Quote:
Originally Posted by SimenN
This is the definition of music :
Music is an art form in which the medium is sound. Elements of music are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture.
4,33 has none of this, melody, harmony, rhythm, articulation, dynamisc. So here it is, 4,33 is not quialified as music period, mabye you, hell you can love it, mabye you think is music , good for you, buts not music  |
May I bring up a point that might alter your idea of the "definition" of music?
If we allow, as you have in this case, for an external and "absolute" definition of music, then at some point, we will also have to allow for an external and absolute definition of what is acceptable as new music.
While you enjoy writing music that is tonal and neo-baroque (or as you like to call it "baroquian"... BTW, just "Baroque" will do, in English) that may fail the test of acceptability.
By accepting your arbitrary and absolute definition of music, you are giving power to others to define what is acceptable as music.
So if one considers the last 300 years, and the advances in harmony and counterpoint, the concepts surrounding form and development, your music would more than likely be considered quite unacceptable.
Don't you think that if we ALL showed a tiny bit more open-mindedness and inclusion, if we all sought out the "I don't like it, but.. damn, it does have a certain magic to it" in every musical utterance, the musical landscape would be a much better, and safer, place?
Besides, looking at 4'33" and applying "traditional" musical standards to it, is like looking at only the frame surrounding a painting and trying to make a judgement about the painting. You'd be ignoring the entire POINT of the framed painting.
4'33" within the framework of John Cage's oeuvre makes perfect sense, and continues to "explore" (that word is inevitable when discussing Cage, and many others like him) the boundaries of musical conception and perception.
SimenN, if at this point, after all the explanations that have been given to you, you are unwilling to yield even a tiny bit to reason, you should give up this particular discussion.
With every new argument you bring forth you paint yourself into a corner. You define yourself as someone who is blinkered and narrow-minded in their definition of music and art. It is pointless to continue the discussion with someone who has no intellectual curiosity in this regard.
I would like to thank, however, the couple of people who have brought forward some beautifully eloquant, and at times quite touching, interpretations of Cage's work.