to it yet 
but

_Wit and satire are powerful elements in the music of Ligeti. The results can be scathing, as demonstrated in 0'00", described as the shortest known composition, poking fun at John Cage's 4'33"_
http://www153.pair.com/bensav/Compositeurs/Ligeti.G.html


----------



## Guest

Yes, I'm sure. If you find a list of Cage's compositions, you will find _0' 00"_ on it. If you read bios of him, you will find references to it.

As for Ligeti, this seems like an urban legend in the making. The link you provided is to an anonymous bio. I found several references to Ligeti's _0' 00"_ online. All the ones I found were from 2010, and they all referred to it either in the same words or to the same intent.

This is the first I've ever heard of it. And I've been listening to and reading about new music since 1972. You'd think I would have run across such a nice gem of humor. But no. It seems to have been made up, in 2010, and parrotted around the Web, in 2010. And that seems to be the extent of it.


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> Yes, I'm sure. If you find a list of Cage's compositions, you will find _0' 00"_ on it. If you read bios of him, you will find references to it.
> 
> As for Ligeti, this seems like an urban legend in the making. The link you provided is to an anonymous bio. I found several references to Ligeti's _0' 00"_ online. All the ones I found were from 2010, and they all referred to it either in the same words or to the same intent.
> 
> This is the first I've ever heard of it. And I've been listening to and reading about new music since 1972. You'd think I would have run across such a nice gem of humor. But no. It seems to have been made up, in 2010, and parrotted around the Web, in 2010. And that seems to be the extent of it.


i don't know if is it real or not, but i've read it many years ago. Well, maybe not many, but certainly not this year or the last. Anyway, now i'm curious to find out if is it true or just a joke. 
Another thing: how can you verify the date in which an article is posted on internet, aside google that often seems to me that is not very accurate on these things?


----------



## Guest

Yeah, the date thing is probably unverifiable.

I was more interested that all the various references to this all appeared to have the same source. That all the references I found had this year's date seemed to verify my suspicions.

Anyway, the thing to do is find a work list. A list for Cage will include _0' 00"_; a list for Ligeti, so far as I know, will not. Besides, if he had really done that, it would likely have been after Cage's own _0' 00"_, which came a decade after 4' 33", and there would have been an uproar.

I don't recall any such thing, which isn't really evidence, but it is suggestive. I mean, I was situated to have heard about such a kerfluffle had there ever been one.


----------



## Sid James

0'00" was definitely by Cage - I remember reading about it recently in a book on classical music. Apparently the performer cuts up some vegetables, puts them in a blender, and then eats the food. Bizarre...


----------



## Guest

Here's the score to _0' 00"_:

"In a situation provided with maximum amplification (no feedback), perform a disciplined action."

The first performance consisted of Cage writing the manuscript of the piece. (It's dedicated to Toshi Ichiyanagi and Yoko Ono, by the way.)


----------



## Edward Elgar

4:33 asks questions. It does not seek to entertain.

If you are searching for entertainment stay away from Cage and listen to Johann Strauss II


----------



## Aramis

> 4:33 asks questions.


Which could be asked much easier.

But it wouldn't look so clever, right? John Cage asking "what are the boundaries of music?" or something would probably stay unnoticed.

Asking questions, even important ones, in itself has little value. I can ask some weird questions like "how big is the universe?" or "if Achilles would race with turtle equipped with engines Mega Turbo X-500 driven by cormorant sperm while Achilles would have strong faith in olimpic gods and energy drink, would it be possible that turtle wouldn't even move from the starting place?" but that couldn't make me great physicist or astronomer, it wouldn't even mean that I am not dumb bitch trying to be clever just by coming out with difficult questions.

It takes much more to elaborate on these questions, I think we all agree that Hanslick sucked, but IMO he did much more estimable job with his writings than Cage with his quasi-smart pieces.

In terms of arousing discussions about musical ideas:

Hanslick > Cage

Baboon > Cage

Baboon's *** > Cage


----------



## Edward Elgar

Aramis said:


> But it wouldn't look so clever, right?


Did a little pretence ever kill anyone?



Aramis said:


> Asking questions, even important ones, in itself has little value.


Really?! I'd hope all art seeks to explore the human condition by asking important questions!



Aramis said:


> but that couldn't make me great physicist or astronomer


No, because those fields of study require facts and are based in the realm of the practical. Art is different obviously. Art simply requires thought and contemplation. In this respect 4:33 is a success.



Aramis said:


> In terms of arousing discussions about musical ideas:
> 
> Hanslick > Cage
> 
> Baboon > Cage
> 
> Baboon's *** > Cage


Oh what humour, what wit!


----------



## Aramis

> Really?! I'd hope all art seeks to explore the human condition by asking important questions!


Like I said - simply asking is the easiest way. Best thing that art can do is to show - to show deep, unnamed and untold. "Music begins where words end" - sounds familiar? Do you consider Cage wiser than man who claimed this?

Cage's work is crude because it's meaning is as simple and shallow as blow into the snout. It would take couple of seconds to express the same with human speech.

By the way, tell me, what questions did disturb you after listening to Mozart's symphony?


----------



## Edward Elgar

Aramis said:


> By the way, tell me, what questions did disturb you after listening to Mozart's symphony?


Mozart's 40th asks (in my subjective view) "can searching relieve suffering?" The Mozarts had lost a child at this time and the almost Beethovian first motif is like a man searching in the darkness of g minor for the object of his affection, slipping through his fingers in the tender, yet downward chromaticism of the second subject.

This particular composition is at the pinnacle of human achievement. Because it sounds nice to our modern ears is a by-product of the pain and progress of humanity.

Now I'm not saying Cage is at the pinnacle of humanity because he hasn't the ear and genius of Mozart. All the man has are ideas. Those ideas may be crude, unrefined, simplistic, banal, but some people who love sound get off on that.


----------



## JMJ

Ah this topic again ... i always chuckle at the verbose _explanations_ from those justifying something that essentially _anyone with no talent or skill_ could do - something Cage was very versed in himself, explaining/backing up a lot of nothing like he's all deep and profound - he was such a farce & a lightweight ... 4'33 isn't art or music, it's a test of one's patience and a waste of time; anyone can dream up or do this sort of nonsense, performance artist-types try to pass off all kinds of garbage as "art" ...with the mentality that "_anything can be art_ " or more accurately "anything can be art _if i explain it to you_" ('explain' being the keyboard) ... unfortunately that's not how art works, you can't merely explain it me or anyone, it's more about _the deeds_ that should do all the talking.


----------



## marmaluot_45

I live in Italy, near Modena, and I'm music professor .
I went in this forum to improve my english writing and I read your postes about John Cage and other things.
I would like put some thing in order:

I admit to have reading not all but what I read, it's enough for me.

Ladies and gentlemen we are in front of the world, anyone can read as me and we don't must say those things!!

1) About John Cage.
I met John Cage in Venezia, twenty years ago, for the biennale.
He spoke italian and we talked about many performances and experiences.
He himself was amazed about the rumours around him and he laughed about it.
He said how is possible that the theather should be full when I play nothing: people are strange. 
He went on:" People don't know yet Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms and came to listen to my silence or to my prepared piano!!"
The little or nothing knowledge of the people about the classical music, played his game.

Let me pass by: We don't compare Bruckner and Mahler to Cage, we don't compare the silence of Bruckner and Mahler to the silence of John Cage.

Let me remember a little thing: John Cage went to Lascia o Raddoppia, a quiz game, by the our TV in the fifty.
He, in front of the italian people, talked about your hobbies, among them there was making music with strange instruments.
He made a performance with glasses, bottles and others, and the people laughed.
He partecipated to quiz as lover of mushrooms( fungus in the wood) and said he was a music amateur.

Mahler and Bruckner are the giants of music, don't touch them in this manner.
Making a joke like John Cage, it's not the same thing making a symphonie!!!

2) Anyone said that Art Tatum influenced Horowitz , Rachmaninov and Gershwin.
It's true the great musicians hearded Tatum and told he was the fastest pianist in the world.
Tatum couldn't play the classical music and the other didn't care the jazz.

Influence? Is the opposite, classical music influenced the jazz pianists at all.
Guys who was afraid of the fastest blind Pianist. Nobody I hope.
In the classical piano music needed slow and fast, but needed follow the ideas of composers.
Nobody of the fastest classical pianistes were famous: Godowsky was a joker.
His permorming of Chopin Sudies are ridicolous, this is not music: this is the circus.
Don't say these things please, first thinking very hard.

3) Going back, Horowitz; it said that the great russian pianist belongs to the modern piano school.
I was amazed.
Horowitz studied with a pupil of the great Liszt and so was the pupil of the pupil of Liszt.
Not modern yet.
I read, not on your forum, but in a book, that his playing manner and his famous career's stop in the fifty, was due of the magic jazz influence.
The music writers are dishonest towards the public.
In the fifty he was serious ill and his strange playing was your way having a beautiful touch with Scarlatti and Mozart.
When he played Rach and Chopin, look at the raising hands of the pianist.

4)Don't mix evil and good, I don't like speaking with amateurs of classical music forum, and reading Jimi Hendrix or Charlie Parker.
What means?
We are in front of all, we must giving the good acts of our thoughts and ours knowledges about the beautiful discipline: music.

My regards


----------



## Guest

JMJ said:


> ...something that essentially _anyone with no talent or skill_ could do....


Speaking of chucklesome, this bromide is certainly that! Notice that no one says this kind of thing until after the "easy" thing has been done. Nobody thinks, "hmmm, it would be easy to do a piece in which no one plays anything, genius!" and then does it.



JMJ said:


> Ad hom commentary removed by admins


Did you read Chi_townPhilly's post? It's at the top of page 14. This kind of comment is what closed this thread down once before. Not that this thread's life is terribly important one way or another, but civilized discourse is important. And calling people idiots is not part of civilized discourse. I'm tempted to say it's more appropriate for a bar, but if you talked like this in a bar, you'd probably get some gratuitous rearranging of your visage!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Speaking of chucklesome, this bromide is certainly that! Notice that no one says this kind of thing until after the "easy" thing has been done. Nobody thinks, "hmmm, it would be easy to do a piece in which no one plays anything, genius!" and then does it. 

I always liked John Barth's essay on _The Literature of Exhaustion_ in which he described the sort of discussions undertaken by artists, preferably over beer, in which one of them suddenly declares, "Wouldn't it be great if someone made a painting that pops up like one of those kids pop up books?" What he really means, is "Why hasn't someone else done that because I'm certainly not going to waste my time on such a stupid idea."


----------



## Argus

JMJ said:


> Ah this topic again ... i always chuckle at the verbose _explanations_ from those justifying something that essentially _anyone with no talent or skill_ could do - something Cage was very versed in himself, explaining/backing up a lot of nothing like he's all deep and profound - he was such a farce & a lightweight ... 4'33 isn't art or music, it's a test of one's patience and a waste of time; anyone can dream up or do this sort of nonsense, performance artist-types try to pass off all kinds of garbage as "art" ...with the mentality that "_anything can be art_ " or more accurately "anything can be art _if i explain it to you_" ('explain' being the keyboard) ... unfortunately that's not how art works, you can't merely explain it me or anyone, it's more about _the deeds_ that should do all the talking.


Some facts for you.

Cage > Stockhausen

4'33'' > Licht

Indeterminacy > Serialism

Hope this makes things clearer.


----------



## norman bates

Edward Elgar said:


> 4:33 asks questions. It does not seek to entertain.
> 
> If you are searching for entertainment stay away from Cage and listen to Johann Strauss II


is a lot more funny and entertaining to see people listening in silence to nothing for 4:33


----------



## Guest

I wonder how many times on this thread it's been said it's not nothing you're listening to, it's all the somethings you've been ignoring up to this moment. At least that was what you were listening to in the fifties. Now, you're just listening to all the somethings. Anyway, it's been said a lot, just on this thread. Why is it so hard to get this simple fact across? Are prejudices really that strong? Oh, right. Hey, I just answered my own question!!:trp:

Anyway, for the umpteenth time, the piece is not about silence, it's about intention. For Cage, it was about accepting the sounds he did not intend. For the listeners, it's about accepting, and enjoying, sounds that just happen.

Now you may not like that situation. You may disapprove of listening to sounds that are not being controlled by a great composer. You may think that art is about control not absence of control. You may think that giving up control is to usher in utter chaos and dark night. Fine. Argue those points, then. At least, for the love of conversation, get the facts right!!

Thank you, and good night!:tiphat:


----------



## marmaluot_45

The problem is so: these men, Stockhausen, Cage and friends, strutturalism, dodecafonia, electronic music must be put in another corner but non in music areas or encyclopedia.
This must be clear!!!
I hold an example to unterstand.
I use your language trying to respect the own rules and I say : what good guys are you, welcome to meet you.
It's clear for me and for you.
But if I should write: gde ywe colm ou whtom. Have you unterstand?, no!!!
I'm out of my mind. Yes.
These gentlemen made so for many years,they don't care of the music's rules.
And many pupils followed them!!!
Ah! 
I studied hard classical piano and classical composition, more ten years, I and my wife; then comes a person who thinks himself a genius and says that the rules of music are all wrongs.
Do you think really at this!!
I who have studied, I'm silly and stupid, the other is a genius because he says all is mistake!!!
We have permitted to them to destroyed the music world and 20 century of conquest for the tonality.
The guys who nowdays attend the music-school and the julliard and other, they are out of the world, what they'll made of the true music.
They must trowing in the garbage!!
Why haven't you permitted that anyone should destroy the language?
I'll say you: because some dishonest critics and men don't care of music, but behind, they deal with it for money.
And people fall in the trap.
Cage, Stockhausen are dead, let's them in peace, but, if we want talking about them, non in music forum but in the strangeness from the world, we must put it.
Gentlemen to make music, need learn the armonics, counterpoint, conduct of parts rules, orchestration, the voice of instrument, the raddoppio of cello and bassoon and ecc...
This is music and not other, other don't exist.


----------



## JMJ

some guy said:


> Notice that no one says this kind of thing until after the "easy" thing has been done. Nobody thinks, "hmmm, it would be easy to do a piece in which no one plays anything, genius!" and then does it.


Please just like "gee I'll wear a dress made entirely of meat, genius!"...










or "it would be so easy to present a blank canvas"

or "it would be so easy to project an empty film roll"

or "it would be so easy to put a book out there with blank pages"

etc.

It's all childish drivel .. self-promoting 'performance types' dream up this talentless unmusical, unartistic lazy & idiotic garbage all the time... and it's just as embarassing & stupid when the publicity stunt is executed, _it's nothing to be taken seriously_ (though the accompanying verbose liner notes/explanation would plead & plead otherwise, which is _really embarassing_ lol) ... here you go this is right up your alley ...


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> I wonder how many times on this thread it's been said it's not nothing you're listening to, it's all the somethings you've been ignoring up to this moment.


i often listen to nothing (or to little noises, maybe is better?), i've not the need to go paying for listen 4:33 of that. 
But John Cage was a person with a big sense of humour for sure. The problem maybe is that many of his supporters are a bit too seriouses...


----------



## JMJ

norman bates said:


> i often listen to nothing, i've not the need to go paying for listen 4:33 of that. But John Cage was a person with a big sense of humour for sure. The problem maybe is that many of his supporters are a bit too seriouses


Yea compared to the 'real stuff' .... he certainly was a joke that gets old real fast... i've never found his brand of humor (if that's what it's supposed to be - actually 'funny') ... i'd rather go see a real stand up act for laughs.


----------



## Elgarian

I may have posted something like this in another thread some time ago. My apologies if I have, though it's worth saying twice.

In the Yorkshire Sculpture Park there's a construction by James Turrell that he calls a 'sky space'. It's basically a dome, which you walk into, and sit in a seat that runs continuously round the inside, and look up at a rectangle, cut in the roof of the dome. And that's it:










The day I was there was a day of clear blue sky. Not a cloud to be seen. I was pretty resistive about visiting this construction; thought it was probably a bit too clever by half. But I'd taken the trouble to go there, so I sat still and watched the sky. It gradually became evident that what I'd thought was a clear blue sky was nothing of the sort. The effect of framing the sky like this was to make the eye far more sensitive to nuances of tone and colour, and after a few minutes I could see that what I'd thought was a featureless blue rectangle was a maze of delicate wisps of cloud, constantly shifting in relation to each other. The longer I looked, the more clearly visible they became, and the more structure I could see, until I realised that not a single discernable fragment of sky was unmodulated in tone. The shift in perception, from a blank blue rectangle, to an infinitely interesting articulated space, was extraordinary.

After some time a bird flew across, far above. It was a moment of high drama and shock. You could feel the impact of it among the people sitting in the dome. Just one bird, flying overhead.

For 'apparently blank blue space', read 'apparent silence', and you have an interesting comparison. Where was the art? Was it in the sky? No, the sky is part of nature - those mysterious forms I saw were purely natural. So where was the art? It was in the showing. That's what artists do, repeatedly, down through the centuries. They show us things we hadn't noticed ourselves. The _artistic_ skill isn't in the making (that is, in the craft): it's in the perceiving, and in the knowing how to convey that perception to others.

I remember that perception-changing afternoon with extraordinary clarity, better in many ways than I remember some of the paintings I might have seen around the same time (much though I may have enjoyed them). The only way to 'get it' was to _do_ it. No amount of reading about it, or discussion of it, beforehand, could have prepared me for the direct experience of contemplating for myself that piece of blank sky.

And now it's confession time. I haven't actually sat in a concert hall for four minutes and and thirty three seconds with a silent audience, listening. So I have no idea what I might experience, if I did; but I think I might be surprised.


----------



## JMJ

some guy said:


> Anyway, for the umpteenth time, the piece is not about silence, it's about intention. For Cage, it was about accepting the sounds he did not intend. For the listeners, it's about accepting, and enjoying, sounds that just happen.
> 
> Now you may not like that situation. You may disapprove of listening to sounds that are not being controlled by a great composer. You may think that art is about control not absence of control. You may think that giving up control is to usher in utter chaos and dark night. Fine. Argue those points, then. At least, for the love of conversation, get the facts right!!
> 
> Thank you, and good night!:tiphat:


First off it's not a 'piece' ... _it's nothing_. It's not music. It's not art. It's a blank score with a longer liner note (which 'attempts' to explain it being art). Secondly, there you go yourself _explaining_ after the fact what that blank score is 'supposed' to be & represent; artistically & musically, intentions etc . ... great art/music doesn't need explanations justifying it's existence, and you can't explain to me why something, anything becomes art, it doesn't work that way. Music & musical composition has a longstanding tradition & legacy "from Bach to Stockhausen". Thirdly no composer, player, group or performance is totally 'in control' - and that's apart of the art in general, which makes each performances vary on a variety of levels ... and in the case of true 'musical' improvisation the players never fully know on a given night where the music can take them - the same can apply to playing a piece of complex music on any given night.


----------



## marmaluot_45

norman bates said:


> But John Cage was a person with a big sense of humour for sure. The problem maybe is that many of his supporters are a bit too seriouses...


dear Norman bates

perhaps you're so young, and life is for you a funnny spot.
I don't know if you work in the society, you'll study perhaps.
You're a man, really.
There is time to be fun, there is time to be serious.
Every man who works hard and trustes in what he does, he don't want been taken for a ride.
If you have a big sense of humor, you can practise it in your house.
When you are in front to working people, i think that the sense of humor is nonsense.
Let it to the actors, to the movies for entertainment.
Life is a serious thing, it is a long way of studies to reach something trough your talent or to accomplish himself.
If you have a terrible headache and your doctor has a big sense of humor, I don't believe you should be happy.

John Cage met many silly men who gave him a title for laughing behind the people who studied hard music seriously in the school while he practised you own sense of humor,
destroying century and century of music.
This is not funny.
I'm a italian music professor and my sense of humor left behind me in my house but no in my school.
I cared my pupils.
Think about it and don't say that anymore.

Please Angelo


----------



## JMJ

Elgarian said:


> So where was the art? It was in the showing. That's what artists do, repeatedly, down through the centuries. They show us things we hadn't noticed ourselves. The _artistic_ skill isn't in the making (that is, in the craft): it's in the perceiving, and in the knowing how to convey that perception to others.


In the context of the stuff being discussed here .. most people get out enough to notice & have noticed these things themselves & amongst each other; believe me. Anyone with a brain notices and that starts early in life making all these observations (skylight or not). And peddling the idea that the kind-of lazy garbage we're talking about here in this thread somehow opens perceptions, is profound & of real artistic merit & substance is a total farce.


----------



## Guest

JMJ said:


> First off it's not a 'piece' ... _it's nothing_. It's not music. It's not art. It's a blank score with a longer liner note (which 'attempts' to explain it being art). Secondly, there you go yourself _explaining_ after the fact what that blank score is 'supposed' to be & represent; artistically & musically, intentions etc .


Well, you obviously haven't seen the score, have you? It is nothing of the sort. Not that the prejudicial language you rely on has made you at all credible, but whatever credibilty you had is now gone.



JMJ said:


> ... great art/music doesn't need explanations justifying it's existence


A lot of great composers would disagree. Beethoven, Berlioz, Wagner,* Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Boulez.... Lots of people--composers, artists, critics--have spent lots of time explaining/justifying whatever the new thing is at the time. Why are all those voices just conveniently forgotten when the discussion veers over to contemporary artists' explanations? (My theory is that it has something to do with wanting to be understood. All artists want to be understood. And when the art work doesn't immediately "communicate," as art works so often fail to do!, then the artist gets to work with words to explain. It's not unusual. It's not mysterious. It's not fallacious.)



JMJ said:


> Thirdly no composer, player, group or performance is totally 'in control' - and that's apart of the art in general, which makes each performances vary on a variety of levels.


Exactly. This is one of Cage's points, did you know? And his choice was to go in that direction rather than try to hold on to a control which was never really complete anyway.

*This one's a bit unusual in writing all the justifications before even one note of the music was written. Wagner spent years writing about and promoting the "music of the future" before ever actually writing any of said music. So radical it needed years of prep before it could even be written!!


----------



## Argus

marmaluot_45 said:


> John Cage met many silly men who gave him a title for laughing behind the people who studied hard music seriously in the school while he practised you own sense of humor,
> destroying century and century of music.
> This is not funny.
> I'm a italian music professor and my sense of humor left behind me in my house but no in my school.
> I cared my pupils.
> Think about it and don't say that anymore.
> 
> Please Angelo


John Cage didn't destroy anything. He expanded the area of music. People are still free to listen to Mahler or compose in a similar style to Bruckner. Cage just opened up and built new paths for other musicians to follow.

You're basically saying that humour doesn't belong in music. That music is 'serious business'. I presume you think people who don't share your view are wrong. Isn't that a rather unnecessary restriction to impose upon an artform.

I don't want to pick apart your post too much because I understand you aren't too familiar with the English language, but I'll just say i disagree with everything you have said in this thread, especially your separation of Cage and Stockhausen from Mahler and Bruckner.

I find it hard that people can dislike the man and his work so much. He made a living out of doing exactly what he wanted to, with very little compromise on his ideas. That's no mean feat considering how radical he was.

4'33'' > all of Mahler's and Bruckner's symphonies


----------



## jhar26

Argus said:


> 4'33'' > all of Mahler's and Bruckner's symphonies


So you'd rather get a recording of 4'33" as a birthday present than one of them Mahler or Bruckner box sets? :lol:


----------



## Argus

jhar26 said:


> So you'd rather get a recording of 4'33" as a birthday present than one of them Mahler or Bruckner box sets? :lol:


Yeah, sorry to inform you but,

4'33'' > all opera

:tiphat:


----------



## jhar26

Argus said:


> Yeah, sorry to inform you but,
> 
> 4'33'' > all opera
> 
> :tiphat:


Never mind me. I'm just a bum who shouldn't even be posting on a forum with so many smart people as TC. I'm always happy when one of my superiors makes me see the errors of my ways though. :lol:


----------



## Argus

jhar26 said:


> Never mind me. I'm just a bum who even shouldn't be posting on a forum with so many smart people as TC. I'm always happy when one of my superiors makes me see the errors of my ways though.


The important thing is that you learned and returned. Also,

4'33'' > anything Argerich has ever recorded

Just so you know for future reference, or in case you were in any doubt as to the way things are.


----------



## jhar26

Argus said:


> The important thing is that you learned and returned. Also,
> 
> 4'33'' > anything Argerich has ever recorded
> 
> Just so you know for future reference, or in case you were in any doubt as to the way things are.


4'33" > anything Black Sabbath ever recorded somehow sounds more logical to me.


----------



## Guest

If Argerich ever records a performance of _4' 33",_ though....

It _could_ happen!


----------



## JMJ

some guy said:


> Well, you obviously haven't seen the score, have you? It is nothing of the sort. Not that the prejudicial language you rely on has made you at all credible, but whatever credibilty you had is now gone.


whatever, it's essentially an empty page ... and player(s) play nothing.



some guy said:


> A lot of great composers would disagree. Beethoven, Berlioz, Wagner,* Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Boulez.... Lots of people--composers, artists, critics--have spent lots of time explaining/justifying whatever the new thing is at the time. Why are all those voices just conveniently forgotten when the discussion veers over to contemporary artists' explanations? (My theory is that it has something to do with wanting to be understood. All artists want to be understood. And when the art work doesn't immediately "communicate," as art works so often fail to do!, then the artist gets to work with words to explain. It's not unusual. It's not mysterious. It's not fallacious.)


You're confusing real substantial music & talent with lazy "non-art"; the difference being that the knowing is backed up strongly by the going ... so it's not just empty rhetoric or talk.



some guy said:


> Exactly. This is one of Cage's points, did you know? And his choice was to go in that direction rather than try to hold on to a control which was never really complete anyway.


Yea but i was talking about that to a degree where musicianship, skill & talent is still very much involved to a very high degree. Cage had no point ... it's not necessary to leap to such silly extremes to the point where there virtually 'little or no control' and it becomes random unfocused unmusical nonsense for just the sake of it.



some guy said:


> *This one's a bit unusual in writing all the justifications before even one note of the music was written. Wagner spent years writing about and promoting the "music of the future" before ever actually writing any of said music. So radical it needed years of prep before it could even be written!!


Yea but Wagner backed up the words with some of the greatest & most profound music ever written having a huge impact on music, big difference. Again, don't confuse the real stuff with non-art gimmicks and posturing.


----------



## jhar26

some guy said:


> If Argerich ever records a performance of _4' 33",_ though....
> 
> It _could_ happen!


Knowing Argerich she'll probably get through 4'33" in 3'33" :lol:


----------



## marmaluot_45

Argus said:


> John Cage didn't destroy anything. He expanded the area of music. People are still free to listen to Mahler or compose in a similar style to Bruckner. Cage just opened up and built new paths for other musicians to follow.


Dear Argus

I read your post, but I read your another postes.
Why in your particular classification you put on the top of your taste musicians as Segovia, Paganini, ecc.?
Nobody among them followed Cage.
Why do you defend Cage but behind do you prefer very different things?

You said you don't want talk with me because my english is to weak.
Golia is afraid of David, perhaps?

I'm braver than you, then; who leaves the battle field, is lost.


----------



## marmaluot_45

Argus said:


> You're basically saying that humour doesn't belong in music. That music is 'serious business'. I presume you think people who don't share your view are wrong. Isn't that a rather unnecessary restriction to impose upon an artform.


All is art, for you. Good.

Say me what is the different between the Sistina Cappella of Michelangelo and the purple wall of Rothko?
If for you, all is art, then the war is art?
A living performance of the angry men?
The meaning of the words are powerful, we can't use in this manner.
I had students as you who don't unterstand the meaning of words.
In your avatar, i knew a great electric guitarist: Frank Marino.

Marino don't follows Cage, then the ways are open, where are these?

I would like that Marino and his group permormed the 4' 33'', what sohuld say the audience?

It's true everybody are free to follow there or those,but it seems to me you chose these right.
You done well.
Why do you defend Cage yet?
I would like that Marino and his group performed 4' 33'' of Cage,what should the audience say?


----------



## Lukecash12

Haven't we had this discussion already? We have definitely established that some people think there is actual substance in music, while everyone else has tried to convince them that the only substance is how one interprets music. Definition of music:



> an artistic form of auditory communication incorporating instrumental or vocal tones in a structured and continuous manner


4'33 is structured because it is a measured interval of time in which the pianist sits at the keyboard. So, it is by definition music. In spite of the claims that people who pretend to get 4'33 are guilty of snobbery, it seems that people who are convinced that it isn't music are guilty of snobbery.


----------



## marmaluot_45

Lukecash12 said:


> Haven't we had this discussion already? We have definitely established that some people think there is actual substance in music, while everyone else has tried to convince them that the only substance is how one interprets music. Definition of music:
> 
> 4'33 is structured because it is a measured interval of time in which the pianist sits at the keyboard. So, it is by definition music. In spite of the claims that people who pretend to get 4'33 are guilty of snobbery, it seems that people who are convinced that it isn't music are guilty of snobbery.


Dear Luke

In the Urss-era, before the second great war, Sostakovich and Prokofiev, were charged to despise the russian popular soul with their caotic and misunterstanding music.
In front of comunist congress, the both abjured and unterstood.
After this fact, the both musicians created their famous masteworks.

You study math, chemistry and other, what should you say if the grammar disappeared?
Try to write a physical law or a mathematic demonstration without grammar and syntax, then we see, after a few time, who will makes to work a telephone, a computer, a water-pump ecc...
Guys be careful, rules are most important, and must be respect.
Without rules, no art, only mess.

Attention guys, the greeks had yet solved the problem of no contraddiction:

Muisc is not what the people think but music is what the people make really and it can't exist music and other music, in accordance to own thoughts, but exist the music.

Music has the rules which we must respect in order to listen to that with joy and happyness.

I can say that the rules of music offer many possibility which the tradition build and consolidate.

Modal music and diatonic music, behind don't exist music but noise.

Go in the workshop listening to the beautiful music of the milling cutter,lathe , hammer. there are few musical intervals but no silence.
here there isn't the snobbery or the fantastic solution of Cage.

alkjfkaffafsdfadffsafaf

Unterstood !!! my regards in your language.
I can't stand of that mess, but it is what you say in the beginning of your post, people say yes, people say no.

Then kldjfaslòidfkjfdfa unterstood, no!!! Damage, i'm sorry.


----------



## Guest

marmaluot_45 said:


> Guys be careful, rules are most important, and must be respect.


This is a tough point to argue in a language you can just barely control. Your posts are full of errors--grammatical and orthographic. And yet you keep writing to us. Apparently you expect us to understand you even in the broken English you use.

It is, indeed, a mess.

And yet, we do understand you. So there's two things working against your point. One, in spite of your trampling all over the "rules," you still expect us to understand you. Two, in spite of your trampling all over the "rules," we can still understand you.

In spite of the mess.

Well, mostly. This bit isn't working at all:



marmaluot_45 said:


> Muisc is not what the people think but music is what the people make really and it can't exist music and other music, in accordance to own thoughts, but exist the music.


In any case, even were none of that operating in this situation, your lecturing tone is not going to go down too well. While there are many people on this board who are young and ignorant, there are many who are not. But you're lecturing all of us. And you've particularly singled out the ones who I'd venture to guess have thought more and more deeply than you about music. We should be lecturing you!!



marmaluot_45 said:


> Music has the rules which we must respect in order to listen to that with joy and happyness.


In general, and out of context, I could almost find myself agreeing with this. But you made it abundantly clear (albeit a trifle messily!!) that you think that only the rules of modal and diatonic music are valid. Well, we do disagree, what can I say? I know by my own ears that you're wrong. To rebut me, you'll have to invalidate my years of listening, with joy and happiness, to a lot of music you would consider just noise.

Sadly, I'm sure that you and JMJ* will be happy to do that. Well, people with axes to grind are going to grind them regardless. I must simply make sure not to be in the room when the axes are sharp, that's all!!

*Are you who I think you are? No wonder!! (So you've finally found a new board where you can indulge in your favorite sport of Cage-bashing, eh? Wow. If I had that much energy, I think I'd put it into listening to music (or hanging out with hot chicks or something), not with composer bashing. But, to each his own. Anyway, if it's you, consider me laughing my heinie off!! After which, I will go back, sedately, to listening to music, with or without the female companionship scurrilously alluded to earlier.)


----------



## marmaluot_45

some guy said:


> This is a tough point to argue in a language you can just barely control. Your posts are full of errors--grammatical and orthographic. And yet you keep writing to us. Apparently you expect us to understand you even in the broken English you use.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I know, students are somewhere; I teached music theory and history of music for 40 years, and I recognize the subtil strategy.
> Your behaviour is a disrespectful act against me and my professionality.
> Instead to thank to me for my efforts in your language and my teachings. you answer me so.
> 
> You're brave, go in my field, music is a universal language, try to fight me in that.
> 
> I see that you know few of the wisdom; it's true, you''ll be young.
> 
> Dear guy, I make mistakes and thank to you,but tell me where, I can improving my english.
> 
> I made an example. I try to let you think.
> 
> Follow the example and think.
> If you write, it means you could unterstand me or not.
> 
> Then you can cheat people just once but not twice.
> John Cage will be nevermore.
> Vox populi vox dei
> The voice of the people, is the voice of God.
> 
> People has a deep soul and a perfect reason.
> He recognize the cheats.
> When the taste of people were in accordance with the art, these discussions weren't.
> These chattings and phylosophings weren't.
> 
> I will make mistake, it is logic, but i hope that you won't make them.
> 
> prova a scrivere in italiano e rispondi a questa domanda ci fai o ci sei?
> Se riesci a rispondermi , io vado a baciare la tomba di John Cage!!!
> Vedi io faccio lo sforzo nella globalizzazione delle menti e del sapere, e cerco anche di imparare la lingua degli altri, nonostante i miei sessant'anni.
> Vedo che però da parete vostra questo sforzo non c'è, allora cosa globalizziamo le menti?
> Uniti per che cosa se dobbiamo ancora capire qualcosa sulla musica?
> Credimi devi fare uno sforzo enorme, così non si può andare avanti.
> Pensavo che Internet offrisse cose interessanti e grandi scambi culturali, ma non è così.
> Allora? neanche l'istruzione di un uomo colto come me, può dare un contributo alle vostre anime?
> Allora dobbiamo smettere di parlare e lasciare andare la cosa.
> Pensi che abbia fatto degli errori di ortografia o di sintassi?
> 
> Sorry in english!!!
> 
> You think I made orthographic and sintax mistakes?
> If you spoke my language, I'll reward you for your efforts
> 
> Bye


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*LET'S REVIEW*


> *Do not post comments about another members person or »posting style« (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.* From Forum Rules & Terms of Service


Example of an "ad-hom"- labelling as an idiot anyone who has an opinion contrary to one's own.

Example of "getting personal"- potentially revealing a poster's real name, irrespective of whether or not that user has any wish to have that information disseminated.

Example of a comment about one's posting style, other than unmistakably positive- calling attention to the imprecisions involved in a person's good-faith effort to communicate in an unfamiliar language.

Thread closed for repairs, based on aforementioned points.


----------

