Modern Composition John Cage

Of course. And therefore so are the evening news, thunder, and mosquito's buzzing.

Gotcha.

When's the last time you saw the evening news, thunder, or mosquito's buzzing MUSICALLY NOTATED AND PERFORMED?!

[edit: Marius beat me to it ;) *high-five*]

When's the last time you saw the evening news, thunder, or mosquito's buzzing MUSICALLY NOTATED AND PERFORMED?!

[edit: Marius beat me to it ;) *high-five*]

A musical soir

Shrimp and cocktails are also available; they're on the nightstand right beside the giant heap of sarcasm.

This has to be one of the most pointless debates I've seen on YC in a loooonnngg time. And that's saying something from the guy who regular reads the abortion and religon discussion threads. :whistling:

What makes you think I subscribe to that school of thought? If you say "silence is not music" then you imply that rest within music is not part of the music.

So do me a favor and do not think I follow things I do not follow.

The people would have listen very careful to the sound of nothing and notice, as Cage did, there is sound. There are beautiful sounds. Amazing sounds, sounds we would have not noticed at the very moment if music was being played.

You said yourself that where there should be silence, actually there is sound. No, beautiful sounds. Nay, AMAZING sounds. So during the performance of 4'33" you're hearing these AMAZING sounds of music as opposed to silence. Doesn't it mean that the opposite of silence is ..... music?

I don't think in terms of opposites. I believe that one cannot exist without the other. Silence and Sound are needed to acknowledge the existence of each other. In the end though, there exist no true silence. There are sounds around us and becoming aware of the sounds is important.

haha, typical modernist, allways a interlectual interpretation and philoshopical thoughts!

Music = Music

Silence = Silence.

Music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the definition of music :

Music is an art form in which the medium is sound. Elements of music are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture.

4,33 has none of this, melody, harmony, rhythm, articulation, dynamisc. So here it is, 4,33 is not quialified as music period, mabye you, hell you can love it, mabye you think is music , good for you, buts not music :)

This is the definition of music :

Music is an art form in which the medium is sound. Elements of music are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture.

4,33 has none of this, melody, harmony, rhythm, articulation, dynamisc. So here it is, 4,33 is not quialified as music period, mabye you, hell you can love it, mabye you think is music , good for you, buts not music :)

LOL Wikipedia's music section in english is awful. Even later when it does mention Cage, etc, it's really not well written.

Example: "However, in the 20th century, composers challenged the notion that music had to be pleasant by creating music that explored harsher, darker timbres."

What? What the scraggy is this about pleasantness? Isn't that entirely subjective and governed more by aesthetics than some sort of universal principle people decided to "challenge"? ETC ETC. Lots of errors. It also ignores that "harsher, darker timbres" can also be "pleasant".

Very mediocre~

Also, the article contradicts itself by saying the definition of music can vary, yet it outright tries to state one at the beginning. So much junk wrong with it, it's better to erase it and start over.

This is the definition of music :

Music is an art form in which the medium is sound. Elements of music are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture.

4,33 has none of this, melody, harmony, rhythm, articulation, dynamisc. So here it is, 4,33 is not quialified as music period, mabye you, hell you can love it, mabye you think is music , good for you, buts not music :)

May I bring up a point that might alter your idea of the "definition" of music?

If we allow, as you have in this case, for an external and "absolute" definition of music, then at some point, we will also have to allow for an external and absolute definition of what is acceptable as new music.

While you enjoy writing music that is tonal and neo-baroque (or as you like to call it "baroquian"... BTW, just "Baroque" will do, in English) that may fail the test of acceptability.

By accepting your arbitrary and absolute definition of music, you are giving power to others to define what is acceptable as music.

So if one considers the last 300 years, and the advances in harmony and counterpoint, the concepts surrounding form and development, your music would more than likely be considered quite unacceptable.

Don't you think that if we ALL showed a tiny bit more open-mindedness and inclusion, if we all sought out the "I don't like it, but.. damn, it does have a certain magic to it" in every musical utterance, the musical landscape would be a much better, and safer, place?

Besides, looking at 4'33" and applying "traditional" musical standards to it, is like looking at only the frame surrounding a painting and trying to make a judgement about the painting. You'd be ignoring the entire POINT of the framed painting.

4'33" within the framework of John Cage's oeuvre makes perfect sense, and continues to "explore" (that word is inevitable when discussing Cage, and many others like him) the boundaries of musical conception and perception.

SimenN, if at this point, after all the explanations that have been given to you, you are unwilling to yield even a tiny bit to reason, you should give up this particular discussion.

With every new argument you bring forth you paint yourself into a corner. You define yourself as someone who is blinkered and narrow-minded in their definition of music and art. It is pointless to continue the discussion with someone who has no intellectual curiosity in this regard.

I would like to thank, however, the couple of people who have brought forward some beautifully eloquant, and at times quite touching, interpretations of Cage's work.

QCC, lol, I was thinking what you said was addressed at me first, since you quoted me...

What's with my quoting ther? :x

I don't think in terms of opposites. I believe that one cannot exist without the other. Silence and Sound are needed to acknowledge the existence of each other. In the end though, there exist no true silence. There are sounds around us and becoming aware of the sounds is important.

You are arriving at the point.

You are saying that the complement (or opposite) of silence is sound, which makes perfect sense.

But if one embraces 4'33" as music, he must be willing to accept the simple corollary that is the complement of silence is music. The apparent reluctance to accept this consequence suggests intellectual dishonesty.

As a philosophical statement, I fail to see any profoundness in the thesis of this piece. In everyday life, the existence of background noise is acknowledged in something as mundane as signal-to-noise ratio, measured in decibels (standard for portable devices e.g. iPods is 90 db). Please enlighten me on how this piece has influenced music thereafter. For all I know, at face value, Simen's piece which he claimed to have been inspired by this piece was immediately dismissed as off-topic.

If I may be so bold as to propose more interesting questions surrounding the nature of music:

1. Which is paramount in music, the design or the execution?

2. Is music fleeting or eternal?

3. Is it possible to determine the intrisic value of music without extrinsic factors?

QCC, lol, I was thinking what you said was addressed at me first, since you quoted me...

What's with my quoting ther? :x

damn, sorry, I clicked on the wrong person!

sorry there.

You are saying that the complement (or opposite) of silence is sound, which makes perfect sense.

But if one embraces 4'33" as music, he must be willing to accept the simple corollary that is the complement of silence is music. The apparent reluctance to accept this consequence suggests intellectual dishonesty.

I can concede that...BUT, to acknowledge it as music and not 'mundane background noise' requires presentation.

1. Which is paramount in music, the design or the execution?

2. Is music fleeting or eternal?

3. Is it possible to determine the intrisic value of music without extrinsic factors?

1) Neither. Something becomes art the moment it is presented as art.

2) I don't get what you mean by this.... Music is.

3) Music can hold value only to the listener...if YOU find value in it then so be it. The potential for value is always there - the onus falls to the listener to find merit and value in it.

{@ Michel - great post :thumbsup:}

You are saying that the complement (or opposite) of silence is sound, which makes perfect sense.

Am I saying that? No I am saying that one cannot exist without the other. The existence of one does not exist without the other.(To be even more clear, take water, H20 water doesn't exist without the hydrogen or the oxygen. They do not complement each other, they have to be together for water to even exist.) Since sounds exist through a medium and all mediums produce unique Hz, then it follows that all mechanical waves produce Hz, which further implies silence does not truly exist. It's a relative notion. A 2 measure rest in any piece is really no different then 4 minute and 33 second rest Cage's work. The beauty of the 2 measure rest is that it can build something for the music or make something more dramatic or whatever, but it serves a purpose. The silence has a purpose. In Cage's work, he did the opposite. The sounds brought to attention the music.

If you fail to see the impact 4'33'' has had on music, I suggest you do some research. Music serious composers I know (meaning professions) understand greatly the implication 4'3'', even if it didn't effect their work directly, indirectly it has.

Which is paramount in music, the design or the execution?

Neither

Is music fleeting or eternal?

Neither

Is it possible to determine the intrisic value of music without extrinsic factors? of course

simen...honestly....give it up....why do you care....sigh...give it up

I find truth in every post, and I have a question :

Let's say 4'33'' is an anonymous piece. Would it be recognized as art ? I don't think we would be aware of its existence.

And now let's say BWV 542 , or BWV 543 are anonymous pieces. I think they would be recognized as art.

But we say that 4'33'' is art because it is MR.Cage that "wrote" it. We know that MR.Cage is a good composer, so we can say that it is art.

So my question is the following :

Do we have to know the intentions of the composer in order to decide wether it is art or not ?

If Cage farts in a violin, is it art ? it is still sound

Do we have to show everything is music, or should we write less notes and let the listener think about what he heard ?

Simen,

Let's try and talk this over, shall we? After 10 pages!

On a personal level, I wouldn't go to a concert to listen to 4'33" alone! It's not worth it! Thank God it's not 65'49" or something, to take over the whole first part or something! (joke).

On the music side of things, if you want my opinion. Now with the recordings, you get a canned version of a performance. You get a dead Bach, which will never ever change, unless the CD player gets stuck! A live concert is different, since it varries on almost all degrees and it is a social event! Different performers, different instruments, different variations, maybe a few errors in playing, different hall, different... social event in all. If you try to amplify the sociality of the even, as well as making as huge a difference in each performance, you detract the music, input silence: It's performance as different as hell (imagine a Bach fugue played each time with different notation, different key, different instruments, different tempo, etc. And yet, being somehow Bach!) the sociality of the event is amplified to the maximum: each sound means something. Random events become the center of the event.

This is the "music" side of things. I can't really see it as "music" personally. I can't download it to winamp, I can't notate it, etc. So in the traditional sense if you want, no it isn't music.

On account to what Cage said himself: "there is no absolute silence". There is no true silence! There's forever some sound coming from somewhere. Absolute silence does not exist.

In music, what is also very importan is rests, believe it or not! It's very important in a fugue, to have 3 voices to shut up in the exposition and let them develop naturally one by one. You don't start a fugue, BANG!, all the voices at once. And in the episodes, again you don't play 4 voices forever. That would be boring, and Bach never did it, you know it. Silence and rests are most important in music.

____________

The 4'33" as a social event, or an artistic event is also very important!

First you get Schoemberg who decides that there needs to be communism in music! All notes are equal, blah blah. And he makes this rather ugly system where everything NEEDS to be equal! No matter what! And he tries to evade throughout this system. This system pure as it was evolved to serialism, went to ridiculous things and then died down! Not even Boulez is a serialist anymore! :D He conducts Beethoven instead! :D hahaha!

And then you get Cage who goes further: No need for music, no need for arrangement. YOU are important. What happens around YOU is important. YOU are part of the performance, whether you like it or not!

Cage, Messiaen, Boulez, Stockhausen, all have their place somewhere and actually have also infiltrated pop culture as well in the works of BT, Aphex Twin, Radiohead, dEUS, Soni Youth and I'm sure many more who I don't know.

___________________

You don't want to understand, ok.

We may be talking rubbish! All this semi-philosophical talk to back up something that is bullshit! Maybe that as well!

(It could be both of the above, one of the above, or none of the above, if you want. Any sane man would choose either both or none. ;))

Thing is that you don't see me reducing any of your works, any of anyones works. You don't see me reduce and belittle anyone, and no event. I declare that I don't care to know about you personally really on the Internet level. I don't care to know your religions and don't have the urge to go about yelling "I'm an judhist/atheist/orthodox YAAAAAAAAAAAAy! (like kermit the frog! :D))

Growing up doesn't have to do with an insult. You can ask me to grow up as much as you want, I don't take it as an insult and don't feel the need to refer to you back in the same way! As I said, I'm 30 with kids, family, responsibilities, etc. I don't spend my time trying out my strawmen and don't care if you love Baroque only too much! (this is refering to your fart thread)

__________

Tolga: You are right! It is because Cage wrote it! Or maybe Cage is who he is because he wrote it?

Everyone who refers to Cage refers to this work mainly! Could it be that this work made Cage who he is?

I personally don't care about the composer and I understand what you mean. Problem is that I "know" about Cage a bit more, I went and researched about him, and in the early 90s (92-93) I went and bought this book.

So while the work alone does not mean anything, the fact that Cage has backed up his arguments, has done many lectures, and teaching and has left behind him many articles to explain pretty much his line of thinking, makes things different.

Yes BWM whatever number would be art on it's own pretty much (let's not waste time deciding what art is). 4'33" can be art as well, exactly because Cage gave it the reasons to be art.

LOL. Why does this piece inspire flatulence? :hmmm:

And now let's say BWV 542 , or BWV 543 are anonymous pieces. I think they would be recognized as art.

Whaat! Prelude & Fugue in A minor~ My absolute most favorite piece ever!...

Why is this here? .... and... BMW is quite a different thing. I like M5.

But that's a car.

Is a car art?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Screw y'all, I'm going to start quoting Dracula now.

What is a music but a miserable pile of secrets! Now have at you! *throws wine glass*

*sigh*

Just as nikolas suggested, a must read for Simen and other people too should be Cage's "Silence", which is basically a collection of some of his writings and lectures on music.

A very small extract from p.9 of that book,

"the position of a particular sound [is] the result of five determinants: frequency of pitch, amplitude or loudness, overtone structure or timbre, duration, and morphology (how the sound begins, goes on, and dies away)"

If you read the rest of the book too, you'll see that Cage showed with his 4'33" that actually, the only thing of those five determinants that is absolutely necessary for music to exist is simply duration.

There are some lovely answers to this thread, but Simen seems to disregard anything that goes against his narrow-minded opinion, going as far as denying everything other people said about him being narrow-minded. Now *that's* being narrow-minded.

Not understanding something, then not *wanting* to understand when other people try and spend some of their time trying to explain it, and then accusing other people of being stupid and senseless because they support what that person doesn't understand, or because they believe in something different than him, that's quite a symptom of narrow-mindedness.

well i guess the fact that we discuss about it so much makes it art. I don't know if it's music but really don't care, it's a matter of the definition of the word music. Art in general is comunication, and 4'33' says something, I have no doubt about it. I think is closer to to theater than music, but as I said, the name we gave it is not big deal.

I personally don't call it music...however I do call it art.

For me art is something that makes you notice something that you may have looked over before, something you didn't care to see.

In a music lecture of mine, the lecturer ''played'' 4'33'' and we just sat there. And we found that after a little while we start to listen to everything else around us. I remember listening to the air-conditioner. So who is to say that John Cage wanted pure silence, maybe he wanted everyone to realise that although there may not be music as we know it constantly playing, there is still the music of nature...or in my case an air-conditioner. Maybe John Cage wanted us to hear that our lives are always filled with sound even if there is ''silence.''

Who are those that define what art is or is not? It all comes down to personal taste. So call it what you want. I don't call it music and it is unlikely that I ever will, but I do call it art. (but then, maybe that's just me)

I think it's a very interesting and revealing composition. As a piece of music it is, quite frankly, boring. But as a work of art, it seems cutting and revealing. It inspires debate as to the nature of art and music, it draws crowds to fill concert halls, and above all it generates reaction.

This to me is enough.

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.

There isn't a shorter version of the piece, because the piece Cage wrote has no defined length. It is a very common mistake that Cage actually wrote a piece called 4'33" and that it lasts 4'33".

Actually the piece just tells the performer to play three movements of TACET. The duration isn't specified and is up to the performer. The piece is called after how long the performer chooses to make it last.

At the world premiere it was played for 4'33'', so from then on it was generally called 4'33'', but actually it could also be called "two hours", "1 ms", or "a day", depending on how long the performer chooses to play.

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?

That comes rather close. But from what I've read, he wanted to share his experience that there is no silence. Before writing the piece, he had wanted to experience true silence and was allowed in a totally anechoic chamber. There he realized that your own blood rushing through your ears etc., become so loud that it's simply impossible to experience silence.

Another assumption I don't agree with seems to be that for us to hear sounds as music they must have been musically created. For me, natural sounds aren't music. But they can become music the moment I choose to hear them as such and become my own composer of "musique concr