Modern Composition John Cage

Music is intentionally calling attention to sound.

4'33", to me, is thousands of times better than Fall Out Boy. It's not music, but it is a statement. I just think it's loving retarded, especially because the Cage estate apparently tried to sue somebody for writing a shorter version of the piece (you know, like a 1'44" or something). That pisses me off.

This is genious, I love this piece.

SimenN:

Don't be so quick to dismiss something you don't understand. You ridicule something solely because it's foreign to you. Take off the blinders and try and open your mind a little bit.

Expand your definition of 'composition'. Cage 'composed' a truly unique concept with 4'33", and (as Daniel mentioned) the philosophical implications are profound. With many of these 'avant-garde' performance pieces, each performance becomes in and of itself a unique and special moment in time - musical or otherwise. It's all about creating something to be experienced and witnessed.

Dig: La Monte Young's Piano Piece for David Tudor #1

Bring a bale of hay and a bucket of water onto the stage for the piano to eat and drink. The performer may then feed the piano or leave it to eat by itself. If the former, the piece is over after the piano has been fed. If the latter, it is over after the piano eats or decides not to. (October 1960)

-------

John Cage, Rahsaan Roland Kirk: S O U N D

what I think cage was trying to say was that all it takes to create art or music is recognition, and in doing so we can empower ourselves and our subject(s). its liked sticking a transparent picture frame over any given space. and imagine the spiritual power of 4'33 specifically, a hall filled with awareness and a common goal. really counters the modern lifestlye and how we take for granted the things that are naturally given to us

No realy , this is insane, this is no composition, this is not music, this is silence, when you are home at night before you sleep, the same silence, he did not produce anything.

No it's not the same!! Of course it's not!

For Cage there was no silence. If you bother a bit and do just a tiny bit of essential research you'll find out that a) there's a lot that Cage wrote and did before 4'33", and b) there is a lot he did and wrote after he wrote 4'33" . You must also realise the impact this piece had on many other composers of that period who hanged around with Cage.

I won't even bother replying more than that in this topic.

I believe Cage wrote this piece after realising that it was impossible to experience true silence. By making an audience sit for 4 and a half minutes without the performers playing anything, rather observing background noise, he was hoping that he could share this realisation and with it, consider what music actually is - where does sound become music? If sound is always present (as he discovered), what is the role of music?

In this sense, this is a very accomplished work, achieving this purpose not only in performance, making us consider the "silence" we normally ignore every day, but in the debate surrounding that performance. Even amongst those who consider this piece worthless, there must still be some contemplation of what it is trying to do, trying to say.

It could therefore be said that this is a very deep and successful work, certainly achieving a lot more from a composers perspective than yet another baroque-style superficial invention for keyboard. It is expressing something that words cannot - something that has to be experienced.

To me 4'33 is art. Becoming aware of the sounds we take for granted is not only art but philosophical.

Granted that this piece is successful (indicated by the level of appreciation, even on this board), it is at best insincere, and at worst .... misguided. (Or should it be the other way around?)

Insincere because there is a hidden agenda behind the 'music' (at least according to accepted wisdom), and misguided because it devalues music from an extraordinary design to mere a commonplace, natural occurrence.

Even if one accepts that true silence is not possible, why attribute any sound to music? If that's the case, is speech music? I would have respect for the composer if he actually believed that. Then he'd say he's 'listening to music' when watching the news, listening to a sermon, or to a match on the radio. Sounds are not silence. But why attempt to pass any sound as music?

Mediocrity does not a great composer make.

Granted that this piece is successful (indicated by the level of appreciation, even on this board), it is at best insincere, and at worst .... misguided. (Or should it be the other way around?)

Insincere because there is a hidden agenda behind the 'music' (at least according to accepted wisdom), and misguided because it devalues music from an extraordinary design to mere a commonplace, natural occurrence.

Even if one accepts that true silence is not possible, why attribute any sound to music? If that's the case, is speech music? I would have respect for the composer if he actually believed that. Then he'd say he's 'listening to music' when watching the news, listening to a sermon, or to a match on the radio. Sounds are not silence. But why attempt to pass any sound as music?

Mediocrity does not a great composer make.

Way to plow right by all the perfectly valid explanations about the nature of 4'33" and its place in the world of musical thought.

It's not a question of passing off any old sound as music.

Take a few minutes and read some of the explanations that have beengiven on this thread. They are quite logical and contain wonderful insight.

4'33" is an exploration of the nature of sound/silence.

It wasn't meant as a new form of composition

It was never meant to start a "school" of composition.

It was an experiment and a philosophical statement. And a perfectly valid philosophical statement by a man who delved very deeply into the nature of music and how the musical establishement and the concert-going public conceive of it.

4'33" is an exploration of the nature of sound/silence.

It wasn't meant as a new form of composition

It was never meant to start a "school" of composition.

It was an experiment and a philosophical statement. And a perfectly valid philosophical statement by a man who delved very deeply into the nature of music and how the musical establishement and the concert-going public conceive of it.

I understand the extra-musical intent of the piece, that's why I said it is at best insincere. If it is trying to convey a philosophical statement, that's perfectly fine, but concealing it in a musical clothing is 'having a cake and eating it, too'.

I'd have respect for this piece if:

1. It's just making a philosophical statement about sound/silence, but not music.

or

2. It claims itself as (the ultimate) aleatoric music, with the consequence that any sound is music.

Trying to have it both ways is a cop out.

As I already stated, music is intentionally calling attention to sounds, in an organized manner.

Living Room Music is music, even though the third (second, maybe?) movement is pure speech.

I recently listened to a lot of pieces for Theory class that can challenge the definition of music, but my definition stands strong through them all.

I understand the extra-musical intent of the piece, that's why I said it is at best insincere. If it is trying to convey a philosophical statement, that's perfectly fine, but concealing it in a musical clothing is 'having a cake and eating it, too'.

I'd have respect for this piece if:

1. It's just making a philosophical statement about sound/silence, but not music.

or

2. It claims itself as (the ultimate) aleatoric music, with the consequence that any sound is music.

Trying to have it both ways is a cop out.

Is art that makes us think about our world in a different way not some of the greatest art of all? By successfully making such a philosophical statement, Cage has created a work that makes us consider the role of sound in our world - those background noises that we don't consider. Making anyone experiencing this work consider the nature of background sound is certainly leading to a different line of thought about the everyday world! 4'33" achieves what great art sets out to achieve. I honestly don't see how this is "insincere"!

How else though would you present such an artwork, such a message in any other form than a piece of music? By leading the audience to consider it as a piece of music, more in depth consideration is given to these background noises. The audience is in the right frame of mind to listen, to consider, to absorb the message.

In terms of your second point, aleatoric music is about introducing a degree of randomness and chance to a piece of music. Taking this principle to the extreme is leaving everything up to background noise. Regardless of whether you consider this noise music or not, the technique is being applied to its extreme.

Stravinsky said "music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all".

In other words, the meaning of music is supplied by the listener: the above controversial statement implies all the meaning is so supplied and

nothing is inherent in the notes themselves. Just as these words, any words, only have meaning by agreement of those who speak English, the meaning of a composition comes from an agreement amongst listeners. And listeners, based on their culture, experience and education divide into groups as to what they consider is music and what their music means.

Back to 4'33" by John Cage - whether it is considered music or not depends on who is listening. This piece wasn't just silence - it was an audience ready to listen , an orchestra ready to play, and silence. There was a composition, performed recently in Toronto I believe, which was intended to recreate the sounds of the Toronto subway - was this more musical then 4'33" ???

haha, cage did nothing, NOTHING? de he write silence? no, what is this to understand? i do perfectly understand, but i dont see this as composition, not even as art, nothing i see this a way to make money, and people follow and aplaud.

A baby could have done the cage thing? no problem, you need no talent NO composition skills nothing to tell the orchestra, be quiet for 4, 33 minutes.

Silence is not new, you hear it everytime at a concerto, just before the orchestra starts to play. I could play in the cage orchestra, i have never played violin before, but it dont look that hard? and that is sick, that is my "narrowmidned blinded " opinion

haha, cage did nothing, NOTHING? de he write silence? no, what is this to understand? i do perfectly understand, but i dont see this as composition, not even as art, nothing i see this a way to make money, and people follow and aplaud.

A baby could have done the cage thing? no problem, you need no talent NO composition skills nothing to tell the orchestra, be quiet for 4, 33 minutes.

Silence is not new, you hear it everytime at a concerto, just before the orchestra starts to play. I could play in the cage orchestra, i have never played violin before, but it dont look that hard? and that is sick, that is my "narrowmidned blinded " opinion

The point is, you didn't.

You didn't THINK of it.

You didn't EXPRESS it philosophically.

Why don't you give it a rest?

What Cage did was a gesture, with a very deep and long thought out philosophical intent.

He HAS written music that is quite beautiful and lyrical. I know, I've performed some in the past. So the man DID have musical talent.

Your argument, and constant return on attacking this single work of musico-philosophical THOUGHT is getting annoying and is really pointless.

Did John Cage promote the idea that we should ALL be "writing" silence? No. He did it ONCE!!!! for crying out loud. It was a gesture, an event.

Unless you actually wish to discuss the philosophical implications of sound/silence in music, this thread is entirely pointless other than as "John Cage bashing".

well, for cage was into zen-budhism and mushrooms, i don't find it so extremely difficult to understand :D

plus, he comes to the audiences that widely are city people and throws something they might have already forgotten - an idea of the other world existing around them. there is something else to listen to - not just ''music''. it certainly a question of 'what is music?', but intentionally addressed to modern western man. in other cultures it would not be so much valid and strong. it would not strike people as it strikes modern western cultured man. that is - biting their self-indulged listening practice, which has become not-listening . it's as much philosophical as it is ironic.

and, of course, a step to publically share his views on impossibility of silence.

and, yes, maybe ask, even himself, is sound (and-what sound?) music then?

i certainly don't see it as an answer, but a question, which is the central stone of avant-garde thought in general. like duschamps 'pisuar'.

Hehe, mabye that is your point of view and i accept that, my question was at the start of the thread? is this art? and you say yes, i say no :) im sure the man is a good composer, but that 4,33 piece is not composition, and i dont think this way " woow what a genious he turned a concerto in to a 4,33 silence" great idea, i think this way, "what the hell is he doing? inviting to a concerto and have not written a note? this is not music and sure not composition, and they call it a piece, its not" just wanted to dicuss with you what you mean about that piece, he have other pieces like that too, one for piano, one note only " listen to the soundwaves".

All i say to do that "write music" without one single note or any sound, or one note and imagine the rest of the music, listen to the crowd "sneez" i dont see any music in that.

But you well know my opinoin, i wanted to know yours, but the thing that is bothering me is you allways need to insult me, i dont insult you. Discuss with the proper arguments and without insulting the other part, if you say? i dont like baroque, i dont like classical music i like Cage, and i dont consider the old music as art anymore, well i say i dont, but id never call you narrowminded stupid etc.

Hehe, mabye that is your point of view and i accept that, my question was at the start of the thread? is this art? and you say yes, i say no :) im sure the man is a good composer, but that 4,33 piece is not composition, and i dont think this way " woow what a genious he turned a concerto in to a 4,33 silence" great idea, i think this way, "what the hell is he doing? inviting to a concerto and have not written a note? this is not music and sure not composition, and they call it a piece, its not" just wanted to dicuss with you what you mean about that piece, he have other pieces like that too, one for piano, one note only " listen to the soundwaves".

All i say to do that "write music" without one single note or any sound, or one note and imagine the rest of the music, listen to the crowd "sneez" i dont see any music in that.

But you well know my opinoin, i wanted to know yours, but the thing that is bothering me is you allways need to insult me, i dont insult you. Discuss with the proper arguments and without insulting the other part, if you say? i dont like baroque, i dont like classical music i like Cage, and i dont consider the old music as art anymore, well i say i dont, but id never call you narrowminded stupid etc.

Are you doing it on purpose to be dense?

Are you going out of your way not to understand?

"Narrowminded" describes perfectly well your approach to this whole discussion.

You refuse to acknowledge that John Cage made a contribution to musicological thought through the gesture he posed with 4'33", by continually applying YOUR standards af "it needs this element to be officially recognized as music".

THAT is the purest definition of "narrowmindedness".

I will defend to the death your right to compose in a style, and limiting yourself to the harmony, of a period now gone 300 years.

However, if you want anyone to accept your music, you have to accept that musical thought has expanded beyond the bounds to which you are limiting yourself.

No one, least of all John Cage, is saying that 4'33" is a "piece of music". I really, REALLY don't see why you are so tirelessly launching this attack against a piece that had great significance in 20th century thought regarding music.

No one who went to the concert where 4'33" was presented was expecting a concert of baroque and classical music. So no, no one would have been insulted or upset that the pianist walked out onto the stage and did nothing for four minutes and thirty three seconds. The audience would have KNOWN that Cage is an avant-garde thinker. They would have read the programme notes. They would have understood what it was he was trying to bring up as a point about music/silence.

It is not your place to be insulted and offended that someone "performed" a work of "music" that actually contained no notes. Really. It's not.

If you don't understand the gesture, then that's your loss. With every word you write regarding this issue, you clearly demonstrate that you are in absolutely no position to even discuss the very concepts that Cage was exploring.

You are as narrow-minded as the avant-gardistes who reject anything that is remotely tonal.

Isn't it of more concern to you that the two opposite sides of the same coin ("period" composers such as yourself, and avant-garde composers such as a few on this forum who will remain nameless) are both so completely inward-turned that they reject everything in between as well?

I can't put it any more clearly: you and your fellow baroque revivalists are as wrong as the avant-garde extremists in your rejections of everything that is not "you.

There is great, nay.. tremendous! music composed after the baroque and classical periods. Right up to this very day, there is great music being written.

If you are incapable of appreciating it, then do NOT lay the fault on the music or its creator. Lay the fault where it belongs: with your own lack of comprehension.

There is great, nay.. tremendous! music composed after the baroque and classical periods. Right up to this very day, there is great music being written.

Yes i know do that ? dont i ? i have said it before, i dont just like baroque and classical, i like chopin , schubert , schumann, lizst , john williams, hans zimmer ++ +++

but i dont like them as much as bach and mozart, you know this ? and i dont like this Cage dude, and that is my opinon!

"You are as narrow-minded as the avant-gardistes who reject anything that is remotely tonal", thank you.

"I can't put it any more clearly: you and your fellow baroque revivalists are as wrong as the avant-garde extremists in your rejections of everything that is not "you."

thank you for that to!, you could not stop with the insults , thank you :)

Let's see where the insults first started, shall we?

I see music like this, a light and a dark side of the music. The light side is good, and the dark evil and destructive.

Baroque and classical is the light side of the music.

The rest is the dark side of the music.

Too bad, many of you have fell to the dark side, but i belive in redemption, you can all be saved.

But I think the realy good music started in the Baroque and ended with Mozart. That is my opinion.

You have a propensity to confuse your personal taste in music with some objective statement about music.

That you PREFER the music of the baroque and classical periods is one thing.

That good music was or was not written after that period is, obviously completely outside of your ability to judge.

You appear to have so little knowledge of music in the 20th century and beyond that, really, your opinion on anything related to it is pretty meaningless.

Lol that was a joke? read the rest, i was kidding with SSC

There are people in here who could talk about 20-25 years of study, so? Any problem or any solution with that?

SimenN, I really don't see any question marks in your posts in this thread. You are not trying to understand, you are not attempting it even, you are simply trying to mock someone else, your peer (assuming you are a composer). It's a pity really... Denying yourself the questions, you won't go much further. Because who is to say that what you mock today and find hillarious and ridiculous, won't be the future, or won't spring an idea that IS acceptable? Do you have any idea how many composers, bands, etc has Cage influenced with his art and his music? Even if you, personally, find 4'33" (like this is the only thing that Cage did) funny, or ridiculous, there are many people who have been influenced by his work and I could also name some big big names as well (Sonic Youth, for example, Radiohead, for another example).

So in the end, feel free to not question, not research, not worry about anything and feel comfortable, for all I care. Isn't this the point of an internet forum?

NO! it isn't! It's quite the opposite, but, as I said, never mind.

YIKES! Missed the 2nd page.

Sorry I wasted my time with SimenN! QCC already tried... :( Sorry that QCC wasted his time!

Why don't you give it a rest?

I think that's the whole point, eh?

:thumbsup:

Newman