Modern Composition John Cage

Originally Posted by spherenine

I mean, people aren't ignorant simply because they draw the line between art and junk before you do, ...

Absolutely. They're ignorant because they lack knowledge or comprehension.

It's fine to voice a 'distaste' for something ... but to describe it in terms such as: "insane", "this is not music", "insincere", "misguided", "you need no talent NO composition skills", "trivial"; obviously persons making such harsh criticisms have studied this music and put in the effort to listen with an unbiased ear?

I have a real problem with people making misinformed generalized criticisms about things with which they have no experience.

Originally Posted by robinjessome

Absolutely. They're ignorant because they lack knowledge or comprehension.

It's fine to voice a 'distaste' for something ... but to describe it in terms such as: "insane", "this is not music", "insincere", "misguided", "you need no talent NO composition skills", "trivial"; obviously persons making such harsh criticisms have studied this music and put in the effort to listen with an unbiased ear?

I have a real problem with people making misinformed generalized criticisms about things with which they have no experience.

I'm not aware of anyone voicing 'generalized criticism' in this thread. As far as I know we have been discussing one particular piece. I surely hope that your comments were accordingly in regards to this one, particular piece.

As for 'this is not music', a number of people who appreciate this piece have argued that the composer didn't intend it to be music but rather a philosophical statement. So explain to me why you'd have a problem with calling something what it is? Have you been paying attention?

Originally Posted by cygnusdei

I'm not aware of anyone voicing 'generalized criticism' in this thread. As far as I know we have been discussing one particular piece. I surely hope that your comments were accordingly in regards to this one, particular piece.

I wasn't directing the 'generalized criticisms' comment at anything specific. I just don't like the general idea that it's okay to publicly ridicule something for which you have no concept or understanding. Fine n' dandy if you want to say you don't like it though...

Originally Posted by cygnusdei

As for 'this is not music', a number of people who appreciate this piece have argued that the composer didn't intend it to be music but rather a philosophical statement. So explain to me why you'd have a problem with calling something what it is? Have you been paying attention?

Because I think the poster made that statement with malicious intent - strip any notion of art, and ignoring any notion of philosophical profundity within the piece.

Anyway...I really hate when these discussions get like this.

Have fun, kids.

Of course 4'33'' is music. You can consider it to be the epitome of aleatoric music. We must consider the setting of the first performance of 4'33''. We have David Tudor and John Cage, two people who push the limits of what is music. The audience who attended this performance would expect to hear aleatoric music. It would be expected of them to get what Cage and Tudor were after.

The people would have listen very careful to the sound of nothing and notice, as Cage did, there is sound. There are beautiful sounds. Amazing sounds, sounds we would have not noticed at the very moment if music was being played. Cage successfully challenged the definition of music and it scares a lot of music. It angers even more people!

People like to say oh well anyone could do what Cage did. No, not anyone. I don't think you understand how complex and out of the box it is to say, No music shall be played for this performance. As a composer, we are taught to think, write something. It's hard for us to say, we'll write nothing. It doesn't even cross our mind. How many of us thought of "silence for music" before we heard of Cage? It isn't the most common idea there is.

The simple fact of the matter is that this piece of music, this idea, this expressing, open the minds of many composers bringing new and wonderful ideas to music.

Originally Posted by robinjessome

Anyway...I really hate when these discussions get like this.

Have fun, kids.

What do you expect really? Look at how the thread started, haha.

Originally Posted by cygnusdei

There is a danger in attributing nature to art. The sea is blue, the spiral of the nautilus shell is logarithmic, the sound of a thunder is powerful. They make you think. But it is unnecessary and in fact incorrect to regard them as art.

If background noises could speak, perhaps they themselves would object to being called art, just as a rhombus would being called a square, and a harpsichord would being called a piano.

I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind, and Cage himself must have anticipated rejection of his idea. But empty gestures like these are totally underwhelming.

To borrow an analogy from algebra: a polynomial can have trivial and non-trivial solutions. The trivial solutions are there, but they are .... trivial. The non-trivial solutions are much more interesting and important.

There are much more interesting and important things to consider in music. Swooning over trivialities is simply misguided.

Admittedly art has to have some aspect of humanity involved for it to be true art. It is incorrect however to say that 4'33" does not have this humanity, that it cannot be seen as true art. By forcing an audience to listen to background noise and not take it for granted, Cage is making a philosophical statement and encouraging contemplation about our world. This adds the humanity that makes this true art - art that challenges the role of music and sound.

He is therefore getting to the absolute foundations and basic principles of music and what it actually is. How can such a fundamental question behind music and composition - what is music? - be regarded as trivial? No one is saying that 4'33" is a composition, but by presenting it as one, the underlying philosophical message becomes clearer.

To argue on your terms though, and look at the presented analogy of algebra, despite any trivial (but it must be said that trivial has different connotations mathematically and artistically) solutions found in a problem not always being the "interesting" solutions, they are still present, and true understanding of a problem can only come when they are confronted. 4'33" confronts similar issues involving music. Sound, which is always present, yet as background noise often unimportant is the basic principle of music. Is the role of a composer not at its simplest to craft this sound as seen fit? 4'33" confronts the foundation of sound, the "trivial" aspects and in this way allows greater understanding of the wider "problem" of music.

To DOFTS:

Finally (I think), someone who espouses the second supportive view of the piece. So you argue that this piece is music, and intended to open up new possibilities in the 'sounds of music'. As I said before, this means that any sound is music, as in:

the opposite of evil is good
the opposite of dark is light
and
the opposite of silence is music

So when you're tuning in to the news you're listening to music.
The sound of thunder is music.
A mosquito's buzzing in your ear is music.
Could this be what Rodgers and Hammerstein meant with 'the sound of music' ?

I'd have respect for your view if you actually believe that. Otherwise, it's smack of Terri Schiavo to me (for those not familiar, she was a United States woman who suffered permanent brain damage. The state's legislature passed a LAW that applied only to her, as an injunction to removing her life support).

So does this piece being music have real consequences? Or does the thesis apply ONLY to this piece (as Terri's Law applied only to her)? Or is this piece not music but only a philosophical statement?

Originally Posted by cygnusdei

the opposite of silence is music

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. The opposite of music is rap.

the opposite of silence is music

Aye, so whenever you write a rest in music, that part in your score isn't music. Gotcha.

Keep in mind when people listen to 4'3'' they actively listen to the sounds. The state of being aware of the background is completely different than what you experience from day to day.

"the opposite of silence is music"
Music and silence are not polar opposites. They work together. There would be no music without silence. To this opposing argument, I daresay these historic quotes voice my opinion for me on the subject.

“Music and silence combine strongly because music is done with silence, and silence is full of music.” Marcel Marceau

“Music is the silence between the notes.” Claude Debussy