|
Not everyone is supposed to "get" everything. Some things are harder than others to understand and appreciate. But objectively, Cage's piece is not only of historical relevance but of artistic relevance for anyone who really gives a damn about music. It's not about appreciating it as "music", whatever that may be, but as a proof-of-concept. It's a question more than an answer, a question which still has no real answer.
If you can't understand any of this, it may be a little too complex to grasp yet. The whole point of advancing the philosophical grounds and arguments behind music is building on what is already understood. Cage showed that almost nothing was understood, even after centuries of composers and music. It was all an illusion, systems and composition techniques, styles, etc, are all built upon fundamentals we don't really understand yet, or sometimes don't bother to try.
Otherwise, Cage would've gotten his answer, and not made the piece.
|