John Cage "4'33"

lordgoat

So what do people think of this? Is it music? What is it?
I have nothing to say and i am saying it

A load of ol' bollocks or a piece of genius.

Here's the version with an orchestra.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E

mike65

Version with orchestra! I like a good piss take.

Its a clever gimmick - silence is its own reward and absence is a sort of presence so you can say the piece has merit.

But Cage was really just chancing his arm or he was very up his own arse.

Mike.

johnny_ultimate

I was 'shown' this by a friend a few weeks ago and I absolutely despise it. I feel it is pretentious and unecessary.

It's a gimmick, perhaps faintly amusing on youtube. But if someone played it at a concert Id be royally pissed off :mad:

Sinfonia

lordgoat wrote:

A load of ol' bollocks or a piece of genius.

It's just art, and the same question could be asked for any piece of art or music, really. The point of the piece is the concept, as far as I see it. It's an interesting concept, and to be fair, I'd rather listen to 4'33" than a lot of other pieces of music:p .

John

Genious. Not because it's "OMG teh man on stage is playing nothing" but because at the time it forced many composers and musicians to realise that not all music was happening on the stage, that all sound in the right context is music. So in the case of a concert hall, the sounds of people coughing, clearing their throats, the traffic outside, etc. become the music. Of course you may see this as pretentious (and I freely admit it is) but pretension isn't always a bad thing. It takes some neck to go out and deliberately not play something to an audience. Most importantly, like all great art, it provokes a reaction in the audience.

There are a couple of books out there which go through the ideas behind the piece, the best in my opinion being Conversations with Cage.

Definitely one of the most important men in music. Most of his pieces may not be listenable but his ideas in different musical contexts have had huge resonance (pun intended) since he started composing.

lordgoat

John wrote:

Genious. Not because it's "OMG teh man on stage is playing nothing" but because at the time it forced many composers and musicians to realise that not all music was happening on the stage, that all sound in the right context is music. So in the case of a concert hall, the sounds of people coughing, clearing their throats, the traffic outside, etc. become the music. Of course you may see this as pretentious (and I freely admit it is) but pretension isn't always a bad thing. It takes some neck to go out and deliberately not play something to an audience. Most importantly, like all great art, it provokes a reaction in the audience.

There are a couple of books out there which go through the ideas behind the piece, the best in my opinion being Conversations with Cage.

Definitely one of the most important men in music. Most of his pieces may not be listenable but his ideas in different musical contexts have had huge resonance (pun intended) since he started composing.

I can see alot of what you're saying but another part of me is unconvinced. I def agree with Cage having alot of balls/arrogance to actually play nothing. But i can never imagine anyone saying "You know what? stick on 4 33 there i haven't heard it in ages" It will always be talked about more than listened to and that for me is not what music is about. Of course you can see the originality and quirkiness that you'd never hear the same performance from the same listen twice but again i'm not sure if this is a good thing. Good points well made though.

Sinfonia

I remember reading a quote from John Cage where he spoke about conducting many performances of 4'33" in the woods and other places (sorry I can't remember exactly what it was), which I thought was a nice idea.

John

lordgoat wrote:

ut i can never imagine anyone saying "You know what? stick on 4 33 there i haven't heard it in ages" It will always be talked about more than listened to and that for me is not what music is about.

Well I don't think it's something you can just stick on, it's definitely a performance piece (although many, many recordings exist). The whole point of Cage's work is a celebration of the random and unique, recordings of many of his works kind of go against the spirit of the pieces.

John

Actually, I just watched that video for the first time there, it's hilarious that everyone is afraid to cough during it, when the first movement ends and everyone coughs is brilliant!

grumpytrousers

John wrote:

It's definitely a performance piece

You're so right; i do a mean rendition of it using just kazoo and bagpipes

John

Heheh, I don't think your kazoo silence is a match for my teacup and six library book version.

BaZmO*

Pure Genius! In fact, it's one of the first compositions that I learned to play on my imaginary piano. Granted it took me a while to master it, but with sheer hard work, determination and practice I was finally able to perform this masterpiece.

Anyway, pure pretentious nonsense. It just goes to show how gullible some "arty" types are. Emperor's new clothes if you ask me. I'm all for art being challenging and for it to go against the grain, it's actually what makes art great but sometimes you need to stand up and say "Get the Fúck!!!"

I suppose the only good thing about this "performance" is that you don't need a top of the range Bang & Olufsen speaker system to appreciate it's genius. :rolleyes:

grumpytrousers

John wrote:

Heheh, I don't think your kazoo silence is a match for my teacup and six library book version.

The Vienna Boys Choir and Nine Inch Nails collaborated on a great version ,with a guest spot from, if i'm not mistaken, the late great George Melly on it. It's wonderful, and i suggest (at the risk of being banned) that you fire up your filesharing programs to track it down...

cornbb

Its not music in the normal sense, granted, but it is art in one of its purest forms - totally original, creative, and a bit shocking.

Cage's idea was to force people to listen to the mundane almost inaudible sounds that surround us every day. The composition was inspired by "white" paintings that showed that even white paint on canvas has its own lighting and texture and is unique depending on the angle you view it from. He drew the parallel between this and its aural equivalent.

It originally struck me as pretentious too, but when the idea behind it was explained to me I thought it was pretty cool. It has huge, huge quantities of artistic and creative merit, much more so than the vast majority of music that has been written in the meantime.

Setun

johnny_ultimate wrote:

I was 'shown' this by a friend a few weeks ago and I absolutely despise it. I feel it is pretentious and unecessary.

It's a gimmick, perhaps faintly amusing on youtube. But if someone played it at a concert Id be royally pissed off :mad:

You loved it really

I think it's a great piece. It's not necessarily music fair enough, but for me it's Cage conveying his idea in a fairly extreme manner in order to force people to think about the sounds they hear around them. I think that the piece definitely serves it's purpose in that regard.

mike65

grumpytrousers wrote:

The Vienna Boys Choir and Nine Inch Nails collaborated on a great version ,with a guest spot from, if i'm not mistaken, the late great George Melly on it. It's wonderful, and i suggest (at the risk of being banned) that you fire up your filesharing programs to track it down...

I doubt it beats the version which featured a Dave Lee Roth & Montserrat Caballe duet backed by Paddy 'pay and play' Moloney.

Mike.

cornbb

mike65 wrote:

I doubt it beats the version which featured a Dave Lee Roth & Montserrat Caballe duet backed by Paddy 'pay and play' Moloney.

Mike.

I'm playing it right now, with the cup of coffee on my desk.

BaZmO*

cornbb wrote:

Its not music in the normal sense

It's not music in any sense.

But how can it be this....

cornbb wrote:

but it is art in one of its purest forms - totally original, creative, and a bit shocking.

if it was just inspired by "white" paintings?

It's just derivative pretentious nonsense. As an artistic concept it had already been done. But then again art is in the eye, or in this case the ear of the beholder.

cornbb

BaZmO* wrote:

It's not music in any sense.

Music by many people's definition, in the very broadest sense, is simply organised sound. Just because you won't hear something on the radio, or because it doesn't contain the familiar scales and rhythms we hear every day, doesn't make it not music. But this piece pushes the boundaries of even these definitions, I'll grant you that.

But how can it be this....

if it was just inspired by "white" paintings?

It was inspired by the paintings, it uses a completely different medium (i.e. sound).

It may not have toe-tapping value, but it has tons of artistic value, thats the point here.

For a bit of perspective, here is one of my favourite Cage pieces. Again its not a toe-tapper, but if you consider it was composed in 1939 its a pretty groundbreaking work, from the point of view of exploring new sounds, and in the way technology was used to create such music. Think of it as the aural equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVN_mxVntXk

mike65

The theremin was already old hat by 1939, sounds like an out-take from Forbidden Planet.

Mike.

cornbb

mike65 wrote:

The theremin was already old hat by 1939, sounds like an out-take from Forbidden Planet.

Mike.

No one else was using turntables/vinyl in performances back then though

grumpytrousers

cornbb wrote:

Music by many people's definition, in the very broadest sense, is simply organised sound.

If i'm misquoting or misunderstanding you, i'm sorry...but isn't the point of 4 33 that none of the sound is organised at all. I mean, say you were to sit down in the national concert hall and have it 'performed' for you, the 'performance' is 4 minutes and 33 seconds of an orchestra doing bog all PLUS the chair of the person next to you squeaking, and the person behind you wheezing, the occasional sniff of the bunged up soul in the back row, etc?

And if the orchestra were to do a second 'performance' the rendition you would hear, or a bootleg recorder would get (:D) would be completely different.

Thus there's no organisation of sound, per se, it's completely random and as such not, by any stretch of the imagination music. Art yes. Music no?

BaZmO*

cornbb wrote:

Music by many people's definition, in the very broadest sense, is simply organised sound. Just because you won't hear something on the radio, or because it doesn't contain the familiar scales and rhythms we hear every day, doesn't make it not music. But this piece pushes the boundaries of even these definitions, I'll grant you that.

According to Merriam-Webster "Music" is defined as...

1 a : the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony
2 a : an agreeable sound : EUPHONY <her voice was music to my ears> b : musical quality <the music of verse>
3 : a musical accompaniment <a play set to music>
4 : the score of a musical composition set down on paper
5 : a distinctive type or category of music <there is a music for everybody -- Eric Salzman>

Which proves that "4'33" is my no means in any way shape or form a musical piece. But in fairness, I don't think the notion of it being a musical piece was ever up for debate. What is up for debate is the artistic merit of the "performance" and as I've stated already, I feel that the piece is just a copy of an artistic idea/concept that has already been done before in the form of pieces like "white" paintings.

You say that it was "inspired by the paintings" and that "it uses a completely different medium (i.e. sound)" but does that not just prove that it's not exactly groundbreaking or original, in fact it was just a tired and lazy natural progression from the visual art to aural art, i.e sound.


On a different point, wasn't there some legal issues regarding the copyright of this piece or something similar? I remember seeing something on the news around the time of this "performance"

cornbb

grumpytrousers wrote:

Thus there's no organisation of sound, per se, it's completely random and as such not, by any stretch of the imagination music. Art yes. Music no?

Its organised in the sense that the lack of sound is intentional. There is a score, but there are no notes written on it. This is a stretch of the imagination, but everything about 4'33" is I suppose.

BaZmO* wrote:

According to Merriam-Webster "Music" is defined as...

Quote:
1 a : the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony
2 a : an agreeable sound : EUPHONY <her voice was music to my ears> b : musical quality <the music of verse>
3 : a musical accompaniment <a play set to music>
4 : the score of a musical composition set down on paper
5 : a distinctive type or category of music <there is a music for everybody -- Eric Salzman>
Which proves that "4'33" is my no means in any way shape or form a musical piece. But in fairness, I don't think the notion of it being a musical piece was ever up for debate.

And the wikipedia entry for Music says:

Music is an art, entertainment, or other human activity that involves organized and audible sound, though definitions may vary.

So the definition of music is certainly up for debate.

What is up for debate is the artistic merit of the "performance" and as I've stated already, I feel that the piece is just a copy of an artistic idea/concept that has already been done before in the form of pieces like "white" paintings.

You say that it was "inspired by the paintings" and that "it uses a completely different medium (i.e. sound)" but does that not just prove that it's not exactly groundbreaking or original, in fact it was just a tired and lazy natural progression from the visual art to aural art, i.e sound.

Its not just that though, it explores a different idea. Cage spent some time in an anechoic chamber (a soundproof room that has no echoes/reverberations), thought he would hear complete silence but heard the beating of his heart and the high pitched buzz caused by his central nervous system. He set out to make the listener notice the ambient sounds that always surround us. If you think 4'33" is a ripoff, or derivative in any sense, think of it in the context of the masses of music you hear every day. There has never been anything like it. Its likely that your favourite artist/band's latest album contains chords, scales, rhythms, instruments, and verse-chorus-verse structures that have been done literally millions of times before. I'm not slagging them off, I'm just saying that everything is derived from something.

4'33" is about as artsy-fartsy and pretentious as you can get, I'll grant you that. But people have been discussing it for 50 years (not just slagging it off, either), I think it has merit alright.

grumpytrousers

I'll stand with you shoulder to shoulder on the art front. I'll back you to the hilt on the idea Cage was trying to express of ambient noise and so forth. I'll be the first to defend the notion that as an expression of 'something to make one think' it's definitely doing its job.

But i'm sorry; you're wrong on the music front . And please, don't say that just 'cos the wikipedia definition doesn't tie in with your opinion that the 'definition is certainly up for debate'.

put it like this; if I urinate in a bucket, is that music? And just cos I publish a 'score' for this, doesn't make it any more 'musical'. If what you say of the 'score' for 4 33 exists, then are all stores that sell blank manuscript books breaching copyright? (Mods, move to Legal issues if you like!)

You can't just equate the result of an activity that stimulates (or fails to!) the nerve endings in the ear with being music, any more than you could call the result of a head on collision between two cars, which stimilates the nerve endings in the eyes, a sculpture...

BaZmO*

cornbb wrote:

And the wikipedia entry for Music says:

Ah c'mon! You should know the rules by now, if you use wiki to prove your point you lose!

cornbb wrote:

If you think 4'33" is a ripoff, or derivative in any sense, think of it in the context of the masses of music you hear every day. There has never been anything like it. Its likely that your favourite artist/band's latest album contains chords, scales, rhythms, instruments, and verse-chorus-verse structures that have been done literally millions of times before. I'm not slagging them off, I'm just saying that everything is derived from something.

4'33" is about as artsy-fartsy and pretentious as you can get, I'll grant you that. But people have been discussing it for 50 years (not just slagging it off, either), I think it has merit alright.

I don't think I ever said that it was a ripoff, I just said that it wasn't original and groundbreaking as you were making it out to be.

I'm with grumpytrousers on this one. I'm all for art and for the notion that art should make you think outside the box and challenge ideas and notions that are considered the norm, that's a healthy thing. But it also needs to be honest in what it's trying to achieve and I don't think that in this case "4'33" is being that honest if it's calling itself a musical piece, but having said that I don't think it is. It's an artistic performance not a musical performance.

cornbb

grumpytrousers wrote:

But i'm sorry; you're wrong on the music front . And please, don't say that just 'cos the wikipedia definition doesn't tie in with your opinion that the 'definition is certainly up for debate'.

But if its not up for debate what is the definition of music then? No dictionary or musicologist in the world will agree on that. Have a look here and see how little consensus there is. Here are some of the non-bullshít definitions:

# an artistic form of auditory communication incorporating instrumental or vocal tones in a structured and continuous manner
# any agreeable (pleasing and harmonious) sounds; "he fell asleep to the music of the wind chimes"
# musical activity (singing or whistling etc.); "his music was his central interest"
# (music) the sounds produced by singers or musical instruments (or reproductions of such sounds)

# Music is an art, entertainment, or other human activity that involves organized and audible sound, though definitions may vary.

# organised sound
www.waikato.ac.nz/film/handbook/glossary.html

# The organization of sounds with some degree of rhythm, melody, and harmony.

# Music has been defined as generally as "organized sound" and specifically so as to require an entire book to define. A general definition may best be defined as "sounds and pitches organized in time to create a chosen artistic or aestetic statement." Music is both an art and a craft, based on acoustic principles, yet subject to various interpretations, hence its artistic merit. Because of this, we study the craft so that we might better appreciate the art expressed in music.

# Organized sound; the written-down representation of those sounds.

# THEMATIC MELODY - MUSIC THAT IS ESTABLISHED AND THEN REPRISED IN VARIATIONS.

# The only sensual pleasure without vice. [Samuel Johnson]

# Music is the diarrhea of the intellect.

# Broadly speaking, sounds organized to express a wide variety of human emotions.

I'll stand by my assertion that 4'33" can be music, depending on the definition, and it is music according to several of those definitions. Of course it is not music according to others. Its all about how people interpret it I suppose.

BaZmO*

cornbb wrote:

I'll stand by my assertion that 4'33" can be music, depending on the definition

But that's like saying a car can be a boat, depending on the definition.

cornbb

BaZmO* wrote:

I'm with grumpytrousers on this one. I'm all for art and for the notion that art should make you think outside the box and challenge ideas and notions that are considered the norm, that's a healthy thing. But it also needs to be honest in what it's trying to achieve and I don't think that in this case "4'33" is being that honest if it's calling itself a musical piece, but having said that I don't think it is. It's an artistic performance not a musical performance.

Fair nuff, you're entitled to your own personal interpretation of music. Cage was a loony artist, I think he was a genius (not because of 4'33" though). He himself certainly thought of it as music. Let him, I say.

cornbb

BaZmO* wrote:

But that's like saying a car can be a boat, depending on the definition.

There is no possible definition of boat loose/broad enough to allow someone to describe a car as a boat. There are widely accepted definitions of music loose/broad enough to describe 4'33" as music.

BaZmO*

cornbb wrote:

Fair nuff, you're entitled to your own personal interpretation of music. Cage was a loony artist, I think he was a genius (not because of 4'33" though). He himself certainly thought of it as music. Let him, I say.

Indeed.

cornbb wrote:

There are widely accepted definitions of music loose/broad enough to describe 4'33" as music.

I really don't think there are. I think that you would find that the general consensus as to what does and what doesn't constitute as music would certainly not agree that 4'33 is music. I'll say it again, it's performance art with a musical theme and not music.

grumpytrousers

cornbb wrote:

There is no possible definition of boat loose/broad enough to allow someone to describe a car as a boat. There are widely accepted definitions of music loose/broad enough to describe 4'33" as music.

but most of the 'definitions/opinions' you cited use the word 'organised' but we've already agreed (haven't we?) that in any given performance of 4'33" there's nothing organised, per se, apart from the 'nothingness' given by the 'performers'; the audible manifestation of the piece - the 'background noise (if you will) - isn't organised in any coherent, transcribed manner, is it? The chap who coughs at 27 seconds in doesn't do it every time it's performed. It's not 'scored'.

I mean, as we go down your list, towards the end, there's the one "Music is the diarrhea of the intellect" which doesn't really define anything in any coherent terms specific to music, and you might just as well replace the word 'music' there with 'blogging' and nobody would turn a hair. Or 'posting on boards.ie' for that matter. (Guilty, as charged by the way, M'lud!)

"Broadly speaking, sounds organized to express a wide variety of human emotions". Again, there's 'broadly speaking' and then there's this. To go back to my 'urination in a bucket' meisterwork (which I'm currently hawking around to some top record companies, i might add), isn't *that* an expression of a wide variety of human emotions, not least relief at finally letting out the nine pints of cheap lager that have been swooshing around in the bladder earlier! But even i'll tell you it's not music (tho' if somebody wants to give me a million euro advance, i'll take it!)

I'll take your point that it's 'art with a musical theme' and perhaps we should leave it at that!

mike65

This may be the most 'upper-sixth' thread currently running on boards.

Meanwhile

Art for arts sake, money for Gods sake

BaZmO* wrote:

On a different point, wasn't there some legal issues regarding the copyright of this piece or something similar? I remember seeing something on the news around the time of this "performance"

Indeed Mike "Remember You're a Womble" Batt was accused of copywrite infringment when he did an edited version of 4'33' called A Minute's Silence on a CD.

Mike.

John

BaZmO* wrote:

According to Merriam-Webster "Music" is defined as...

And John Cage (who was a philosopher of music as well as a composer) defined music as (and I'm paraphrasing because the book is at home): all sound is music. So in a Cagean sense, 4'33" is music. And as for the argument that it can't be music because it's not organised, organisation does not necessarily remove random elements. In fact, it was a love of the random that inspired Cage most and one of his aims was to question the thought of music just being "organised" sound. Many of his scores were composed using random methods like dice and the I Ching and some of them are quite listenable. Free jazz like Albert Ayler is random and not organised in any traditional sense and it's still music. The sounds of nature are musical but something like a waterfall or the wind isn't organised. Organisation is just one route to take in making music, it is not the be all and end all.

mike65 wrote:

Indeed Mike "Remember You're a Womble" Batt was accused of copywrite infringment when he did an edited version of 4'33' called A Minute's Silence on a CD.

Loads of people have used silence on compositions/albums but he's the only one who got in trouble because he credited the silence to John Cage and didn't pay any royalties to his estate, if he hadn't put Cage's name down there would have been nothing made of it.

Setun

John wrote:

And John Cage (who was a philosopher of music as well as a composer) defined music as (and I'm paraphrasing because the book is at home): all sound is music. So in a Cagean sense, 4'33" is music. And as for the argument that it can't be music because it's not organised, organisation does not necessarily remove random elements. In fact, it was a love of the random that inspired Cage most and one of his aims was to question the thought of music just being "organised" sound. Many of his scores were composed using random methods like dice and the I Ching and some of them are quite listenable. Free jazz like Albert Ayler is random and not organised in any traditional sense and it's still music. The sounds of nature are musical but something like a waterfall or the wind isn't organised. Organisation is just one route to take in making music, it is not the be all and end all.

Here here!

Agree with the above. As soon as people start exploring definitions they realise how flawed and/or ambiguous they can be - my tutor at college is always talking about this.

Actually the other day I was walking alongside a busy road and three cars beeped their horns simultaneously. The weird part was that they were three different cars - and their horns harmonised. Cage would have dug it.

BaZmO*

John wrote:

And John Cage (who was a philosopher of music as well as a composer) defined music as (and I'm paraphrasing because the book is at home): all sound is music. So in a Cagean sense, 4'33" is music. And as for the argument that it can't be music because it's not organised, organisation does not necessarily remove random elements. In fact, it was a love of the random that inspired Cage most and one of his aims was to question the thought of music just being "organised" sound. Many of his scores were composed using random methods like dice and the I Ching and some of them are quite listenable. Free jazz like Albert Ayler is random and not organised in any traditional sense and it's still music. The sounds of nature are musical but something like a waterfall or the wind isn't organised. Organisation is just one route to take in making music, it is not the be all and end all.

But that's getting away from the reason why I quoted the definition of music from the dictionary. I only quoted it because cornbb suggested the notion of what defines music.

4'33 doesn't have any of the elements that you listed above apart from a performance of nothingness, that's not music it's performance arts.

You could quite easily argue that his other other pieces push the boundaries of what is and what isn't music as we know it whether it be organised or not organised but it still uses sound as the media.

You could also argue that the definition of music being "The organisation of sounds with some degree of rhythm, melody, and harmony" is flawed due to the fact that whether or not it has a perceived organisation by very virtue of the piece being conceived by the composer it has been organised.

Whoah! This is all getting too heavy....I need a pint!

John

BaZmO* wrote:

But that's getting away from the reason why I quoted the definition of music from the dictionary. I only quoted it because cornbb suggested the notion of what defines music.

I think it's all relevant to a discussion of Cage

4'33 doesn't have any of the elements that you listed above apart from a performance of nothingness, that's not music it's performance arts.

But it does, it's not a performance of nothingness and Cage always maintained it wasn't a silent piece, that is missing the point entirely. It is a way of forcing the performer and the audience to shut up and pay attention to the random sounds around them (so there is a degree of organisation on one level if you want to discuss it from that side). It is the same to me as stopping what I'm doing and listening to the traffic or birdsong or whatever noise I happen to notice. Sure people would do this anyway but Cage forced people to take it seriously, to treat this natural/random music as you would treat Beethoven's Fifth or "All Along the Watchtower".

You could quite easily argue that his other other pieces push the boundaries of what is and what isn't music as we know it whether it be organised or not organised but it still uses sound as the media.

I think that's what I'm trying to do but I'm not sure any more

You could also argue that the definition of music being "The organisation of sounds with some degree of rhythm, melody, and harmony" is flawed due to the fact that whether or not it has a perceived organisation by very virtue of the piece being conceived by the composer it has been organised.

I think that is a very valid interpretation and I'd tend to agree with it.

Whoah! This is all getting too heavy....I need a pint!

In the spirit of Cage it'd better be an empty glass!

BaZmO*

John wrote:

In the spirit of Cage it'd better be an empty glass!

Haha!

mike65

Pete Townshend beat you to it.

Mike.

Sinfonia

John wrote:

And John Cage (who was a philosopher of music as well as a composer) defined music as (and I'm paraphrasing because the book is at home): all sound is music. So in a Cagean sense, 4'33" is music. And as for the argument that it can't be music because it's not organised, organisation does not necessarily remove random elements. In fact, it was a love of the random that inspired Cage most and one of his aims was to question the thought of music just being "organised" sound. Many of his scores were composed using random methods like dice and the I Ching and some of them are quite listenable. Free jazz like Albert Ayler is random and not organised in any traditional sense and it's still music. The sounds of nature are musical but something like a waterfall or the wind isn't organised. Organisation is just one route to take in making music, it is not the be all and end all.

Exactly what I was going to say.


The music is created by chance from outside sounds.
Music does not have to be created by a traditional musical instrument necessarily. And tones do not have to be within a certain range to be considered musical - dragging a chair across a floor makes a sound, which can be applied to a system of notation (A, Bb, B, C, etc.)

What Cage is doing is creating music using non-traditional elements, and combining this with the element of chance/random composition.
Therefore, I consider this piece to be music, by it's very definition.

Obviously Cage then pushes this boundary further, by having each performance undergo a new process of chance, rather than having one definitive version - this makes the piece ever-changing, and gives it another level (plus, it takes away the need to score "Chair in 3rd row plays B flat":D ).

These are my impressions on the piece anyway.

Mr.Nice Guy

People who believe this to be "art" or "genius" are seriously deluded. This is exactly like the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. People were duped into believing that the Emperor was wearing "invisible" clothes and told that only stupid people couldn't see the clothes. Therfore they all pretended that they could see them and that they were magnificent. Eventually a child shouts out "but he's not wearing anything!" and thus the people realise this to be true.

Similarly if you show this video to a child he'll proclaim, "but he's not doing anything!"

To people who think this is a work of magnificence I would say stop being sheep and realise that it's pure bullsh*t.

cornbb

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

People who believe this to be "art" or "genius" are seriously deluded. This is exactly like the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. People were duped into believing that the Emperor was wearing "invisible" clothes and told that only stupid people couldn't see the clothes. Therfore they all pretended that they could see them and that they were magnificent. Eventually a child shouts out "but he's not wearing anything!" and thus the people realise this to be true.

Similarly if you show this video to a child he'll proclaim, "but he's not doing anything!"

To people who think this is a work of magnificence I would say stop being sheep and realise that it's pure bullsh*t.

Thats not a very fitting analogy. I've come across some real bullsh*t art, stuff without any real foundation. Its the ideas behind this piece that give it value. If you don't like it fair enough, but a lot of people like it a lot, many of whom have had enough exposure to art to form an individual opinion of it (i.e. not "sheep") and can generally differentiate something with value from meaningless bullsh*t.

Mr.Nice Guy

cornbb wrote:

Thats not a very fitting analogy. I've come across some real bullsh*t art, stuff without any real foundation. Its the ideas behind this piece that give it value. If you don't like it fair enough, but a lot of people like it a lot, many of whom have had enough exposure to art to form an individual opinion of it (i.e. not "sheep") and can generally differentiate something with value from meaningless bullsh*t.

You say it's "the ideas behind this piece that give it value". I think the only idea behind this piece was to see how many people could have the wool pulled over their eyes.

This is not music. It has no more artistic merit or musical legitimacy than a person standing up and screaming for four minutes straight. That would not be music - it would be noise. Similarly this is not music - it's silence.

People need to stand up to this kind of pretentious guff and recognise it for what it is - nothing.

grumpytrousers

going by some of the opinions cited here, then is it fair to say that some folks of this parish basically take the view that there is no difference, per se, between 'music' and 'noise'; is there a line that separates both. I mean, surely to jesus going by some of the posts here earlier, the noises of my fingers clack-clack-clacking against the keys of this laptop are 'musical.

frigs sakes, they're not...:D

mike65

They could be with syncopation.

Mike.

Sinfonia

grumpytrousers wrote:

I mean, surely to jesus going by some of the posts here earlier, the noises of my fingers clack-clack-clacking against the keys of this laptop are 'musical.

frigs sakes, they're not...:D

Cllllllick!

grumpytrousers

Ordinarily I'd bang my head against the keyboard in frustration at this, but as
a) Declan from accounts is a known bootlegger and
b) i've seen him with his microphone, and
c) to be honest, I don't want my seminal work going out on the 'net before I've had a chance to have it properly mastered...

I'm just gonna back out of this discussion...i think we're reaching the point marked 'silly'

BaZmO*

grumpytrousers wrote:

I mean, surely to jesus going by some of the posts here earlier, the noises of my fingers clack-clack-clacking against the keys of this laptop are 'musical.

frigs sakes, they're not...:D

Pink Flyod used the sound of a cash register as a percussion instrument in their song "Money"

But the difference with using random objects like a Typewriter or Cash Register in musical compositions is the fact that they actually produce sound. 4'33 doesn't have any sound so it's not music.

John

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

People who believe this to be "art" or "genius" are seriously deluded. This is exactly like the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. People were duped into believing that the Emperor was wearing "invisible" clothes and told that only stupid people couldn't see the clothes. Therfore they all pretended that they could see them and that they were magnificent. Eventually a child shouts out "but he's not wearing anything!" and thus the people realise this to be true.

Similarly if you show this video to a child he'll proclaim, "but he's not doing anything!"

Actually, I have shown this video to children and they are less fussed about it than most grown ups. The idea of stopping and listening to the world around them is not a huge problem to them like it seems to be to you.

To people who think this is a work of magnificence I would say stop being sheep and realise that it's pure bullsh*t.

To people who think this is not a work of magnificence I would say stop being sheep and open your ears and your mind.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

You say it's "the ideas behind this piece that give it value". I think the only idea behind this piece was to see how many people could have the wool pulled over their eyes.

No it wasn't, Cage worked out a very sound (pun intended) philosophy which led to him writing this piece. There is a very good reason why he's held in high regard in the world of music and they are the same reasons that James Joyce is held in high regard in literature, they did not go with the status quo and developed an entirely new way of approaching their art.

This is not music. It has no more artistic merit or musical legitimacy than a person standing up and screaming for four minutes straight. That would not be music - it would be noise. Similarly this is not music - it's silence.

No, it would be music if people were willing to sit down and listen to it (they are).

People need to stand up to this kind of pretentious guff and recognise it for what it is - nothing.

Who says nothing is not worth celebrating?

"I've nothing to say and I'm saying it" - John Cage

grumpytrousers wrote:

going by some of the opinions cited here, then is it fair to say that some folks of this parish basically take the view that there is no difference, per se, between 'music' and 'noise'; is there a line that separates both. I mean, surely to jesus going by some of the posts here earlier, the noises of my fingers clack-clack-clacking against the keys of this laptop are 'musical.

frigs sakes, they're not...:D

They are if you want them to be. And noise is only noise if you don't want to hear it, your neighbour playing drums too loudly is noise to you but music to him.

BaZmO* wrote:

But the difference with using random objects like a Typewriter or Cash Register in musical compositions is the fact that they actually produce sound. 4'33 doesn't have any sound so it's not music.

That's a fair point but I don't agree with it.

grumpytrousers

only popping in for a quick cheap shot...staying out of this

John wrote:

they did not go with the status quo and developed an entirely new way of approaching their art

"'ere Rick...hows 'bout we stand 'ere for four minutes and thirty three seconds and let the audience just pay attention to the nuffinkness of the noise about them"
"Francis - oi loikes it a lot"

John

I'd rather listen to silence than Status Quo!