Modern Composition John Cage

No realy , this is insane, this is no composition, this is not music, this is silence, when you are home at night before you sleep, the same silence, he did not produce anything.

No it's not the same!! Of course it's not!

For Cage there was no silence. If you bother a bit and do just a tiny bit of essential research you'll find out that a) there's a lot that Cage wrote and did before 4'33", and b) there is a lot he did and wrote after he wrote 4'33" . You must also realise the impact this piece had on many other composers of that period who hanged around with Cage.

I won't even bother replying more than that in this topic.

I believe Cage wrote this piece after realising that it was impossible to experience true silence. By making an audience sit for 4 and a half minutes without the performers playing anything, rather observing background noise, he was hoping that he could share this realisation and with it, consider what music actually is - where does sound become music? If sound is always present (as he discovered), what is the role of music?

In this sense, this is a very accomplished work, achieving this purpose not only in performance, making us consider the "silence" we normally ignore every day, but in the debate surrounding that performance. Even amongst those who consider this piece worthless, there must still be some contemplation of what it is trying to do, trying to say.

It could therefore be said that this is a very deep and successful work, certainly achieving a lot more from a composers perspective than yet another baroque-style superficial invention for keyboard. It is expressing something that words cannot - something that has to be experienced.

To me 4'33 is art. Becoming aware of the sounds we take for granted is not only art but philosophical.

Granted that this piece is successful (indicated by the level of appreciation, even on this board), it is at best insincere, and at worst .... misguided. (Or should it be the other way around?)

Insincere because there is a hidden agenda behind the 'music' (at least according to accepted wisdom), and misguided because it devalues music from an extraordinary design to mere a commonplace, natural occurrence.

Even if one accepts that true silence is not possible, why attribute any sound to music? If that's the case, is speech music? I would have respect for the composer if he actually believed that. Then he'd say he's 'listening to music' when watching the news, listening to a sermon, or to a match on the radio. Sounds are not silence. But why attempt to pass any sound as music?

Mediocrity does not a great composer make.

Originally Posted by cygnusdei

Granted that this piece is successful (indicated by the level of appreciation, even on this board), it is at best insincere, and at worst .... misguided. (Or should it be the other way around?)

Insincere because there is a hidden agenda behind the 'music' (at least according to accepted wisdom), and misguided because it devalues music from an extraordinary design to mere a commonplace, natural occurrence.

Even if one accepts that true silence is not possible, why attribute any sound to music? If that's the case, is speech music? I would have respect for the composer if he actually believed that. Then he'd say he's 'listening to music' when watching the news, listening to a sermon, or to a match on the radio. Sounds are not silence. But why attempt to pass any sound as music?

Mediocrity does not a great composer make.

Way to plow right by all the perfectly valid explanations about the nature of 4'33" and its place in the world of musical thought.

It's not a question of passing off any old sound as music.

Take a few minutes and read some of the explanations that have beengiven on this thread. They are quite logical and contain wonderful insight.

4'33" is an exploration of the nature of sound/silence.

It wasn't meant as a new form of composition
It was never meant to start a "school" of composition.
It was an experiment and a philosophical statement. And a perfectly valid philosophical statement by a man who delved very deeply into the nature of music and how the musical establishement and the concert-going public conceive of it.

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

4'33" is an exploration of the nature of sound/silence.

It wasn't meant as a new form of composition
It was never meant to start a "school" of composition.
It was an experiment and a philosophical statement. And a perfectly valid philosophical statement by a man who delved very deeply into the nature of music and how the musical establishement and the concert-going public conceive of it.

I understand the extra-musical intent of the piece, that's why I said it is at best insincere. If it is trying to convey a philosophical statement, that's perfectly fine, but concealing it in a musical clothing is 'having a cake and eating it, too'.

I'd have respect for this piece if:

1. It's just making a philosophical statement about sound/silence, but not music.

or

2. It claims itself as (the ultimate) aleatoric music, with the consequence that any sound is music.

Trying to have it both ways is a cop out.

As I already stated, music is intentionally calling attention to sounds, in an organized manner.

Living Room Music is music, even though the third (second, maybe?) movement is pure speech.

I recently listened to a lot of pieces for Theory class that can challenge the definition of music, but my definition stands strong through them all.

Originally Posted by cygnusdei

I understand the extra-musical intent of the piece, that's why I said it is at best insincere. If it is trying to convey a philosophical statement, that's perfectly fine, but concealing it in a musical clothing is 'having a cake and eating it, too'.

I'd have respect for this piece if:

1. It's just making a philosophical statement about sound/silence, but not music.

or

2. It claims itself as (the ultimate) aleatoric music, with the consequence that any sound is music.

Trying to have it both ways is a cop out.

Is art that makes us think about our world in a different way not some of the greatest art of all? By successfully making such a philosophical statement, Cage has created a work that makes us consider the role of sound in our world - those background noises that we don't consider. Making anyone experiencing this work consider the nature of background sound is certainly leading to a different line of thought about the everyday world! 4'33" achieves what great art sets out to achieve. I honestly don't see how this is "insincere"!

How else though would you present such an artwork, such a message in any other form than a piece of music? By leading the audience to consider it as a piece of music, more in depth consideration is given to these background noises. The audience is in the right frame of mind to listen, to consider, to absorb the message.

In terms of your second point, aleatoric music is about introducing a degree of randomness and chance to a piece of music. Taking this principle to the extreme is leaving everything up to background noise. Regardless of whether you consider this noise music or not, the technique is being applied to its extreme.

Stravinsky said "music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all".

In other words, the meaning of music is supplied by the listener: the above controversial statement implies all the meaning is so supplied and
nothing is inherent in the notes themselves. Just as these words, any words, only have meaning by agreement of those who speak English, the meaning of a composition comes from an agreement amongst listeners. And listeners, based on their culture, experience and education divide into groups as to what they consider is music and what their music means.

Back to 4'33" by John Cage - whether it is considered music or not depends on who is listening. This piece wasn't just silence - it was an audience ready to listen , an orchestra ready to play, and silence. There was a composition, performed recently in Toronto I believe, which was intended to recreate the sounds of the Toronto subway - was this more musical then 4'33" ???

haha, cage did nothing, NOTHING? de he write silence? no, what is this to understand? i do perfectly understand, but i dont see this as composition, not even as art, nothing i see this a way to make money, and people follow and aplaud.

A baby could have done the cage thing? no problem, you need no talent NO composition skills nothing to tell the orchestra, be quiet for 4, 33 minutes.

Silence is not new, you hear it everytime at a concerto, just before the orchestra starts to play. I could play in the cage orchestra, i have never played violin before, but it dont look that hard? and that is sick, that is my "narrowmidned blinded " opinion