4'33"

It's that simple eh? Geez. I wonder why such a hulalbaloo was created over it...

Oh wait. :shifty:

I will do this SSC. I'll report my results later.

It's that simple eh? Geez. I wonder why such a hulalbaloo was created over it...

Oh wait. :shifty:

I will do this SSC. I'll report my results later.

It IS actually really simple. That's why it's hard to grasp at first, I guess. In effect, no 4'33 minutes of your life will ever sound the same, so if you keep doing the same experiment, you'll bound to have wildly different results.

Say you do it in heavy traffic, with a lot of noise activity, you have a lot to listen to and maybe you'll find it interesting. If you do it in a beach, you'll have the ocean to listen to, etc.

Even if you try to isolate yourself entirely from any noise, going to into an acoustic chamber and sealing yourself off, you'll still have 4'33 minutes of hearing your own heartbeat and nervous system(!). So, really, that's all there is to it.

---

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/433-experiment-thread-19223.html

If anyone else wants to partake in the experiment and find out for themselves what it's like (and post about it.) That's the real idea behind 4'33'', might as well make good of it.

oh sure.. dominated huh? haha... I guess what your saying is they got tired of performing and but still wanted to pay the bills so they starting "playing" cage?

I forgot that audiences are lining up to throw money at performers. And that Cage is topping the billboard charts this year.

Eh not always, it's not a requirement (and it's kind of unrealistic to dominate every single style before the 20th century, too many.) Though honestly having an education ensures that your body of knowledge is strong enough and well-rounded to at least defend yourself in other styles/historical stuff. Even without an actual institutional education, you can still study all sorts of things and become as kickass as all sorts of modern composers who not only were at the avant-garde of their time but analyzed historical stuff with brilliance or at least with a rather interesting perspective.

What I meant is that most of them have a deep notion of the evolution of music so far. Like you said, education.

oh sure.. dominated huh? haha... I guess what your saying is they got tired of performing and but still wanted to pay the bills so they starting "playing" cage? Your a legend in your own mind. Write me a Beethoven sonata that will convince the experts then you can convince me that your right... but in the meanwhile I'll assume that you can't even imitate the masters of the past so you are only a master of the crap you make. That is the only way you'll ever be a master of anything.

You guys are a loving joke. Go take a science class and learn something useful and stop pretending like you have an iota of synaptic activity.

Way to insult someone who doesn't even like avant-garde music. xD

I'm not a defender of 4'33''. I don't like it. I find it ridiculous. But the way you're attacking everyone who finds interest in it makes you look like you think you own the truth.

You don't.

Say your opinion but don't state it as a dogma, alright? That'll make you more likeable.

Oh wait, I think you just blew it anyway. xD

The title of this thread should be changed to "Laugh at JonSlaughter".

accepting? I don't except ignorance. I'm sorry if that offends you. (no, not really)

Brilliant!

You guys are a loving joke. Go take a science class and learn something useful and stop pretending like you have an iota of synaptic activity.

Oh, the irony! Look at that wonderful name-dropping at the end! An excellent finish, I must say.

By the way, many of the people here who do respect 4'33" could write in the style of Mozart if they wanted to, but just choose not to. Why? It doesn't reflect the times or reality anymore. While it's not bad to write that stuff anymore, I view it as more for listening, not for composing.

By the way, many of the people here who do respect 4'33" could write in the style of Mozart if they wanted to, but just choose not to.

Well, I'll soon offer a test on this claim

*snicker*

Guys, perhaps it's YOU that's being narrow-minded. Jon's making some great points (though a bit abrasively). Cage's piece is silence, so how can it be called music? It makes no sense when people call it music, to me and the other 95% of the world.

Hypocrisy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Appeal to probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ignoratio elenchi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Loaded question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cherry picking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Psychologist's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Appeal to motive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biased sample - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ignorant definition | Dictionary.com

Here. I think this could do you some good too.

By the way, narrow-minded? May I say LOL? Even if you think we're idiots for appreciating 4'33", I don't see how having a BROADER definition of music than you in any way makes us "narrow-minded". Fail.

oh sure.. dominated huh? haha... I guess what your saying is they got tired of performing and but still wanted to pay the bills so they starting "playing" cage? Your a legend in your own mind. Write me a Beethoven sonata that will convince the experts then you can convince me that your right... but in the meanwhile I'll assume that you can't even imitate the masters of the past so you are only a master of the crap you make. That is the only way you'll ever be a master of anything.

You guys are a loving joke. Go take a science class and learn something useful and stop pretending like you have an iota of synaptic activity.

accepting? I don't except ignorance. I'm sorry if that offends you. (no, not really)

Funny, you say I should be more accepting yet you won't accept my belief. Not only does that show how irrational you are but how much of an imbecile you are.

You shouldn't get too upset. Your single brain cell might get overloaded and you might forget to breath.

Still having trouble grasping that "irony" thing I was talking about, eh? Don't worry. It's a tough concept. You'll get it. Or maybe you won't. Maybe it's just more hippy, liberal non-conformist bullshit. I'd hate for you to have to except [sic] that.

i think 4'33'' is just famous cus nobody else thought of it before

alphonse allais did it first.

I don't think you've ever seen Gardener, QCC, Robin, me, SSC badmouthing other pieces of art

Never is a long time.

I just went over and read this thread in its entirety and I have to say it made me sad. Condescension, hypocrisy, and utter lack of respect for other people's opinion. In the face of this ugliness the thread subject is irrelevant. If any good came out of this thread, it is to show that some people really don't deserve any respect. Good, because I have gladly lost all respect for certain person(s) on this forum.

In that case' date=' 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".[/quote']

I seriously hope you didn't mean that Qc.

Incidentally the majority here in California voted for Proposition 8.

I didn't think it was necessary to highlight the use of sarcasm and exaggeration as they were applied here to make a point.

You obviously know very little about me if you think I was being "serious".

As for prop 8, well, it's a sad day when people think that removing acquired rights from a minority is the right thing to do. Luckily, I don't live in KKKalifornia.

Sound is not music.

Music is listened to - and created - with intent.

Music is sound listened to with intent.

Sound listened to with intent is music.

Sound is not music.

Music is listened to - and created - with intent.

Music is sound listened to with intent.

Sound listened to with intent is music.

Right. So Cage took "Sound" and organised it in a timeframe. 4'33". Therefore sounds became music. Also, the duration of 4'33" is not even static, it can be changed to whatever suits anyone. Therefore, 4'33" = sound listened to with intent. Thus it's music.

Or is this what you're trying to say? (I got the impression you were trying to say the opposite).

Yep. Thats what i said, 4'33 is sound listened to with intent = music.

But obviously mr cage isnt the only one who can do that, hence anything you actually listen to/create with intent can technically qualify as music - see xenakis' more obscure electronic pieces, or even any common noise artist, etc.

(Which is of course no judgement about the quality and/or magnitude of musicality - as seen in a more traditional context.)

So much discussion about so pointless topic...

If one does not understand a piece of music when he initially hears it, I don't think that there is a force in the world that will explain it to him. We are all different and thus like different things. I for one don't like jazz. But I like classic, I like rock, I like all kinds of different music and I hate even more. But that doesn't make me go open a bunch of treads asking for someone to explain to me why I don't like jazz. Its just the way it is.

Music is meant to stir emotions, and if one's emotions haven't been touched by a piece there is no amount of knowledge that will make him "feel" it. Knowledge of music is only useful when creating music. You do not need any knowledge of it to enjoy music.

If someone likes a piece they will like it no matter who's piece it is, whether is Beethoven, Chick Corea, Britney Spears or Metallica. And all this discussion about 4'33 rendered this topic so out of its context that you people began insulting one another without an apparent reason. Just because someone thinks they "understand" doesn't make them smarter than the one who admits he does not. It just makes them different. Knowledge cannot be proven if the person you are proving it to does not have the same general idea of what the knowledge is. Or just does not care about what you so proudly present to the world as knowledge. If one knows how to cook, or to perform a medical surgery does not make them smarter or more intelligent than me. It just makes the more adept in a certain area for which I couldn't care less.

I'm saying this because I've seen so many replies like "you don't understand it, because you lack knowledge of music".

If a composer wants to create a piece that does not fit into the general and publicly accepted frame which is music, he is free to do so. He is also free to call it whatever he wants, even if that is music. If general public or individuals think it is not music, it is their right to do so. It is not their place however to persuade other people in their opinions.

And if one does not understand the piece of music, the answers he seeks cannot be presented to him. Surely they can in a scientific manner, but those answers will not make him have the feeling or the appreciation of the specific piece.

So, live and let live. Music is highly subjective, just the way it's supposed to be, and that's partly the reason why it is considered the greatest of arts. It's no use discussing such a subject, that has no tangible facts to be pointed out.

Paragraphs. Use them. Please. :wacko:

Sound is not music.

Music is listened to - and created - with intent.

Music is sound listened to with intent.

Sound listened to with intent is music.

Nice example of a propositional fallacy of affirming the consequent:

if A then B, now B, therefore A

A = "music"

B = "sound listened to with intent"

if, then ≈ "is"

Nice example of a propositional fallacy of affirming the consequent:

if A then B, now B, therefore A

A = "music"

B = "sound listened to with intent"

if, then ≈ "is"

No, actually "is" is more equivalent to "if and only if" or "iff" in this context, making the fourth statement an automatic consequence of the third.

If one does not understand a piece of music when he initially hears it, I don't think that there is a force in the world that will explain it to him. [

So much discussion about so pointless topic...

1) If one does not understand a piece of music when he initially hears it, I don't think that there is a force in the world that will explain it to him.

...pointless rambling deleted...

2) Music is meant to stir emotions, and if one's emotions haven't been touched by a piece there is no amount of knowledge that will make him "feel" it.

3) Knowledge of music is only useful when creating music. You do not need any knowledge of it to enjoy music.

4) If someone likes a piece they will like it no matter who's piece it is, whether is Beethoven, Chick Corea, Britney Spears or Metallica.

...snip...

5) I'm saying this because I've seen so many replies like "you don't understand it, because you lack knowledge of music".

6) If a composer wants to create a piece that does not fit into the general and publicly accepted frame which is music, he is free to do so. He is also free to call it whatever he wants, even if that is music. If general public or individuals think it is not music, it is their right to do so. It is not their place however to persuade other people in their opinions.

...snip snip...

1) yes, there is just such a mysterious "force".. it is called education.

2) this is a VERY subjective definition of the goal of music. I would counter that MUCH of the music created before 1896 was NOT "meant to stir emotions".

3) Knowledge/understanding of ANYTHING is useful when trying to appreciate something. If we were to take your words as the only truth then we would all be reading nursery rhymes and listening to Sesame Street songs instead of reading novels and hearing symphonies.

4) Kind of a pointless comment, no? If you like something, you'll like it regardless. It's a bit of a truism.

5) Which is actually a very valid point to be made when someone says "this is bad". It is VERY valid to say that you may not appreciate something BECAUSE you lack the understanding of it.

If this weren't true, then we would not educate children.

6) The "general public" can, effectively, think whatever it wants. From that permission, however, one does not continue on to the deduction that the general public is RIGHT in making that assessment. see point 3)

****************

and no, this thread will not be closed.

unwarranted attacks will be deleted.

spammy posts will be deleted.

forum members resorting to personal attacks and insults will be warned, and where warranted infracted.

So, yet another friendly reminder to remain civil.

No, actually "is" is more equivalent to "if and only if" or "iff" in this context, making the fourth statement an automatic consequence of the third.

Would be fine, if we were able to take equivalence throughout for "is". However, we have four propositions in

Sound is not music.

Music is listened to - and created - with intent.

Music is sound listened to with intent.

Sound listened to with intent is music.

Equivalence would immediatly contradict proposition I, "Sound is not music". If we want to take at least the first three propositions as valid, then we need the weaker logical function "if, then" for "is" in all propositions. Hence, proposition IV is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

No, the meaning of the word "is" changes with context. Number one can be read as "Sound is not necessarily music" or "Sound is not equivalent to music", whereas the last two can be condensed as "X is music if and only if it is sound created with intent". The meaning of "if" is implied to change depending on the context.

I would counter that MUCH of the music created before 1896 was NOT "meant to stir emotions".

Do you mind me asking why 1896?

No, the meaning of the word "is" changes with context. Number one can be read as "Sound is not necessarily music" or "Sound is not equivalent to music", whereas the last two can be condensed as "X is music if and only if it is sound created with intent". The meaning of "if" is implied to change depending on the context.

You simply cannot change the meaning of a term, "is" in our case, within the same context ad libitum. Therefore you can only say "is" means either "logically equivalent" or "logically implies" in the context of Captain Chaos' four propositions. In any case, you get here a logical contradiction (for equivalence) or a propositional fallacy (for implication).