4'33"

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.

How do you know that what you are creating IS, in fact music? ;)

How do you know that what you are creating IS, in fact music? ;)

Because I call it music. It fits my defition of what music is therefore it is music.

In that case, there are more of us who have decided that your music does NOT fit the definition of "music.

Majority rules.

Not only majority, but education as well.

Therefore, it is decided by us that nothing Justin writes can be considered "music", as it does not fit OUR definition of "music".

On that note, I shall bow out of this discussion.

Because I call it music. It fits my defition of what music is therefore it is music.

So... If John Cages says that 4'33" is music and his definition, doesn't this makes it music? :whistling:

See point is that you can't alter your way of thinking depending on if you like something or not. YOUR line of thinking is not enough to base the definition of music on a global scale, nor enough to alter the way of thinking of everyone else in here!

Other than that I haven't heard anything by you, and I really don't care if it's music or not, my initial question was "trap"

Because I call it music. It fits my defition of what music is therefore it is music.

soo.... if Mr. Cage calls 4.33 music then it must be music?

edit.. oh someone already said that.

I have decided (after 14 pages of people arguing) to end the debate (or at least attempt to). I can simply state what 4'33" is and hopefully end this (excruciatingly boring) discussion:

It is a piece of music (arguably) that happens to be very abstract and thus can be interpreted practically any way, shape or form the listener feels.

Hopefully, this will appease the 'know-nothing boobs' (like me) who don't see the point in the piece and appease the snobby elitists (dare I say: like SSC) who claim there is some 'meaning' to 4'33".

^It's funny that YOU said you were playing the Devil's Advocate, and now it's quite clear you're not! You just kind of destroyed your own credibility, dude. ;)

Devil's Advocate is fun when you haven't argued the same point twenty times beforehand. I feel this argument has both gone on for too long and has gone around in a circle.

Just because I said I was playing Devil's Advocate doesn't mean I am obliged to continue doing so if it isn't in my interests.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Dough ray me far sow lar tee dough ray me far sow lar tee dough ray me

If you guys that don't get 4'33" then you really are not thinking about it properly.

It's not about music or anything. Those people that are rallying behind it are doing so simply because it is "different"... because it isn't music but they can make believe it is.

They say things like "You must be an ignorant inbred hillbilly" or "You are not musically developed"... of course why? Because that is there justification.

These are the same types of people where you can plonk down some random chords and they'll say "OMG!! I just had an orgasm from listening to that!! That is the most beautiful music I have ever heard!!"

Generally those that "compose" such music do so because they cannot compose anything decent. Then they reinforce each other by complimenting and eventually actually believing such things are good.

An analogy would be like a bunch of midges playing basketball(standard regulation). They can't do squat and rarely make it but they all pretend they are good players(and they are in some sense). But now the goal is not to make the ball in the basket. When some tall person comes along and starts making a bunch of baskets they ridicule him because they have created a system where he sucks. (don't forget the midgets on the side line that are observing and agree with those playing the game)

Now, one can say the exact same thing about the tall players. They have created a game where the midges suck(in general). They can ridicule the midgets because they can't compete. But whats the difference? One requires skill and the other doesn't. They both require luck.

Now whats going on here is very similar but is on an intellectual level. Many people, and in this case musicians/composers, create a system where they can artificially increase there intelligence.

Heres how they do it: Any time you run across music that makes absolutely no sense or is totally 180 degree's from "standard" music you just have to say "Oh that stuff is amazing" and when anyone disagrees just call them a buffoon. Instantly you are more intelligent because you obviously "know" something that the other guy doesn't and can't figure out. But the secret is, is that there isn't anything you know more... you just pretend... eventually if you get good at it you'll collude with others to perpetuate it on a much greater scale. (this is exactly what is happening in our government today and replicates itself throughout human endeavors)

Unfortunately unlike science, music cannot be judged on an absolute scale. This means no one can prove what those types of people are doing is wrong. Even if you could it wouldn't do any good. This gives them much more validation, mainly to themselves, that they are right.

The main thing is not to be culled into that believe system. If you compose and you write something crappy don't let yourself start thinking "Hey, this might sound pretty good in an 'abstract' way".

Ultimately it's your choice and you can decide what is good to you. But just like people will think monkey's loving is music they will think 4'33" is music as other crap. If your one of those people then yes, it might be music to you but it doesn't mean you are any more intellectual than a rock(if you want to become more intelligent go actually learn something like how to solve a PDE or create TNT).

BTW, I'm not saying intelligence in music is bad... I'm saying intelligence out of music is bad. (if you get my drift) Music is not intelligent... it is emotional. Some people find intelligence in music useful... in fact we all do.... some more than others... and some are completely off the cliff.

If someone tries to convince you that they have some better understanding of music then just challenge them to create music that you like. If they can't then call them stupid and walk away...

If you guys that don't get 4'33" then you really are not thinking about it properly.

It's not about music or anything. Those people that are rallying behind it are doing so simply because it is "different"... because it isn't music but they can make believe it is.

They say things like "You must be an ignorant inbred hillbilly" or "You are not musically developed"... of course why? Because that is there justification.

These are the same types of people where you can plonk down some random chords and they'll say "OMG!! I just had an orgasm from listening to that!! That is the most beautiful music I have ever heard!!"

Generally those that "compose" such music do so because they cannot compose anything decent. Then they reinforce each other by complimenting and eventually actually believing such things are good.

An analogy would be like a bunch of midges playing basketball(standard regulation). They can't do squat and rarely make it but they all pretend they are good players(and they are in some sense). But now the goal is not to make the ball in the basket. When some tall person comes along and starts making a bunch of baskets they ridicule him because they have created a system where he sucks. (don't forget the midgets on the side line that are observing and agree with those playing the game)

Now, one can say the exact same thing about the tall players. They have created a game where the midges suck(in general). They can ridicule the midgets because they can't compete. But whats the difference? One requires skill and the other doesn't. They both require luck.

Now whats going on here is very similar but is on an intellectual level. Many people, and in this case musicians/composers, create a system where they can artificially increase there intelligence.

Heres how they do it: Any time you run across music that makes absolutely no sense or is totally 180 degree's from "standard" music you just have to say "Oh that stuff is amazing" and when anyone disagrees just call them a buffoon. Instantly you are more intelligent because you obviously "know" something that the other guy doesn't and can't figure out. But the secret is, is that there isn't anything you know more... you just pretend... eventually if you get good at it you'll collude with others to perpetuate it on a much greater scale. (this is exactly what is happening in our government today and replicates itself throughout human endeavors)

Unfortunately unlike science, music cannot be judged on an absolute scale. This means no one can prove what those types of people are doing is wrong. Even if you could it wouldn't do any good. This gives them much more validation, mainly to themselves, that they are right.

The main thing is not to be culled into that believe system. If you compose and you write something crappy don't let yourself start thinking "Hey, this might sound pretty good in an 'abstract' way".

Ultimately it's your choice and you can decide what is good to you. But just like people will think monkey's loving is music they will think 4'33" is music as other crap. If your one of those people then yes, it might be music to you but it doesn't mean you are any more intellectual than a rock(if you want to become more intelligent go actually learn something like how to solve a PDE or create TNT).

BTW, I'm not saying intelligence in music is bad... I'm saying intelligence out of music is bad. (if you get my drift) Music is not intelligent... it is emotional. Some people find intelligence in music useful... in fact we all do.... some more than others... and some are completely off the cliff.

If someone tries to convince you that they have some better understanding of music then just challenge them to create music that you like. If they can't then call them stupid and walk away...

WOW!!!! :w00t: This post is ssooooo full of win that....well.. I don't know if there IS a category to hold all the win in it!

Well said indeed! :thumbsup:

And on that note...by the power invested in me, this thread is closed! :)

If you guys that don't get 4'33" then you really are not thinking about it properly.

It's not about music or anything. Those people that are rallying behind it are doing so simply because it is "different"... because it isn't music but they can make believe it is.

They say things like "You must be an ignorant inbred hillbilly" or "You are not musically developed"... of course why? Because that is there justification.

These are the same types of people where you can plonk down some random chords and they'll say "OMG!! I just had an orgasm from listening to that!! That is the most beautiful music I have ever heard!!"

Generally those that "compose" such music do so because they cannot compose anything decent. Then they reinforce each other by complimenting and eventually actually believing such things are good.

An analogy would be like a bunch of midges playing basketball(standard regulation). They can't do squat and rarely make it but they all pretend they are good players(and they are in some sense). But now the goal is not to make the ball in the basket. When some tall person comes along and starts making a bunch of baskets they ridicule him because they have created a system where he sucks. (don't forget the midgets on the side line that are observing and agree with those playing the game)

Now, one can say the exact same thing about the tall players. They have created a game where the midges suck(in general). They can ridicule the midgets because they can't compete. But whats the difference? One requires skill and the other doesn't. They both require luck.

Now whats going on here is very similar but is on an intellectual level. Many people, and in this case musicians/composers, create a system where they can artificially increase there intelligence.

Heres how they do it: Any time you run across music that makes absolutely no sense or is totally 180 degree's from "standard" music you just have to say "Oh that stuff is amazing" and when anyone disagrees just call them a buffoon. Instantly you are more intelligent because you obviously "know" something that the other guy doesn't and can't figure out. But the secret is, is that there isn't anything you know more... you just pretend... eventually if you get good at it you'll collude with others to perpetuate it on a much greater scale. (this is exactly what is happening in our government today and replicates itself throughout human endeavors)

Unfortunately unlike science, music cannot be judged on an absolute scale. This means no one can prove what those types of people are doing is wrong. Even if you could it wouldn't do any good. This gives them much more validation, mainly to themselves, that they are right.

The main thing is not to be culled into that believe system. If you compose and you write something crappy don't let yourself start thinking "Hey, this might sound pretty good in an 'abstract' way".

Ultimately it's your choice and you can decide what is good to you. But just like people will think monkey's loving is music they will think 4'33" is music as other crap. If your one of those people then yes, it might be music to you but it doesn't mean you are any more intellectual than a rock(if you want to become more intelligent go actually learn something like how to solve a PDE or create TNT).

BTW, I'm not saying intelligence in music is bad... I'm saying intelligence out of music is bad. (if you get my drift) Music is not intelligent... it is emotional. Some people find intelligence in music useful... in fact we all do.... some more than others... and some are completely off the cliff.

If someone tries to convince you that they have some better understanding of music then just challenge them to create music that you like. If they can't then call them stupid and walk away...

WOW!!!! :huh: This post is ssooooo full of ignorant failure that....well.. I don't know if there IS a category to hold all the nonsense in it!

Poorly said indeed!

And on that note...I shake my head in disgust.

JonSlaughter reminds me a little of the Flat Earth Society...

Oh, and before everyone here dies of fail, I'll bring over some fail neutralizer:

I think there are two major elements in that piece:

One is the direct musical one, that has been mentioned: An incentive to listen to sounds created without intention as music. Letting people realize how "musically rich" their whole life may be, even without listening to any "music".

The other may be more a conceptual critique of the cultural functions of "concerts" and "composers". It is actually very relevant that this is a piece written by a composer and played in a concert (even with a performer), even though certainly none of these would be absolute necessities for a mere enjoyment of sounds. It's the difference between a wall on which hangs an empty picture frame and just an empty wall.

It raises the whole question of why we seek to elevate one sound above the other by placing it in a certain, fixed cultural context (concert hall, audience, stage, performer, certain rituals like bowing/clapping etc.), why we place such importance in musical authorship and roles ("there must be a composer and he is clearly separated from the performer and the audience"), and why we need to delimit sounds by fixing durations and constraints in a score in order to appreciate them as music. In short: It's the question of what effect such cultural structures and borders have on our musical experience. He does show this specifically by following these traditional constraints, but in a way that makes them stand out as "weird".

The somewhat derogatory comment of Cage "making a fool of himself" came once up, but actually I think it's even true to some degree, but in a good sense. He is demeaning himself as the "Musical Monarch" of "his" music, the sole author and "artist", as it was rather customary in the time before him. The ironic thing of course is that by doing this, he's actually giving himself quite a strong musical position based on his fame (or infamy) for this piece, which again goes in the complete opposite direction. But I find it's exactly this ambiguity between rather contradictory elements that makes the piece interesting.

Last but certainly not least you have to read the piece in the context of its time. It was the time of the Darmstadt School in Europe, of strict serialism, of very fixed ideas about "what music should be", and Cage broke away from such concepts radically, which in fact later also influenced many proponents of the Darmstadt School (like Stockhausen) themselves. Bluntly put, it's all about the cultural debate about strict formality, constraints, rules and an idea of music that is very much based on notes and musical "atoms" - and a very free, anarchic music that questions all of its constraints and focuses on "random sounds" in all their natural richness. It was this extreme duality that might have created the foundation of what would later become an inclusion and acceptance of many different lines of thought, and a bit later postmodernism.

If this piece was written today it probably wouldn't have the significance as in 1960, simply because our musical environment has opened up somewhat already.

Lol, I leave the thread for a simple week and look what happens to it :dry:

anyway, i spoke to my composition teacher about this today and he explained it to me, I get it now, so this thread has lived it's purpose. I now can appreciate Cage's philosophy/composition

*lock thread*

-Mathieu

Why do people think that when they don't perceive any emotion in music that nobody else can either?

People that are against modern music keep saying 'BUT MUSIC SHOULD BE EMOTIONAL' I say.. perhaps if they listened to more modern music they could find the emotion in it... or maybe even learn to like it for more reasons than the emotional.

Let's respect Mathieu's wishes now. Thank you all for coming, have a wonderful day!

If you guys that don't get 4'33" then you really are not thinking about it properly.

It's not about music or anything. Those people that are rallying behind it are doing so simply because it is "different"... because it isn't music but they can make believe it is.

They say things like "You must be an ignorant inbred hillbilly" or "You are not musically developed"... of course why? Because that is there justification.

These are the same types of people where you can plonk down some random chords and they'll say "OMG!! I just had an orgasm from listening to that!! That is the most beautiful music I have ever heard!!"

Generally those that "compose" such music do so because they cannot compose anything decent. Then they reinforce each other by complimenting and eventually actually believing such things are good.

An analogy would be like a bunch of midges playing basketball(standard regulation). They can't do squat and rarely make it but they all pretend they are good players(and they are in some sense). But now the goal is not to make the ball in the basket. When some tall person comes along and starts making a bunch of baskets they ridicule him because they have created a system where he sucks. (don't forget the midgets on the side line that are observing and agree with those playing the game)

Now, one can say the exact same thing about the tall players. They have created a game where the midges suck(in general). They can ridicule the midgets because they can't compete. But whats the difference? One requires skill and the other doesn't. They both require luck.

Now whats going on here is very similar but is on an intellectual level. Many people, and in this case musicians/composers, create a system where they can artificially increase there intelligence.

Heres how they do it: Any time you run across music that makes absolutely no sense or is totally 180 degree's from "standard" music you just have to say "Oh that stuff is amazing" and when anyone disagrees just call them a buffoon. Instantly you are more intelligent because you obviously "know" something that the other guy doesn't and can't figure out. But the secret is, is that there isn't anything you know more... you just pretend... eventually if you get good at it you'll collude with others to perpetuate it on a much greater scale. (this is exactly what is happening in our government today and replicates itself throughout human endeavors)

Unfortunately unlike science, music cannot be judged on an absolute scale. This means no one can prove what those types of people are doing is wrong. Even if you could it wouldn't do any good. This gives them much more validation, mainly to themselves, that they are right.

The main thing is not to be culled into that believe system. If you compose and you write something crappy don't let yourself start thinking "Hey, this might sound pretty good in an 'abstract' way".

Ultimately it's your choice and you can decide what is good to you. But just like people will think monkey's loving is music they will think 4'33" is music as other crap. If your one of those people then yes, it might be music to you but it doesn't mean you are any more intellectual than a rock(if you want to become more intelligent go actually learn something like how to solve a PDE or create TNT).

BTW, I'm not saying intelligence in music is bad... I'm saying intelligence out of music is bad. (if you get my drift) Music is not intelligent... it is emotional. Some people find intelligence in music useful... in fact we all do.... some more than others... and some are completely off the cliff.

If someone tries to convince you that they have some better understanding of music then just challenge them to create music that you like. If they can't then call them stupid and walk away...

:O

....

LOL!!!

Yes, of course. Everyone has the exact same understanding of music and if they can not accomodate YOUR tastes in music then obviously they must be an IDIOT. Nevermind that you could truly be actually MISSING something or that perhaps some people actually ENJOY types of music that you don't. Clearly, if you do not understand something then it is simply crap and everyone else is just PRETENDING to like it to act SUPERIROR. Also, disregarding the fact that NO ONE in this thread pretended to be superior until trolls started being trolls. No flaws at all in that (what can dubiously be called) "logic".

I can't even claim to be doing a strawman here. That's seriously just what you loving said. I'd make some sort of comment about you being an idiot or that you should stop posting altogether but... honestly, keep it up. This is better than your other thread. "OH NOES! I R FAILED TEH MATHZ!!!"

So, in summation: LOL!!!

i think 4'33'' is just famous cus nobody else thought of it before, and it makes you go "hmmmmmm".

when somethings different, it gets famous quickly.

and wow, this thread is.....wild. O_O

i think 4'33'' is just famous cus nobody else thought of it before, and it makes you go "hmmmmmm".

when somethings different, it gets famous quickly.

Wisest and simplest statement so far.

By the way, I wish Duchamp hadn't signed that stupid urinal. Art wouldn't have gone this road. xD

Let's respect Mathieu's wishes now. Thank you all for coming, have a wonderful day!

fair enough

....although there is the idea of just sticky-ing it so others with the same question could come here and read through this jumbled up mess to find the answer.. instead of wasting space on the forums :P

You know, we're almost kind of fulfilling part of the purpose of this piece, since, like Duchamp's "Fountain", I think part of it was to see peoples' responses to that which conflicts with set paradigms.

Well, whatever. Bye bye, thread. We'll sure miss you.

Bye the way, Mathieu, I think that's a pretty good idea, just so that this doesn't happen again.

In that case, there are more of us who have decided that your music does NOT fit the definition of "music.

Majority rules.

Not only majority, but education as well.

Therefore, it is decided by us that nothing Justin writes can be considered "music", as it does not fit OUR definition of "music".

I seriously hope you didn't mean that Qc.

Incidentally the majority here in California voted for Proposition 8.