4'33"

You simply cannot change the meaning of a term, "is" in our case, within the same context ad libitum. Therefore you can only say "is" means either "logically equivalent" or "logically implies" in the context of Captain Chaos' four propositions. In any case, you get here a logical contradiction (for equivalence) or a propositional fallacy (for implication).

Yes, you can. It's called English.

Believe me, people do it all the time, and you're expected to know how to detect it.

You simply cannot change the meaning of a term, "is" in our case, within the same context ad libitum. Therefore you can only say "is" means either "logically equivalent" or "logically implies" in the context of Captain Chaos' four propositions. In any case, you get here a logical contradiction (for equivalence) or a propositional fallacy (for implication[/i']).

Yes, you can. It's called English.

Believe me, people do it all the time, and you're expected to know how to detect it.

People doing it all the time doesn't mean, that this use is easily translated into correct (i.e. fallacy free) logical argument. For a short glimpse into these matters, have a look at Wikipedia's Fallacy article and its associated "See also" links.

Our example of translating "is" into logical argument is exactly a case in question how to detect its fallacious usage. In Captain Chaos' propositions it is then a verbal fallacy (equivocation in this case).

That we really had sorts of verbal and material fallacies in our thread is shown by the reply to Captain Chaos' propositions by juimufu and its subsequent confirmation (and further elaboration) by Captain Chaos.

I cannot help myself but say that Qc although right in some way regarding my last post does not get the general point I was trying to make.

And that is: Arguing about music is pointless. I learned that long time ago. Tastes differ, so do opinions. It's a bit like arguing about who is stronger: Spiderman or Superman. Pointless.

Depends what your point is. If you are trying to show something is better than something else, sure it's rather pointless. If you are discussing aspect of music, then it's a good way to gain some new understanding and perspective.

People doing it all the time doesn't mean, that this use is easily translated into correct (i.e. fallacy free) logical argument. For a short glimpse into these matters, have a look at Wikipedia's Fallacy article and its associated "See also" links.

Our example of translating "is" into logical argument is exactly a case in question how to detect its fallacious usage. In Captain Chaos' propositions it is then a verbal fallacy (equivocation in this case).

Ummm...so, you mean we should all talk like logicians? No offense, but that would be kind of dumb. (It's not technically a fallacy, anyway, to use a word correctly in two different ways, and to expect the reader to be able to tell the difference.)

Anyway, this discussion should be basically over. If you don't like the piece, then at least don't try to convince the rest of us we should all dislike it! And if you don't accept it as music, it's your loss!

Superman, obviously.

I don't see how I ended up in a discussion about fallacies, logicians and equivocation, but LOUD NOISES.

Just for fun:

Pitchfork: News

Ummm...so, you mean we should all talk like logicians?

Of course, not. But if there is to decide about the validity of some statements

But if there is to decide about the validity of some statements – or propositions like those by Captain Chaos discussed so far – you have to have means to clarify things.

Well, I'm not sure if you're a native speaker of English, but the change in meaning is implied, basically obvious to any native speaker.

In which way is it my loss if I accept a performance of 4'33'' not as music, but rather as non-music?

Because thinking about it as music is part of the experience - listening to one's environment as one would listen to music. I'm not saying your perspective is invalid, it's just that you're not getting as much out of it as you could.

4'33 is an art piece, looking to subvert the concert experience.

Wanna call it music based on the setting or artist? Sure.

Want to not call it music, based on a specific defining characteristic of music? Sure.

One view isn't any better than the other. Someone produce some quotes from Cage on the piece, if there's going to be any more argument over which view produces the "best" experience.

Well, I'm not sure if you're a native speaker of English, but the change in meaning is implied, basically obvious to any native speaker.

Because thinking about it as music is part of the experience - listening to one's environment as one would listen to music. I'm not saying your perspective is invalid, it's just that you're not getting as much out of it as you could.

Very interesting arguments on your part!

You're right, I'm not a native speaker of English, but I guess there's no difference in usage between the English "is" and the German "ist". My contention is only to be precise when putting forth arguments, without hidden subleties in meaning, if you really wish to be understood in the same way as you understand them by yourself.

Regarding the kind of "as if thinking" implied by Cage's 4'33'', I'm experienced enough in "getting as much out of music as I could"

Post modernism in the arts--music, literature, graphic arts, is a cultivated asthetic designed to include as few individuals as possible within a select, and selective, group. I believe that its function is more social than art related.

My great consolation is when I look at season performances for various orchestras, ensembles, opera companies--

Modernism is rejected by the "uninformed, crude, sheep-like" public. A small group of people, sitting and talking to one another in a small, small room...

Most people read philosophy or play chess chess when they want to reason, analyze, etc... The intuitive and obvious appeal of music to the great mass of humanity is evident and unambiguous.

Post modernism in the arts--music, literature, graphic arts, is a cultivated asthetic designed to include as few individuals as possible within a select, and selective, group. I believe that its function is more social than art related.

My great consolation is when I look at season performances for various orchestras, ensembles, opera companies--

Modernism is rejected by the "uninformed, crude, sheep-like" public. A small group of people, sitting and talking to one another in a small, small room...

Most people read philosophy or play chess chess when they want to reason, analyze, etc... The intuitive and obvious appeal of music to the great mass of humanity is evident and unambiguous.

If anything 4'33" is makes this modernist stuff MORE accessible to the general public. It is a piece that has a painfully simple concept, which forces one to think, and which also accurately defines the ideology of composers of the style of music that Cage was messing with at the time.

4'33" is not meant to be overly intellectual.. it can be, but it is in essence a musical joke. You don't have to be a musical genius to get it, or enjoy the concept.

I understand what you are saying.

However, looking at the current musical landscape, if this work was/is a successful attempt at making modernism accessible, maybe it is time for another try, say, 8'45"?

You know, REALLY driving it home, this time around.

I understand what you are saying.

However, looking at the current musical landscape, if this work was/is a successful attempt at making modernism accessible, maybe it is time for another try, say, 8'45"?

You know, REALLY driving it home, this time around.

nope.. bad idea.

:whistling:

Agreed!

Agreed!

:wub:

Post modernism in the arts...is a cultivated asthetic designed to include as few individuals as possible within a select, and selective, group. I believe that its function is more social than art related.

I take issue with this.

No one is intentionally eschewing listeners, or trying to ostracize their audience. Artists are just (if they're any good) creating Art - being honest and creative and pure and personal with their art; not taking into consideration whether the plebes will "get it" ...

No. THESE artists are "just creating art". Schubert was creating art too, However, he was very aware of and responsive to the idioms that the public demanded. As was Hadyn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann... Perhaps this is why musical form was a science into itself. This constraint was, in many ways, and organic outgrowth of the listener/composer relationship.

The 20th century landscape changed the conditions in which art music is conceived and created. The university system has much to do with this. Music asthetics are cultivated and fostered not by public demand so much as by academic principles and fashion. As such, the demands of form, tuning into that centuries old public-composer dialogue is not a necessity. In fact, you could argue it is considered provincial!

Obviously, these are generalities. But there is clearly a disconnect when 95% of concerts, cd sales, radio play lists are pre 20th century, and 90% of what is inculcated in university is a push in post-modernism.

This is a social phenomena. Exclusion and contempt are--by simple description-- the social payoffs for this endeavor. Taking exception, expressing outrage, dismissing criticism--are the psychological strokes only thinnly covering a asocial bent. Individuals and the environments they find themselves in are not accidents. There is a strong connective psychological reason.

The game is to advance that it is "about the music", with the unfortunate side issue of combating criticism from people who "don't get it". I'm arguing that the reverse is true.

There is a startling gulf between a John Williams (boo hiss), who clearly wants his music to be heard and appreciated and is willing to immerse himself in the lister-composer dialogue, and our John Cage set. These differences are not in skill levels, training, ability (for the sake of argument), but in psychological need fulfilment of the composer.

Imagine a fellow who goes and builds a house in antartica, and then complains that non one ever visits him! Either he is highly irrational--perhaps insane, or this very situation is the psychological point and purpose--in this case, victimhood and resentment, and a preserved sense of uniqueness.

But it is a fine igloo!--as far as igloos go...

Personally, I wish the modernists all the best. They don't hurt anyone, and they seem to be having fun. Heck, I even like some of it. But for me, "getting it" had more to do with the personal psychological arguments above than any discussion of music (which has pretty much become a moot point beyond like/don't like).

Once I "got it", well, I felt fully justified in my own likes and apprecitation of music. As someone wrote earlier regarding John Cage, I got "the joke".

Minus the fact that... uh.... the kind of problems and things you are talking about are dead and gone...

David Lang, Joan Tower, Julia Wolfe, Whitacre.... These people are example of what is up in the front with music composition... do they have anything to do with modernism? No...

Everyone, update to windows vista before you try to run internet explorer 8... and stop complaining about it when you are still stuck up on windows 95.

Thanks for the leads. I will certainly listen to their music.

Aside from that, I think the arguments I presented still hold regarding modernism as a historical fact.

But I will shut up. Trust me, it is a boring for me as it is for you!

I love how Cage's more standard works are ignored. I'm thinking of his gamelan works (source), which are quite beautiful.

No. THESE artists are "just creating art". Schubert was creating art too, However, he was very aware of and responsive to the idioms that the public demanded. As was Hadyn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann...

I want kill a kitten every time I hear the term "the public" being used like that.

"The public" is such a complex and manysided thing, that it's hardly helpful to just treat them as one huge homogenous group. Those composers were aware of and responsive to a certain audience, which is a rather small part of "the public". And being "responsive" to it also didn't mean they just did what this audience demenaded. Schumann, as one of the composers you mentioned, was known for being highly critical of composers who just wrote to please as many people as possible and mocked them in his newspaper articles again and again. Beethoven often did things that quite consciously went against what the audience was ready to accept. And do you think Haydn wrote his string quartets for random workers and peasants?

It's really not that much different today. Contemporary composers do have audiences, and the composers are usually rather well aware of what the expectations of these audiences are. This doesn't however mean that these audiences must encompass "the public" as a whole, or that they just fulfill those expectations.

In the case of John Cage, you have a composer who was extremely aware of his audiences, the media, the musical environment etc. And he actually might have considered it a lot more than many composers who just write to satisfy specific expectations. A piece like 4'33" draws a lot of its power from the role of the audience and such typical preconceptions of "what a concert/music should be". (Personally, I actually sometimes think he considered his audience almost too much for my taste, but that's something that has to do with the time he wrote it in.)

Obviously, these are generalities. But there is clearly a disconnect when 95% of concerts, cd sales, radio play lists are pre 20th century, and 90% of what is inculcated in university is a push in post-modernism.

95% eh? The Billboard charts disagree. I think one should be very careful with accusing others of losing touch with "the public" if one doesn't even consider that there is music outside of classical music. This is exactly why I'm against lumping "the public" into one group - because most people who do this are actually thinking of a specific subset, without even realizing it.

The game is to advance that it is "about the music", with the unfortunate side issue of combating criticism from people who "don't get it".

Every artist has to deal with criticism. That applies to Andr

I want to huff a kitten every time I hear the term "the public" being used like that.

Fixed.

Yet another amazing post, though. I never really understand why people have these notions that modernist music is hated by "the public". I mean, Donaueschingen or however-you-spell-it does pretty well consistently...

Cyberstrings, just to be clear I think there's a difference between conceptual art such as 4'33'' and modernism as a whole. Technically some of the late romantics had touches of modernism in their music. Strauss' opera Elektra is considered in some respects to be quite modernist.

It's really not that much different today. Contemporary composers do have audiences, and the composers are usually rather well aware of what the expectations of these audiences are. This doesn't however mean that these audiences must encompass "the public" as a whole, or that they just fulfill those expectations.

I have to be honest and say that I've never met anybody interested in 'very modern' music who wasn't a musician. I suppose though that this may have been the case with older-generation 'avante-garde' composers, such as Debussy. I wonder how pieces like La Mer initially went down and who was going to see it performed? On the flipside, a lot of music that tries very hard to cater for as many people as possible is often quite forgettable.

... and 90% of what is inculcated in university is a push in post-modernism.

It depends. I looked at the main music academies in London and I did get the impression that Guildhall was very much focused on incredibly obscure avante-garde music. However my fears that all the London Academies would be completely "anti-old music" were not really founded in truth. At the Royal Academy for example I heard that there were composers writing in many different styles. There was somebody apparently writing modern Hans-Zimmerish film music, which - being relatively simple - is almost the complete and utter antithesis of ultra modernism.

But there are institutions where basic musical skills are neglected in favour of conceptual performance. I couldn't recommend Sussex University to anybody...!