4'33"

I would also like to add that listening to nothing crosses many peoples' minds, and instead of paying for a ticket to hear it, they just listen to nothing while sipping their morning coffee or their afternoon tea.

But the fact is that the vast majority of people, including musicians, don't really LISTEN to "nothing" the way they listen to music. They don't give it the same amount of attention.

And the other thing is that theres no such thing as "nothing" in sound, not even in an anechoic chamber.

You can call it music or not call it music, but I don't see how anyone can disagree with those two points that he was making.

Actually, I don't see why it would be performed nowadays. It's kind of a one-off deal. It relies on the audience not knowing what's happening. If you as the audience know you're about to hear "the silent piece" you're just going to tune out the everyday sounds the same as usual. It's too notorious today to have the same effect it did at the first performance.

Perhaps to you, Nikolas, but some people need to read this, and some people need to question these things so they can open their minds better. We are all in a constant state of learning and adapting what we "know" to be true.

But, really, with all this talk around the said work, one could just do a search, find the huge number of posts and threads, read them and then, IF NOT COVERED, come back and ask questions. For another person to come in a few months and go "I don't get it", or "I get it", it's just plain idiotic to keep wasting bandwith, time and effort on this.

I mean, let's make a sticky with all the threads and links and let it be like that. Like with the all too frequent question "Make finale files into pdf", which is now a sticky on the finale forums. It's not the same, but... poof... I mean poof... And 4'33" is "old music" and not contemporary any more. We see and feel the results of the said work and ideology everywhere, but the work doesn't apply exactly anymore. :-/ so...

John Cage's "Silence: Lectures and Writings" is very good read.

Coincidentally, Rauschenberg's "Airports for Dust and Light" is also a very good view.

*doesn't really read entire thread' date=' but notes Xeno's awkward hostility*

[...']

It's about enjoying sound as music, and vice versa.

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.

Well, this piece is about not finding the answer but understanding the question. This is something like a meditation. Anyway in the original score, it is written that it should be performed on the street in a glass-cube, with a piano.

Anyway, when I'm listening to it, it just make me smile :)

And anyway, Cage called himself as an "inventor" not as a "composer". But he was a great inventor I think. He has a lot of good pieces for percussion.

I know this has been already talked to death, but I thought I'd put in my $.02. I always thought of this piece as more a piece of performance art than a piece of music. And for that it will always have artistic merit. There are definite musical ideas within it to consider, especially how silence effects the perception of music and how performance effects our listening. By taking very traditional structures (in this case a piece of music of average length) and completely distorting them, Cage causes the listener to reevaluate their idea of what music means. By simply addressing this previously untapped question (what constitutes music?), he has submitted a piece of art, whether it's musical or not is up for the listener to decide. I think the piece is a brilliant piece of performance art.

i love john cage

It's nothing. Not music. Not art. It's just a waste of time. Music is defined as measured sound in time, and if the musicians aren't doing anything, then there is no music. People sit there listening to everyday sounds from their "ENVIRONMENT", which they hear every day. People go to concerts to escape from everyday life. If they go to a concert and nobody plays it's a bloody waste of time. It's just an awkward silence vomited back at them.

^That was rather rambling, but I hope you get my drift.

I'd be careful about being too strict with calling Cage not a composer, as he wrote a whole lot more music than most people apparently are giving him credit for.

YouTube - John Cage: "In A Landscape"

A composer as versatile as him perhaps isn't just a composer but a more well-rounded artist. He was STILL a composer even if some may not like it to name him that (since he isn't Beethoven?) Prejudice and ignorance are no basis on which to judge anyone, much less important figures such as Cage.

PS: And, to all the haters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHEZk6dSReI

Laugh/hate all you want, but he's getting performances and you're on the interwebs acting angry at a dead guy who probably had much better ideas than you ever had~

[...random garbage deleted...]

^That was rather rambling, but I hope you get my drift.

Thoroughly.

We understand your limited viewpoint completely.

It's very sad, and I really hope one day you understand.

For myself, I'm not a fan of Cage's music in general.

However, he was possibly one of the greatest musical thinkers of modern times.

The simple fact that he forced us to have this debate (and may I mention - AGAIN!!!!! what's with all these 4'33" threads??????? jeeze, people, GROW UP!) is a testament to the impact he's had on society.

Like his music or not, he makes us think.

And that's important to.

A lot of people here have this silly notion that music is all about "feeling".

That composing is all about "inspiration" and "soul" and all that crap.

1% of composition is anything that could be called "inspiration". The other 99% is all intellectual blood sweat and tears.

If any of you still live by these silly "romantic" notions about composing I highly suggest you quit now. You'll never be composers.

Composition is a willful act.

You wrestle the music out of your subconscious and force it into reality.

4'33" forces you to think.

This is a good thing.

Calling it names is NOT a good thing. It is simply a demonstration of close-mindedness.

I don't get it either. But that's okay, I don't get a lot of stuff. The ambient noise in a concert hall is interesting, but I certainly wouldn't pay to hear it. To me, while a caesura doesn't make a piece stop being music, the caesura by itself and contextless is not music. But, once again, that's all IMHO. I am somewhat interested in the character of silence, though. Whitacre's When David Heard is the most stunning example of this.

I do live by these rules about inspiration and soul. Music to me is all about expressing emotion and heart, not merely about the patterns of notes on a page. "Musicality" is what makes it come alive, and the most precise and accurate interpretation in the world still is lacking to me if it doesn't express something. I also accept the fact that composing is very hard and intellectual work, because it is. But music is supposed to move people, and to provide respite from the often-cruel world we live in.

- Which piece or pieces of yours would you consider the most important?

Well, the most important piece is my silent piece.

Conversing with Cage - Google Book Search

Like his music or not, he makes us think.

This is true :) He did just inspire a four-page argument about... nothing :P lol

I'm surprised to see that no one, in four pages of banter mentioned the punk aesthetic created in Cage's work.

It's nothing. Not music. Not art. It's just a waste of time. Music is defined as measured sound in time, and if the musicians aren't doing anything, then there is no music. People sit there listening to everyday sounds from their "ENVIRONMENT", which they hear every day. People go to concerts to escape from everyday life. If they go to a concert and nobody plays it's a bloody waste of time. It's just an awkward silence vomited back at them.

Nice try.

Btw, read Gardener's post.

Here's what I've heard about Cage:

He had a lot of interesting ideas and whether or not those ideas made an actual "good" piece of music he implemented them anyway. So you can think of things like 4'33'' as more showcases of ideas he had rather than actual pieces of music.

Four minutes and thirty-three seconds of my life wasted.

Four minutes and thirty-three seconds of my life wasted.

you could say that about any music

^Mozart's Posthorn Sonata, anyone? :D

So yeah, if you don't understand it, please don't feel the need to scream that to the world. Thanks.

"Romantic" notions about composing QcC? Hardly. Music is emotional. It's just a matter of how much emotion is in the piece. 4'33" is the antithesis to the ultimate in romantic music. There is no emotion in emptiness. Conversly, there is great emotion in Mahler, Brahms, Tchaik and the many others. Modern music attempted to remove the emotion from music. Postmodernism put it back.

"Romantic" notions about composing QcC? Hardly. Music is emotional. It's just a matter of how much emotion is in the piece. 4'33" is the antithesis to the ultimate in romantic music. There is no emotion in emptiness. Conversly, there is great emotion in Mahler, Brahms, Tchaik and the many others. Modern music attempted to remove the emotion from music. Postmodernism put it back.

Well one aspect of the romantic approach is that music means something, that it is meant to be interpreted in a non-literal way. This piece - admittedly containing little music - is similar at least in that respect. In the same way that Tschaikovsky wanted the Romeo and Juliet theme to represent an emotional, passionate yet difficult relationship, John Cage wanted this piece to represent something rather than literally being appreciated as a collection of notes, or a lack of them.

Where the similarity ends, would be that Tschaikovsky's intentions or musical inferences are much more obvious to western listeners. I don't imagine many people would listen to Tschaikovsky and completely misintepret the mood of a particular piece he had written. 4'33'' on the otherhand is very ambiguous. I don't think many people will 'understand' Cage's intentions unless they are told what they are, and even then it can be re-intepreted again and again.

I don't think you can say that modern music attempted to remove the emotion from music. Some modern artists believe that music should solely be listened to intellectually, but not all of them.

I don't think you can say that modern music attempted to remove the emotion from music. Some modern artists believe that music should solely be listened to intellectually, but not all of them.

Then they aren't true modernists. The true mantra of modernism is "music is intellectual; there is no emotional value in music." I believe this is why it so miserably failed. Moderism didn't last so long and isn't widely accepted by audiences today.

Then they aren't true modernists. The true mantra of modernism is "music is intellectual; there is no emotional value in music." I believe this is why it so miserably failed. Moderism didn't last so long and isn't widely accepted by audiences today.

Right, well I wonder exactly what they mean by '"there is no emotional value in music"? I can't imagine how any person could not feel emotional inferences in harmony.

Then they aren't true modernists. The true mantra of modernism is "music is intellectual; there is no emotional value in music." I believe this is why it so miserably failed. Moderism didn't last so long and isn't widely accepted by audiences today.

Making scraggy up again, eh Tokke?

Sorry but there's no authority on what modernism is or even a real definition. Hell it could be a time period (start of the 20th century) to a social definition of what modern is (which changes.)

But hey, keep on hatin', we'll keep on laughing.

Right, well I wonder exactly what they mean by '"there is no emotional value in music"? I can't imagine how any person could not feel emotional inferences in harmony.

Exactly. That's why moderism failed (in a sense). That's why Cage's piece isn't really music. As said before, it's an art piece made to make us think, not to give us something to listen to that pleases us. That's what music is: organized sound to be pleasing to our ears. The purpose of music is to open up the emotional ties between the spirit and the body. The spirit controls how we react to emotions and music, being the most spiritual of all art forms, must also be the most emotional to be sucessful.