4'33". Is it music? - Page 4

No. It is just 4'33" of silence. It's stupid and pretentious.

Minimalistic music isn't the cause of this as it is but a style to create a colder, more desolate atmosphere than its other classical counterparts who generally create a richer, fuller sound. I would place John Cage in the experimental music group as that is what he is doing. Either way, I completely agree with you. IMO most experimental (and to a lesser extent, progressive, but I digress) groups base their acts around gimmicks, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

@evanft: Those are strong words, backed up with alot of nothing. Unless people first learn to at least have some background information of the piece, you can't really talk about it in that way. (Although I really understand what your saying and why you are saying it.)

@Zarathustra19: Yep yep.. White painting is it a painting. It's all been said and even done (Rauschenberg, multiple times). Besides that's part of the intention of Cage. It's not really the intention to be a piece (well it is, but let's assume it isn't), it's more of what's behind it. I think you're pretty off, why is it stuck-up to criticize or expand the meaning of music in its own context? It's only logical. I understand why you couldn't call it music (because there isn't actual sound), but to call it stuck-up because of that and also implying it isn't art. If you see/read/hear interviews of John Cage, he really is an arrogant stuck-up pretentious man. Or at least sounds like one. But let's not associate everything with each other. Have an open mind, do some research and then make a proper judgement.

edit: Try to see it in it's course of history, then it's really pretty logical and appreciable.

Right, that would be an entirely different context.

I wasn't trying to imply that minimalistic music is the cause (I really should have worded it better than that, but I'm not up on all the terms for movements in art and music). In fact, some minimalist classical (especially piano) is very soothing and interesting to listen to. My contention is that ever since people began saying that a white painting can be a painting (which I suppose is technically true, but not in the spirit of actual art) or that random noises created by a computer in a loop is music or even that silence (in this case) is music, the value of the art forms has become less and less in the eyes of the vast majority of people. And if something is created only to be targeted at a small minority of "experts" and "connoisseurs", then I think it then qualifies as pretentious or "stuck up", because that small minority of connoisseurs can lord a piece over the oh-look-he's-too-dumb-to-understand art or music fan and say "I understand this higher form of art, and you do not. Your opinion is outdated and intolerant of change!"

In the interest of full disclosure and probably to the pleasure of those aforementioned connoisseurs, I should first say that I have no formal training in art, art history, or modern art and have only a basic understanding of music history and theory from an introduction class in college. These opinions are based solely on my own observations and feelings toward the modern art and experimental music movements. However, having said that, I should also say that I appreciate some sorts of experimental music, such as noise (when created by a person such as Merzbow), extreme forms of black metal, grindcore, and the like. I am also a lover of the art of brewing beer and wine, which some might also call pretentious sectors. In any case, these debates over what is art and what is not have raged since the beginning of the arts, so I doubt we're likely to come to a consensus here. I'll just leave you with these two opinions:

In my opinion, a blank (or white) canvas is not art.
In my opinion, silence can never be musical.

Cheers and happy listening all.

Zach

Right - "art" should just be bucolic landscape paintings or elaborate portraits that only the aristocracy can afford to buy or have time to do, or "Joy of Painting" watercolors of a barn next to a duck pond with a tree like that PBS guy used to do. No one should be able to challenge that or expand the definition of art in any way.

Since you feel that way about it, why stop at landscape paintings or Whistler's mother portraits? Why not say cave paintings are the only "real" art, and anything else that tries to show things differently, like with lots of color or by painting real people, like Van Gogh or Cezanne or Renoir, or that tries to advance our ideas of what constitutes art, isn't really "art?" Why not say that anything that has more than a drum and a wooden hand-carved flute in it isn't "music," or that anything that uses electronic instruments, or that has ambient sounds in it isn't, either? Is Pink Floyd's "on the run" music? It just has some footsteps and breathing of a guy running, some electronic background loop, and then a bomb going off. According to the constraints you apparently want everyone else to adhere to, how is that "music?"

How how how! (yes, a little santa-claus quote ) If it is targeted towards a small group of experts and connoisseurs only, yes then it is indeed stuck up. But! judging without knowing what it is, is a prejudice and naive. I am not judging lack of knowledge, I don't think anybody is. Not even John Cage. Even if somebody is doing it, he's probably just choosing wrong words. I (and others alike) are just trying to share the knowledge that we think we have . I know it probably wasn't targeted against me, but I don't think artist themselves think like that either. (well some might, but that is a real minority. I think) Alot of them just try to give alot of meaning to their artwork (depending on which artist of course). It is only PART of the public that can be judged for snob-ism. Just like in wine-tasting only a part of the public can be called that.

Besides you're saying something different than in your previous post.
In my opinion, silence can never be musical.. No. I agree. But is it therefore not music or art? Something that isn't musical, can be music. Or am I way off here? (edit: well, actually I don't agree! But in 4'33" I agree! )
In my opinion, a blank (or white) canvas is not art. Even if it isn't just a white painting? If it was a painting, that the artist erased. In protest, or maybe just for fun (yes I am insinuating an actual painting). Than it WAS a painting. The real question is of course WHY is something art?

There are artists (please help me, forgot the names) that have tried not to make art, but because they are artists it became art. Which was actually a criticism on the public receiving (not literally of course, can't find the exact word) the artwork.

Besides, it's your every right to not find it art. Art is one of those things that can't be defined. And why should it be defined? (Because of politics!)

Or maybe it's just that everyone else is stuck down.

"Music is the silence between the notes." -Claude Debussy

To your first assertion, I never said that art should stick with landscapes and portraits. Though those forms of painting strike my fancy more than others, there are painters who embrace newer styles (see Van Gogh, Picasso, et al.) who I respect and admire. But really, thats not even the point. What I respect and admire doesn't have to be the end all be all.

Which brings me to my second point. I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth about what I "want everyone else to adhere to". I plainly said that my comments were only opinions, and should be taken as such. I have no delusion that everyone will conform to what I think is aesthetically pleasing, and I have no desire for them to even if they would.

I'm not sure why confrontation entered this discussion at all. My opinion of art is more conservative than most, but I'm aware that there are many (you are plainly one of them) who vehemently oppose that opinion. I regret that you took any offense from my comments toward your own ideas about art and music, but as I said before, these are my opinions.

Cheers and happy listening,
Zach

Edit: Also, regarding the Pink Floyd example. I would contend that that particular track is not in fact music. I would say that it is a piece of the overall artwork that the band was going for. Progressive bands, as someone else said earlier in the thread, often go for an ideal or aesthetic around concept albums. The track in question goes to the mood and feel of the music surround it. Again, this is only an opinion.

And I presented my opinion. So? No reason to get so defensive about it. I was merely challenging your assertions. If you say that in your opinion a certain thing isn't "art," implicitly aren't you saying people shouldn't claim that it's art when they do it?

Regardless, you should expect to be challenged when you come right out and say some of the things you said, like in your opinion XYZ isn't "art," because it's very likely that someone is going to have a different opinion on the matter, or, like in the PF thing, that there are going to be flaws in your position (e.g., the "noise" in PF is "part of the art," but according to you the noise the audience generates during 4:33 isn't part of the art - that's very inconsistent ).

Not sure why you would be surprised by someone stating a different opinion in response to yours. If you're going to present your opinion, you should expect that someone might challenge it. That's what art is largely about: people discussing it.

Yeah, came back from it in my edit. But in 4'33" there isn't any margin for musicality or interpretation. And there aren't any notes. So I agree only in 4'33".

I'm happy to say that you have your opinion and I have mine. The reason I got offensive, is simply that I felt your tone was accusatory. If that wasn't the spirit in which your post was written, then I apologize for wasting valuable space in this thread. I'd just like to make it clear that I have no problem with people voicing their opinions, especially if they are the opposite of mine. Differing viewpoints only help us to grow. I'll leave it at that.

Cheers all, and happy listening.

Zach

That's the problem with communication through internet and communication in general. Misunderstanding.

edit: ^no argument there.

Sorry, one more post and I'm done!

I apologize if I add things that were not in my previous posts. I rarely think long term enough while posting to formulate an entire argument. Head-fi is not a term paper, after all. I'm not sure if what you first said there was directed specifically at me, but I want to assure you that I have seen/heard/felt the presence of 4'33'' in the past, in context (though surely not at the first performance) and I based my opinions on that experience. I also try to never base judgements on things I have not seen/heard/experienced.

Cheers and happy listening

Calling 4 minutes of silence music is like taking a blank piece of paper and calling it art.

Really, 4'33" is more of a 'joke' if anything. You're suppose to wonder why nothing is playing, then come to the conclusion that everything around you is music. Artsy? Yes. Is it music? No.