4'33"

Beethoven's 5th symphony is also no real piece of music. Why?

Cuz I said so.

Someone lock this thread already, before more people decide to...erm, "win" at not knowing jack scraggy about modern art or anything at all whatsoever.

No I mean he cited some sources or maybe he didn't I dunno, he didn't just defend it with "I say so"

Threads of this type always devolve into the bigwig proponents of "out there" music (SSC you happen to be one) touching on the actual merits of this type of "music" but after that belittling anyone who doesn't quite "get it," with hyperbole and strawmen arguments, all the while the other side of the discussion is the "ignorant" folk trying desperately to come up with all the real or imagined reasons it can or cannot be art or "agreeing to disagree" but remaining all butt-hurt about it.

Arguing about art is like shooting yourself and everyone you know in the face and then trying to pass it off as a "statement": whether it is or isn't, all the participants end up hurt and brain dead.

Beethoven's 5th symphony is also no real piece of music. Why?

Cuz I said so.

Beethoven's 5th is music because it is organized sound. It is also music because it conveys feeling. His music decays, attacks, and fluctuates. In the words of Beethoven: "What is in my heart must come out. That is why I compose."

Cage's piece, on the other hand, doesn't convey any emotion through sound at all.

1. What makes Varese right?

Varese is correct because every single composer conformed his or her music to this definition prior to and after Cage's 4'33".

2. What makes you think 4'33" requires absolute silence? In fact, if you believe so, you are completely wrong. 4'33" includes decays, attacks, fluctuations, that are different for every performance and don't come from the performer.

I never claimed that the piece calls for absolute silence (in fact, my last words were "quiet noise"). 4'33" isn't music because the sound isn't organized.

I would like to add that I do, in fact, agree with Dev. I argue simply for the sake of arguing.

^It's not organized BY THE COMPOSER. Of course it's organized.

Cage was one example of a composer who didn't conform to that, anyway. Nor did many composers who used aleatoric elements in composition. Yet their music still attacks, decays, and fluctuates.

And Cage's work may convey emotion to some...what makes you feel that you can generalize your response to others?

I stand to disagree. No one organizes the piece. There is no conductor to instruct when people cough. No one plans their coughs around all the other sounds (unless they're doing it to entertain themselves, which would only serve to prove that they don't even consider the piece music).

In response to the emotion part, what emotion does it cause? Do you honestly feel anything when listening to 4'33" (other than regret for having paid for the concert ticket)?

Whether or not I am generalizing remains to be seen. I could very well be stating a fact.

Arguing about art is like shooting yourself and everyone you know in the face and then trying to pass it off as a "statement": whether it is or isn't, all the participants end up hurt and brain dead.

You're welcome (and encouraged) to stay out of the discussions if you think they are a waste of time.

Varese is correct because every single composer conformed his or her music to this definition prior to and after Cage's 4'33".

Oh really? Damn you must know every single piece and composer that has ever existed.

But I guess you mean statistically, right? If we're talking about statistics though, the definition of music is arbitrary to what is more abundant rather than anything else.

But even if THAT was the case, no music can escape Varese's definition as you can call "organization" any sequence of sounds so long as the intention was there. It would mean Cage's 4'33'' not only doesn't break it but it sets up a ground for this sequence of random sounds to be organized (by chance) within a time frame. Varese's definition is, after all, RATHER vague.

Empty argument if I ever saw one. As for absolute definitions of music, well, they simply don't work as not everyone will agree and since they are a matter of opinion in the end, why be so extreme?

In either case:

I would like to add that I do, in fact, agree with Dev. I argue simply for the sake of arguing.

So anyone interested in actual real discussions and debates should blacklist you both from now on, eh? I know I will.

Now you're getting into semantics. If we are going to get into semantics, then I would like to clarify that 'by chance' and 'organized' are completely different. If something is by chance, then there is no predicting what would happen. If something is organized, then it is predictable to a point. To say that 4'33" is organized by chance is oxymoronic.

I enjoy arguing quite a bit and I usually play Devil's Advocate. Seeing as how it seems that more people on this forum think that 4'33" is music, I am arguing the other side. It would be unwise to 'blacklist' me because having a Devil's Advocate in a debate is a good thing.

Now you're getting into semantics. If we are going to get into semantics, then I would like to clarify that 'by chance' and 'organized' are completely different. If something is by chance, then there is no predicting what would happen. If something is organized, then it is predictable to a point. To say that 4'33" is organized by chance is oxymoronic.

I'll just crush that as quick as possible:

Organization can be appreciated retroactively. That is, I can appreciate the "organization" the chance elements created in a performance of 4'33'' AFTER the performance took place and I can attribute the arrangement (organization) of the musical elements to the chance elements. In other words, it is after all just organized sound in retrospect, regardless by which method it is organized.

Even simpler: Music concrete and 4'33''. Take recordings from both types of music and show them to someone who knows nothing. Will they deduce that 4'33'' is "silent?" No, as your comparison is music which is made out of samples including those that appear during performances of 4'33''.

Bottom line: The final end product of a 4'33'' performance produces a musical material indistinguishable from other things which are quite well accepted as "music" (by Varese himself, being a precursor to the Music Concrete movement overall!) Therefore, it fits the definition perfectly fine and it is quite clearly "music" going by Varese's definition.

I enjoy arguing quite a bit and I usually play Devil's Advocate. Seeing as how it seems that more people on this forum think that 4'33" is music, I am arguing the other side. It would be unwise to 'blacklist' me because having a Devil's Advocate in a debate is a good thing.

A devil's advocate who is so apparently ignorant of the subject they're trying to argue for or against is more of a problem than anything.

I will agree to disagree with you on the topic of whether 4'33" is music or not. It appears you aren't going to change your opinion on that ground.

However, you cannot deny that the general public will still look at 4'33" as "that one piece that they paid $10 and had to stifle their coughs and sneezes through in the middle of allergy season." Most people would find it an epic waste of their time. I certainly know I will never listen to it.

I find that your analysis of my ignorance is a complete mistrial on the grounds that I actually found sources (including Varese, a prominent composer) while you failed even to use so much as a dictionary definition and even resorted to claiming that Beethoven's 5th isn't music (which I seriously doubt you actually believe). Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but it sure looks like it.

I stand to disagree. No one organizes the piece. There is no conductor to instruct when people cough. No one plans their coughs around all the other sounds (unless they're doing it to entertain themselves, which would only serve to prove that they don't even consider the piece music).

In response to the emotion part, what emotion does it cause? Do you honestly feel anything when listening to 4'33" (other than regret for having paid for the concert ticket)?

Whether or not I am generalizing remains to be seen. I could very well be stating a fact.

So, by this logic, any sort of improvisation is not music. If I go to the piano and play something totally off the top of my head, it's not music? I mean, after all, the sound has not been "organized". There's no "instruction". Nothing is "planned". It just spontaneously happens. So it's not music then? Actually, by this logic, improvisation of any kind is lesser music than 4'33" because Cage DID offer instructions.

As far as not conveying any "feeling"... subjective argument is subjective. 1) Who the hell says ALL music should have to express feeling? That's rather silly to me. 2) I've, being completely honest, experienced emotion while performing 4'33". I've felt both wonder and have been disturbed by it. In fact, I've felt more "feeling" towards 4'33" than I have with Beethoven's 5th.

My advice to you: Lurk moar.

I will agree to disagree with you on the topic of whether 4'33" is music or not. It appears you aren't going to change your opinion on that ground.

However, you cannot deny that the general public will still look at 4'33" as "that one piece that they paid $10 and had to stifle their coughs and sneezes through in the middle of allergy season." Most people would find it an epic waste of their time. I certainly know I will never listen to it.

I find that your analysis of my ignorance is a complete mistrial on the grounds that I actually found sources (including Varese, a prominent composer) while you failed even to use so much as a dictionary definition and even resorted to claiming that Beethoven's 5th isn't music (which I seriously doubt you actually believe). Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but it sure looks like it.

Let me put it simpler, maybe you'll understand it then:

If I wrote a piece of music that emulated the possible outcome of a 4'33'' performance, why is my piece suddenly "music" and 4'33'', which can possibly net the same musical material, not music?

If your answer doesn't rely on the actual musical end product, that's the argument killer. You're arguing it's not music "by default" despite what the actual musical end product is. Despite what it may potentially sound like and how indistinguishable it may be from music which IS accepted as music by your definitions!

For someone claiming to know anything about what they're talking about, ignoring the actual music behind all of this seems to be a really terrible course of action.

PS: By the by, I don't need to show sources to shoot down such hilariously bad logic, thx.

However, you cannot deny that the general public will still look at 4'33" as "that one piece that they paid $10 and had to stifle their coughs and sneezes through in the middle of allergy season." Most people would find it an epic waste of their time. I certainly know I will never listen to it.

If it is not art, why discuss it for nine pages? :whistling:

From reading some of your other posts, it seems like you need a general audience validation to classify something as art. It's not really the "music" or lack thereof that makes this an effective piece, it's about a message behind it, which I think every composer tries to express, whatever they are trying to say. In some ways, 4'33'' is about as pure as one can get in expressing this intent.

What constitutes organization anyway?

The piece has a definite starting point and ending point. It is broken into 3 (I think..) movements each of which are precisely timed.

Cage thought of the idea because he and others were writing music that consisted of random chance sounds. His message is that any everyday sound can be music. Of course its a little silly. Its supposed to be a little silly.

The piece is interesting because Cage challenges his OWN musical thoughts in an intellectual and philosophical way, he isn't being absurd by poking fun at others. 4'33" serves its purpose exactly and it doesn't matter who actually believes that it is 'music' or 'not music' but that it got those people to actually think about it.

Is this the only non-musical piece that you know of? What of other aleatoric works? What of music concrete? What of Varese? Surely Varese is music (apparently he has defined music for the lot of us) but his electronic works don't seem all that organized to me. (so then again.... what exactly is organization? They have a beginning and an end, and stuff happens in the middle, is that all you need?)

Also... Please don't say that nothing happens in the middle of 4'33"

Rather than fueling the argument, allow me to offer three pieces of evidence on the nature of music:

1. PYONGYANG, North Korea

Rather than fueling the argument, allow me to offer three pieces of evidence on the nature of music:

1. PYONGYANG, North Korea — As the New York Philharmonic played the opening notes of “Arirang,” a beloved Korean folk song, a murmur rippled through the audience. Many in the audience perched forward in their seats. The piccolo played a long, plaintive melody. Cymbals crashed, harp runs flew up, the violins soared. And tears began forming in the eyes of the staid audience, row upon row of men in dark suits, women in colorful high-waisted dresses called hanbok and all of them wearing pins with the likeness of Kim Il-sung, the nation’s founder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/world/asia/27symphony.html

2. Enduring musical masterpieces have a way of taking on a life of their own, not just after a composer's death but from the moment the ink is dry on the finished score, and of then being adapted to conform with the prevailing tastes of each generation - and why not?

- John Eliot Gardiner (on Verdi's Requiem).

3.

I'll just drop this here, since it pertains to the topic:

John Cage and the Avant-Garde: The Sounds of Silence

If anyone (like the ever-hilarious SSC :D) wants my opinion on controversial modern 'art,' such as 4'33", I think that I can summarize it in one clip:

Andy Rooney Rants About Public Art on 60 Minutes

No one summarizes my sentiment toward 4'33" like Andy Rooney...

If anyone (like the ever-hilarious SSC :D)

Hilarious, eh? I suppose in the lack of intellectual discourse, that's the best you can muster. Blacklisted.

If anyone (like the ever-hilarious SSC :D) wants my opinion on controversial modern 'art,' such as 4'33", I think that I can summarize it in one clip:

Andy Rooney Rants About Public Art on 60 Minutes

No one summarizes my sentiment toward 4'33" like Andy Rooney...

HAHAHA! That was great! :D

reading through this discussion, i had witnessed a strange event - for the first time in my life i heard my inner voice speak (or was it god?), and that's what it sounded like

4shared.com - online file sharing and storage - download inner voice.mp3

LOL This is one of Andy Rooney's more coherent rants. He always ends my Sundays with a laugh and a WTF.

When 4:33 is played, I often notice my ears ringing, which makes me sad because I don't like the fact that my ears are so damaged. I also start humming a tune or harmonizing the ringing of the ears.

Therefore I conclude that the actual piece itself is the composer, and John Cage was the god that created it/him/her.

I certainly know I will never listen to it.

HAHA! Hilarious! You never fail to amuse!

If you really want to go through with this, get your revolver handy now! ;)

I have a great exercise for all the participants of this thread...

Pretend that this thread is 4'33".

And let it be silent.

Cage's piece, on the other hand, doesn't convey any emotion through sound at all.

Actually, I find 4'33" to be a rather emotional piece- if you actually THINK while you're listening, as you would do with music that has all the notes written out, you might find, as I do, that the great number of possibilities in that "silence" can be rather moving.

And Cage DID "organize" 4'33" in that he wrote SPECIFICALLY so that the orchestra was directed NOT to play, and the audience could hear the sounds occuring around them.

Actually, I find 4'33" to be a rather emotional piece- if you actually THINK while you're listening, as you would do with music that has all the notes written out, you might find, as I do, that the great number of possibilities in that "silence" can be rather moving.

You don't need 4'33'' to think. What differentiates 4'33'' from sitting at home in peace and quiet? I don't put a copy of 4'33'' everytime I think, do you?

And it's not the piece but your thoughts that stir emotion.