4'33"

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

lolwut

That can be said for every piece of music ever.

@ almacg

The thing is, 4'33" is always playing anyway. Cage just pointed that out. The piece and its "shock value" (although I hate to use that term) make you think about it - they make one think thoughts they wouldn't have otherwise (re-evaluate their definitions of music and thoughts on the roles of people involved in its creation), or at least they did at the first performance

As for the last sentence, that's true of any piece.

Edit: Darn you, Tyler.

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.

You're missing the point entirely.

Cage wrote 4'33" so you wouldn't sit in quiet and just go "lolwut?" like you normally would. In the piece, you know you're meant to pay attention.

It helps that the tension in the room is risen because everybody doesn't dare to cough, lol (even though that's, uh, a part of the piece. :x)

God, musicians are my least favorite people ever.

You're missing the point entirely.

Cage wrote 4'33" so you wouldn't sit in quiet and just go "lolwut?" like you normally would. In the piece, you know you're meant to pay attention.

It helps that the tension in the room is risen because everybody doesn't dare to cough, lol (even though that's, uh, a part of the piece. :x)

God, musicians are my least favorite people ever.

Politicians are still worse, I'd say. :hmmm:

Evidence of what exactly? Legal code I can somewhat understand as it's designed to avoid ambiguity, but the other two are entirely subjective experiences/opinions, how are they evidence of anything?

PS: What Gardiner said obviously also an apply to 4'33''. But hey, a lot of forum members would scream bloody murder at the thought 4'33'' was considered a masterpiece by anyone (not that anyone cares.)

Like you said, evidence #3 is unambiguous.

For evidence #1, imagine you were in the audience.

For evidence #2, notice that the word 'premiere' is absent from Gardiner's quote.

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

Pretend that this thread is 4'33".

And let it be silent.

Let's.

YC really could use some kind of filter that encrypts threads like these into some sort of indecipherable code. Perhaps Canadian English. :hmmm:

"So I heard about this piece called 4'33", eh? I don't know what it's aboot or this John Cage fellow but I'd be appreciative if someone could explain it to me, eh?"

Problem solved.

Why not English English?

'I say old chap, have you heeded this blithering jolly roger 'Johnathon Cage'? Dash it, I'm somewhat bloody ignorant to the blighter, how about the rest of the fellow YC platoon?

Yours Bewilderdly,

Augustus Fink-Nottle IV, Duke of Bubbleborough'

Cor blimey!

why diddly doodly!

I thinkereeno that that there music-thingambob ain't got nothin but silencereeno!

So, neighboureeno, what ooogly-doodly do you think?

and just to be fair:

Sacre bleu!

ze muzik! she is not zere!

eet eez tr

How about'em Leet?

"$0 1 |-|34

I was talking about John Cage to my composition teacher (David Loeb) and he told me stories about thier encounters. He taught Cage how to play chess, something which Cage had enormous intrest in despite its extreme rational nature (in an irrational man).

You guys ever heard Cage's gamelan pieces?

And it makes perfect sense that cage would want to learn chess -- eastern origins, combinatorics basically run that game, etc. etc.

...Cage had enormous intrest in [chess] despite its extreme rational nature (in an irrational man).

John Cage was an irrational man? I call shenanigans on that...

Not only that, but I'd say that "rational" is a poor choice of word to describe chess. "Logical", maybe.

And "irrational" to describe John Cage? I don't think so. The man was FAR from lacking in intellectual capacity.

I love it when people who believe that a "mystical sky grandfather" created everything call someone else "irrational".

oi.

:P

I meant irrational in that he created a "piece" of "music" with no "music" in it.

That doesn't seem irrational?

I meant irrational in that he created a "piece" of "music" with no "music" in it.

That doesn't seem irrational?

no, not when you understand the intent of the creation of the particular piece of art.

no, not when you understand the intent of the creation of the particular piece of art.

Intent? Who the heck cares about that? The artsy-fartsy elitists who fund the projects?

All I care about (representing the layman) is if it's good music and good to listen to. Obviously this piece ain't either. So why call it art?

All hail Andy Rooney! That man has some rationalism.

Intent? Who the heck cares about that? The artsy-fartsy elitists who fund the projects?

All I care about (representing the layman) is if it's good music and good to listen to. Obviously this piece ain't either. So why call it art?

All hail Andy Rooney! That man has some rationalism.

That man is a "know-nothing boob"as he himself puts it. When someone admits to having no knowledge or understanding of the suject he is speaking about, you may want to think twice about adopting that position for your own. :hmmm:

Justin: I'm sorry, but one really doubts your future as a composer if you can't understand the role of the composer's intent in the process of composition. Intent is a truly basic fundamental tenet of the creation of any art.

That man is a "know-nothing boob"as he himself puts it. When someone admits to having no knowledge or understanding of the suject he is speaking about, you may want to think twice about adopting that position for your own. :hmmm:

Why? I'm a know-nothing boob too. I don't care for "art" as these elites try to call it. I write music to create music, not great works of art.

Why? I'm a know-nothing boob too. I don't care for "art" as these elites try to call it. I write music to create music, not great works of art.

Sort of like those who write muzak?

You are attempting to justify your ignorance by demonizing knowledge.

It just doesn't work that way.

Calling them "elites" isn't actually going to somehow miraculously make them bad. It only makes you look like an arrogant and, mostly, an ignorant little snot.

"Those elites", as YOU call them, are other composers, and people who have spent their entire lives pondering the issues surrounding the creation of art, in all its forms.

Really, if this is how you feel about other artists, then you are heading into the wrong field. Become a plumber or something.

You know what's funny? QCC has spend 1/3rd of the thread "defending" the work and Cage when his own output is nowhere near avant garde, or even "dissonance" for that matter (Michel, you know very well what I mean by the word "dissonance", right?).

Honestly LOL! Honestly!

BTW, I'd recomend going the Greek language if we are to describe 4'33" by now: Και τώρα θα σας μιλήσω για τη μαλακία (malakia: you probably know this word)... :D:D:D:D