John Cage "4'33"

grumpytrousers

cornbb wrote:

There is no possible definition of boat loose/broad enough to allow someone to describe a car as a boat. There are widely accepted definitions of music loose/broad enough to describe 4'33" as music.

but most of the 'definitions/opinions' you cited use the word 'organised' but we've already agreed (haven't we?) that in any given performance of 4'33" there's nothing organised, per se, apart from the 'nothingness' given by the 'performers'; the audible manifestation of the piece - the 'background noise (if you will) - isn't organised in any coherent, transcribed manner, is it? The chap who coughs at 27 seconds in doesn't do it every time it's performed. It's not 'scored'.

I mean, as we go down your list, towards the end, there's the one "Music is the diarrhea of the intellect" which doesn't really define anything in any coherent terms specific to music, and you might just as well replace the word 'music' there with 'blogging' and nobody would turn a hair. Or 'posting on boards.ie' for that matter. (Guilty, as charged by the way, M'lud!)

"Broadly speaking, sounds organized to express a wide variety of human emotions". Again, there's 'broadly speaking' and then there's this. To go back to my 'urination in a bucket' meisterwork (which I'm currently hawking around to some top record companies, i might add), isn't *that* an expression of a wide variety of human emotions, not least relief at finally letting out the nine pints of cheap lager that have been swooshing around in the bladder earlier! But even i'll tell you it's not music (tho' if somebody wants to give me a million euro advance, i'll take it!)

I'll take your point that it's 'art with a musical theme' and perhaps we should leave it at that!

mike65

This may be the most 'upper-sixth' thread currently running on boards.

Meanwhile

Art for arts sake, money for Gods sake

BaZmO* wrote:

On a different point, wasn't there some legal issues regarding the copyright of this piece or something similar? I remember seeing something on the news around the time of this "performance"

Indeed Mike "Remember You're a Womble" Batt was accused of copywrite infringment when he did an edited version of 4'33' called A Minute's Silence on a CD.

Mike.

John

BaZmO* wrote:

According to Merriam-Webster "Music" is defined as...

And John Cage (who was a philosopher of music as well as a composer) defined music as (and I'm paraphrasing because the book is at home): all sound is music. So in a Cagean sense, 4'33" is music. And as for the argument that it can't be music because it's not organised, organisation does not necessarily remove random elements. In fact, it was a love of the random that inspired Cage most and one of his aims was to question the thought of music just being "organised" sound. Many of his scores were composed using random methods like dice and the I Ching and some of them are quite listenable. Free jazz like Albert Ayler is random and not organised in any traditional sense and it's still music. The sounds of nature are musical but something like a waterfall or the wind isn't organised. Organisation is just one route to take in making music, it is not the be all and end all.

mike65 wrote:

Indeed Mike "Remember You're a Womble" Batt was accused of copywrite infringment when he did an edited version of 4'33' called A Minute's Silence on a CD.

Loads of people have used silence on compositions/albums but he's the only one who got in trouble because he credited the silence to John Cage and didn't pay any royalties to his estate, if he hadn't put Cage's name down there would have been nothing made of it.

Setun

John wrote:

And John Cage (who was a philosopher of music as well as a composer) defined music as (and I'm paraphrasing because the book is at home): all sound is music. So in a Cagean sense, 4'33" is music. And as for the argument that it can't be music because it's not organised, organisation does not necessarily remove random elements. In fact, it was a love of the random that inspired Cage most and one of his aims was to question the thought of music just being "organised" sound. Many of his scores were composed using random methods like dice and the I Ching and some of them are quite listenable. Free jazz like Albert Ayler is random and not organised in any traditional sense and it's still music. The sounds of nature are musical but something like a waterfall or the wind isn't organised. Organisation is just one route to take in making music, it is not the be all and end all.

Here here!

Agree with the above. As soon as people start exploring definitions they realise how flawed and/or ambiguous they can be - my tutor at college is always talking about this.

Actually the other day I was walking alongside a busy road and three cars beeped their horns simultaneously. The weird part was that they were three different cars - and their horns harmonised. Cage would have dug it.

BaZmO*

John wrote:

And John Cage (who was a philosopher of music as well as a composer) defined music as (and I'm paraphrasing because the book is at home): all sound is music. So in a Cagean sense, 4'33" is music. And as for the argument that it can't be music because it's not organised, organisation does not necessarily remove random elements. In fact, it was a love of the random that inspired Cage most and one of his aims was to question the thought of music just being "organised" sound. Many of his scores were composed using random methods like dice and the I Ching and some of them are quite listenable. Free jazz like Albert Ayler is random and not organised in any traditional sense and it's still music. The sounds of nature are musical but something like a waterfall or the wind isn't organised. Organisation is just one route to take in making music, it is not the be all and end all.

But that's getting away from the reason why I quoted the definition of music from the dictionary. I only quoted it because cornbb suggested the notion of what defines music.

4'33 doesn't have any of the elements that you listed above apart from a performance of nothingness, that's not music it's performance arts.

You could quite easily argue that his other other pieces push the boundaries of what is and what isn't music as we know it whether it be organised or not organised but it still uses sound as the media.

You could also argue that the definition of music being "The organisation of sounds with some degree of rhythm, melody, and harmony" is flawed due to the fact that whether or not it has a perceived organisation by very virtue of the piece being conceived by the composer it has been organised.

Whoah! This is all getting too heavy....I need a pint!

John

BaZmO* wrote:

But that's getting away from the reason why I quoted the definition of music from the dictionary. I only quoted it because cornbb suggested the notion of what defines music.

I think it's all relevant to a discussion of Cage

4'33 doesn't have any of the elements that you listed above apart from a performance of nothingness, that's not music it's performance arts.

But it does, it's not a performance of nothingness and Cage always maintained it wasn't a silent piece, that is missing the point entirely. It is a way of forcing the performer and the audience to shut up and pay attention to the random sounds around them (so there is a degree of organisation on one level if you want to discuss it from that side). It is the same to me as stopping what I'm doing and listening to the traffic or birdsong or whatever noise I happen to notice. Sure people would do this anyway but Cage forced people to take it seriously, to treat this natural/random music as you would treat Beethoven's Fifth or "All Along the Watchtower".

You could quite easily argue that his other other pieces push the boundaries of what is and what isn't music as we know it whether it be organised or not organised but it still uses sound as the media.

I think that's what I'm trying to do but I'm not sure any more

You could also argue that the definition of music being "The organisation of sounds with some degree of rhythm, melody, and harmony" is flawed due to the fact that whether or not it has a perceived organisation by very virtue of the piece being conceived by the composer it has been organised.

I think that is a very valid interpretation and I'd tend to agree with it.

Whoah! This is all getting too heavy....I need a pint!

In the spirit of Cage it'd better be an empty glass!

BaZmO*

John wrote:

In the spirit of Cage it'd better be an empty glass!

Haha!

mike65

Pete Townshend beat you to it.

Mike.

Sinfonia

John wrote:

And John Cage (who was a philosopher of music as well as a composer) defined music as (and I'm paraphrasing because the book is at home): all sound is music. So in a Cagean sense, 4'33" is music. And as for the argument that it can't be music because it's not organised, organisation does not necessarily remove random elements. In fact, it was a love of the random that inspired Cage most and one of his aims was to question the thought of music just being "organised" sound. Many of his scores were composed using random methods like dice and the I Ching and some of them are quite listenable. Free jazz like Albert Ayler is random and not organised in any traditional sense and it's still music. The sounds of nature are musical but something like a waterfall or the wind isn't organised. Organisation is just one route to take in making music, it is not the be all and end all.

Exactly what I was going to say.


The music is created by chance from outside sounds.
Music does not have to be created by a traditional musical instrument necessarily. And tones do not have to be within a certain range to be considered musical - dragging a chair across a floor makes a sound, which can be applied to a system of notation (A, Bb, B, C, etc.)

What Cage is doing is creating music using non-traditional elements, and combining this with the element of chance/random composition.
Therefore, I consider this piece to be music, by it's very definition.

Obviously Cage then pushes this boundary further, by having each performance undergo a new process of chance, rather than having one definitive version - this makes the piece ever-changing, and gives it another level (plus, it takes away the need to score "Chair in 3rd row plays B flat":D ).

These are my impressions on the piece anyway.

Mr.Nice Guy

People who believe this to be "art" or "genius" are seriously deluded. This is exactly like the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. People were duped into believing that the Emperor was wearing "invisible" clothes and told that only stupid people couldn't see the clothes. Therfore they all pretended that they could see them and that they were magnificent. Eventually a child shouts out "but he's not wearing anything!" and thus the people realise this to be true.

Similarly if you show this video to a child he'll proclaim, "but he's not doing anything!"

To people who think this is a work of magnificence I would say stop being sheep and realise that it's pure bullsh*t.

cornbb

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

People who believe this to be "art" or "genius" are seriously deluded. This is exactly like the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. People were duped into believing that the Emperor was wearing "invisible" clothes and told that only stupid people couldn't see the clothes. Therfore they all pretended that they could see them and that they were magnificent. Eventually a child shouts out "but he's not wearing anything!" and thus the people realise this to be true.

Similarly if you show this video to a child he'll proclaim, "but he's not doing anything!"

To people who think this is a work of magnificence I would say stop being sheep and realise that it's pure bullsh*t.

Thats not a very fitting analogy. I've come across some real bullsh*t art, stuff without any real foundation. Its the ideas behind this piece that give it value. If you don't like it fair enough, but a lot of people like it a lot, many of whom have had enough exposure to art to form an individual opinion of it (i.e. not "sheep") and can generally differentiate something with value from meaningless bullsh*t.

Mr.Nice Guy

cornbb wrote:

Thats not a very fitting analogy. I've come across some real bullsh*t art, stuff without any real foundation. Its the ideas behind this piece that give it value. If you don't like it fair enough, but a lot of people like it a lot, many of whom have had enough exposure to art to form an individual opinion of it (i.e. not "sheep") and can generally differentiate something with value from meaningless bullsh*t.

You say it's "the ideas behind this piece that give it value". I think the only idea behind this piece was to see how many people could have the wool pulled over their eyes.

This is not music. It has no more artistic merit or musical legitimacy than a person standing up and screaming for four minutes straight. That would not be music - it would be noise. Similarly this is not music - it's silence.

People need to stand up to this kind of pretentious guff and recognise it for what it is - nothing.

grumpytrousers

going by some of the opinions cited here, then is it fair to say that some folks of this parish basically take the view that there is no difference, per se, between 'music' and 'noise'; is there a line that separates both. I mean, surely to jesus going by some of the posts here earlier, the noises of my fingers clack-clack-clacking against the keys of this laptop are 'musical.

frigs sakes, they're not...:D

mike65

They could be with syncopation.

Mike.

Sinfonia

grumpytrousers wrote:

I mean, surely to jesus going by some of the posts here earlier, the noises of my fingers clack-clack-clacking against the keys of this laptop are 'musical.

frigs sakes, they're not...:D

Cllllllick!

grumpytrousers

Ordinarily I'd bang my head against the keyboard in frustration at this, but as
a) Declan from accounts is a known bootlegger and
b) i've seen him with his microphone, and
c) to be honest, I don't want my seminal work going out on the 'net before I've had a chance to have it properly mastered...

I'm just gonna back out of this discussion...i think we're reaching the point marked 'silly'

BaZmO*

grumpytrousers wrote:

I mean, surely to jesus going by some of the posts here earlier, the noises of my fingers clack-clack-clacking against the keys of this laptop are 'musical.

frigs sakes, they're not...:D

Pink Flyod used the sound of a cash register as a percussion instrument in their song "Money"

But the difference with using random objects like a Typewriter or Cash Register in musical compositions is the fact that they actually produce sound. 4'33 doesn't have any sound so it's not music.

John

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

People who believe this to be "art" or "genius" are seriously deluded. This is exactly like the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. People were duped into believing that the Emperor was wearing "invisible" clothes and told that only stupid people couldn't see the clothes. Therfore they all pretended that they could see them and that they were magnificent. Eventually a child shouts out "but he's not wearing anything!" and thus the people realise this to be true.

Similarly if you show this video to a child he'll proclaim, "but he's not doing anything!"

Actually, I have shown this video to children and they are less fussed about it than most grown ups. The idea of stopping and listening to the world around them is not a huge problem to them like it seems to be to you.

To people who think this is a work of magnificence I would say stop being sheep and realise that it's pure bullsh*t.

To people who think this is not a work of magnificence I would say stop being sheep and open your ears and your mind.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

You say it's "the ideas behind this piece that give it value". I think the only idea behind this piece was to see how many people could have the wool pulled over their eyes.

No it wasn't, Cage worked out a very sound (pun intended) philosophy which led to him writing this piece. There is a very good reason why he's held in high regard in the world of music and they are the same reasons that James Joyce is held in high regard in literature, they did not go with the status quo and developed an entirely new way of approaching their art.

This is not music. It has no more artistic merit or musical legitimacy than a person standing up and screaming for four minutes straight. That would not be music - it would be noise. Similarly this is not music - it's silence.

No, it would be music if people were willing to sit down and listen to it (they are).

People need to stand up to this kind of pretentious guff and recognise it for what it is - nothing.

Who says nothing is not worth celebrating?

"I've nothing to say and I'm saying it" - John Cage

grumpytrousers wrote:

going by some of the opinions cited here, then is it fair to say that some folks of this parish basically take the view that there is no difference, per se, between 'music' and 'noise'; is there a line that separates both. I mean, surely to jesus going by some of the posts here earlier, the noises of my fingers clack-clack-clacking against the keys of this laptop are 'musical.

frigs sakes, they're not...:D

They are if you want them to be. And noise is only noise if you don't want to hear it, your neighbour playing drums too loudly is noise to you but music to him.

BaZmO* wrote:

But the difference with using random objects like a Typewriter or Cash Register in musical compositions is the fact that they actually produce sound. 4'33 doesn't have any sound so it's not music.

That's a fair point but I don't agree with it.

grumpytrousers

only popping in for a quick cheap shot...staying out of this

John wrote:

they did not go with the status quo and developed an entirely new way of approaching their art

"'ere Rick...hows 'bout we stand 'ere for four minutes and thirty three seconds and let the audience just pay attention to the nuffinkness of the noise about them"
"Francis - oi loikes it a lot"

John

I'd rather listen to silence than Status Quo!

Mr.Nice Guy

John wrote:

Actually, I have shown this video to children and they are less fussed about it than most grown ups. The idea of stopping and listening to the world around them is not a huge problem to them like it seems to be to you.

I have no problem listening to silence. I have a problem listening to naive people telling me this silence is music when it is not.

John wrote:

To people who think this is not a work of magnificence I would say stop being sheep and open your ears and your mind.

Open our ears to what? Nothing? Let's call a spade a spade.

John wrote:

No it wasn't, Cage worked out a very sound (pun intended) philosophy which led to him writing this piece. There is a very good reason why he's held in high regard in the world of music and they are the same reasons that James Joyce is held in high regard in literature, they did not go with the status quo and developed an entirely new way of approaching their art.

It's laughable to compare Joyce to Cage. Joyce didn't publish a book with empty pages and call it a masterpiece. Though if he had would you spend hours reading it?

John wrote:

No, it would be music if people were willing to sit down and listen to it (they are).

How does that make it music? You seem to think the sounds occurring elsewhere - noises in the background etc. - make this a legitimate piece of music which is a spurious claim as it has nothing to do with Cage's piece (or lack thereof)

John wrote:

Who says nothing is not worth celebrating?

Sane people.

John wrote:

"I've nothing to say and I'm saying it" - John Cage

Indeed. Sadly there's people willing to listen to this chancer with nothing to say.

John

Open our ears to what? Nothing? Let's call a spade a spade.

But it's also a percussion instrument.

It's laughable to compare Joyce to Cage. Joyce didn't publish a book with empty pages and call it a masterpiece. Though if he had would you spend hours reading it?

No it's not at all. Cage made "unlistenable" music (beyond 4'33", he did compose many, many more pieces with deliberate sounds) and Joyce made an "unreadable" book. Cage himself felt that Joyce was a kindred spirit (and indeed dedicated a lot of his time to writing text and music around Finnegans Wake), he's not the only one who thought that way. You obviously have no knowledge of Cage beyond the superficial "him that wrote the silent piece", if you ever read any of Cage's interviews, essays and lectures you'd find that a lot of what Cage was trying to do with music, Joyce was trying to do with literature.

How does that make it music? You seem to think the sounds occurring elsewhere - noises in the background etc. - make this a legitimate piece of music which is a spurious claim as it has nothing to do with Cage's piece (or lack thereof)

Yes I do think that it's the noises in the background that make the music. It is not meant to be absolute silence as Cage wanted to show that absolute silence was impossible. He also wanted to show that all sound could be considered music if you give it the right setting (such as an auditorium filled with a paying audience and professional musicians), an idea of which 4'33" is an extreme but which has been taken in far more palatable terms in the decades that followed when sampling and the studio came to the fore and traditionally non-musical sounds became musical (such as the Beach Boys using sounds made from Coke cans and hip hop DJs using scratching and run off sounds which Cage also did in the 50s with his piece Rozart Mix). 4'33" is most interesting to me as the calm before the storm of opening the musical lexicon to the wide palette that it is now.

Sane people.

I'm perfectly sane and am surrounded by people qualified to certify that.

Indeed. Sadly there's people willing to listen to this chancer with nothing to say.

Read Conversations with Cage and tell me that he's a chancer with nothing to say.