Modern Composition John Cage

I don't think in terms of opposites. I believe that one cannot exist without the other. Silence and Sound are needed to acknowledge the existence of each other. In the end though, there exist no true silence. There are sounds around us and becoming aware of the sounds is important.

haha, typical modernist, allways a interlectual interpretation and philoshopical thoughts!
Music = Music
Silence = Silence.

Music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

LOL Wikipedia's music section in english is awful. Even later when it does mention Cage, etc, it's really not well written.

Example: "However, in the 20th century, composers challenged the notion that music had to be pleasant by creating music that explored harsher, darker timbres."

What? What the shit is this about pleasantness? Isn't that entirely subjective and governed more by aesthetics than some sort of universal principle people decided to "challenge"? ETC ETC. Lots of errors. It also ignores that "harsher, darker timbres" can also be "pleasant".

Very mediocre~

Also, the article contradicts itself by saying the definition of music can vary, yet it outright tries to state one at the beginning. So much junk wrong with it, it's better to erase it and start over.

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.

QCC, lol, I was thinking what you said was addressed at me first, since you quoted me...

What's with my quoting ther? :x

Originally Posted by DOFTS

I don't think in terms of opposites. I believe that one cannot exist without the other. Silence and Sound are needed to acknowledge the existence of each other. In the end though, there exist no true silence. There are sounds around us and becoming aware of the sounds is important.

You are arriving at the point.

You are saying that the complement (or opposite) of silence is sound, which makes perfect sense.

But if one embraces 4'33" as music, he must be willing to accept the simple corollary that is the complement of silence is music. The apparent reluctance to accept this consequence suggests intellectual dishonesty.

As a philosophical statement, I fail to see any profoundness in the thesis of this piece. In everyday life, the existence of background noise is acknowledged in something as mundane as signal-to-noise ratio, measured in decibels (standard for portable devices e.g. iPods is 90 db). Please enlighten me on how this piece has influenced music thereafter. For all I know, at face value, Simen's piece which he claimed to have been inspired by this piece was immediately dismissed as off-topic.

If I may be so bold as to propose more interesting questions surrounding the nature of music:
1. Which is paramount in music, the design or the execution?
2. Is music fleeting or eternal?
3. Is it possible to determine the intrisic value of music without extrinsic factors?

Originally Posted by SSC

QCC, lol, I was thinking what you said was addressed at me first, since you quoted me...

What's with my quoting ther? :x

damn, sorry, I clicked on the wrong person!
sorry there.

Originally Posted by cygnusdei

You are saying that the complement (or opposite) of silence is sound, which makes perfect sense.

But if one embraces 4'33" as music, he must be willing to accept the simple corollary that is the complement of silence is music. The apparent reluctance to accept this consequence suggests intellectual dishonesty.

I can concede that...BUT, to acknowledge it as music and not 'mundane background noise' requires presentation.

Originally Posted by cygnusdei

1. Which is paramount in music, the design or the execution?
2. Is music fleeting or eternal?
3. Is it possible to determine the intrisic value of music without extrinsic factors?

1) Neither. Something becomes art the moment it is presented as art.

2) I don't get what you mean by this.... Music is.

3) Music can hold value only to the listener...if YOU find value in it then so be it. The potential for value is always there - the onus falls to the listener to find merit and value in it.

{@ Michel - great post }

You are saying that the complement (or opposite) of silence is sound, which makes perfect sense.

Am I saying that? No I am saying that one cannot exist without the other. The existence of one does not exist without the other.(To be even more clear, take water, H20 water doesn't exist without the hydrogen or the oxygen. They do not complement each other, they have to be together for water to even exist.) Since sounds exist through a medium and all mediums produce unique Hz, then it follows that all mechanical waves produce Hz, which further implies silence does not truly exist. It's a relative notion. A 2 measure rest in any piece is really no different then 4 minute and 33 second rest Cage's work. The beauty of the 2 measure rest is that it can build something for the music or make something more dramatic or whatever, but it serves a purpose. The silence has a purpose. In Cage's work, he did the opposite. The sounds brought to attention the music.

If you fail to see the impact 4'33'' has had on music, I suggest you do some research. Music serious composers I know (meaning professions) understand greatly the implication 4'3'', even if it didn't effect their work directly, indirectly it has.


Which is paramount in music, the design or the execution?

Neither

Is music fleeting or eternal?

Neither

Is it possible to determine the intrisic value of music without extrinsic factors? of course