[Pltinum]

Everybody has about the same idea about the piece, so don't know if my comment is an addition, but I'll give it a shot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Le /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree it's a performance piece, but in my opinion, they should have performed it only once (if at all). Now, everybody knows what is going to happen, which takes away the complete context, namely people expecting a concert. There is no surprise. Art is serious business. This, however, is laziness. Art has a meaning, a message, an emotion. If his message is to take some time to listen to the world around you that's fine, but don't try to sell that as art, as something you came up with. It's shameless really, in my opinion. The Bicycle Wheel was impressive. Now, if I go to your door and put a wheel on a stool, would you thank me for a timeless work of art, or ask me kindly to remove my garbage?

Art is serious business. What? That's one major prejudice you're making. What is opera buffa? Serious business? You're saying that anything comical isn't art. If you mean he wasn't serious about music, I think you're wrong too. (although it's not clear at all, what you're trying to say with that statement). This piece was a comment (criticism?) on the current tendency in music (in art in general). He was inspired by white paintings from Rauschenberg. If you know it, or google it, you see there are alot of similarities with 4'33": Alot of nothing (or almost nothing). He didn't just radically translated it into a piece of nothing, he thought about it (not being lazy). The two first panels of Rauschenbergs paintings cover 66,7% of the total, The first two segments (of the second version) of 4'33" cover 66,5% of the total (4'33" is divided into 3 segments, there are two versions of 4'33"). Which in its turn is a reference to the golden ratio. And so on....

Besides if you mean with art being serious that it has to have a meaning,.. Than the whole art form of Dadaïsm is no art at all.

As said before his music was to hear the sound that is still present in silence. Besides this, his goal with pretty much all of his music was to extent the bounds of what the definition of music really is. So getting a dictionary and putting cage's work besides it is also pretty illogical. Besides dictionaries are wrong alot of the times, they give a pretty abbreviated and simple definition. Just look up the definition of a prime number, I never saw a wright definition in a dictionary.

 

[Le Le]

Hmm, only when you try to discuss something interesting you notice how bad your English really is :$ (If you're from Vlaanderen it would safe us some of that trouble)

I think your (and his apparently, didn't know that, thanks) reference to Rauschenberg says it all. I called it art for people who enjoy white paintings on the previous page

The part about meaning and serious business obviously didn't come through the way I intended, for example I actually really like Dada, not for just the art, but the extensive movement behind it makes it very interesting, if not a school-example of what art can be. It's just, I don't see how nothing can be something interesting. As a matter of fact, I don't even see how it can be something, there's a good reason those 2 usually exclude each other. What is there to enjoy in a (very) silent reference to the golden ratio and/or an almost white painting? Now I've learned that, I only think, hmm, stupid smartass

Although I still think it's pretentious BS to call it art to let us listen to silence, I have to admit you've shown me there's at least some idea behind it, kudos for that

And as far as I know, a prime is a number that can only be divided by 1 and itself to give a number from the collection k<0,1,2>, or don't I know enough about more complex mathematics?

 

[Pltinum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Le /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hmm, only when you try to discuss something interesting you notice how bad your English really is :$ (If you're from Vlaanderen it would safe us some of that trouble) I think your (and his apparently, didn't know that, thanks) reference to Rauschenberg says it all. I called it art for people who enjoy white paintings on the previous page The part about meaning and serious business obviously didn't come through the way I intended, for example I actually really like Dada, not for just the art, but the extensive movement behind it makes it very interesting, if not a school-example of what art can be. It's just, I don't see how nothing can be something interesting. As a matter of fact, I don't even see how it can be something, there's a good reason those 2 usually exclude each other. What is there to enjoy in a (very) silent reference to the golden ratio and/or an almost white painting? Now I've learned that, I only think, hmm, stupid smartass Although I still think it's pretentious BS to call it art to let us listen to silence, I have to admit you've shown me there's at least some idea behind it, kudos for that And as far as I know, a prime is a number that can only be divided by 1 and itself to give a number from the collection k<0,1,2>, or don't I know enough about more complex mathematics?

I notice my English is too bad if I wan't to be precise in what I say (but I try my best!

) and yes I am from Vlaanderen.
Apparantly read over that comment of yours. Personally, I really call it art, not because I enjoy listening to silence or watching nothing, but just the philosophy of putting art itself in question. What makes art art? What makes music music? You're saying that the purpose of art is something aesthetic (which I agree on in some extent), but even in the romantic period Weber put the dramatic effect above the aesthetic. Schönberg and the second viennese school, put tonality aside, which even today alot of people find horrible to listen to. I just see this as a really really extreme version of it. Not in the sense of growing importance of the dramatic, but in the sense of rules about music, harmony, even in this case the essence of what music is. That is why I call it art.

Besides that's what everyone thinks! But 0 and 1 aren't prime numbers (0 not even in your definition, because 0 divided by 0 is a mathematical error). The true definition is: A prime number is a number that can only be divided by 1 and itself in N (alot of people forget this, otherwise all numbers would be prime numbers), excluding 1. Don't know the EXACT reason for the last bit excluding 1, because it's a long time ago, but it had something to do with the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Besides this isn't a mathematics forum!

 

[waex]

I just listened to a LP of Cage's first release on Mode Records called "Etudes Boreales". It is so quiet I can hear a small amount of hum in my system; although it is not completely silent like 4'33". At first I was put off by that; then I started to realize that the surface noise and hum worked with the piece instead of against it. I heard so many rhythms in the cracks, pops, and general unwanted noise (the record is still NM) which seemed to converse with the quiet music that I think Cage would have prefered this experience to listening to a clinical digital medium.

 

[Pltinum]

Wow! tbh I want a recording too! I maybe want to discuss it during my music history exam (we have to have 2 music examples and he'll choose one we have to discuss). I found mp3 downloads, but! their not even the correct length! (yes 4'33", but first part is longer than a minute) I want a live recording! that's the only way to go, no?

 

[tru blu]

Keeping with the spirit…kinda…

BBC - Gomp/arts: 40 wild birds play a Gibson Les Paul guitar

 

[Pltinum]

Thanks for the link!

 

[userlander]

People from the West usually think Tibetan music is just a cacophony of drums and weird horn sounds, too. But to them it's music. What is perceived as "music" therefore depends on the context.

I'd rather listen to 4:33 than Britney Spears, so which one is more "music?" I'd say 4:33 is.

 

[Pltinum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif People from the West usually think Tibetan music is just a cacophony of drums and weird horn sounds, too. But to them it's music. What is perceived as "music" therefore depends on the context. I'd rather listen to 4:33 than Britney Spears, so which one is more "music?" I'd say 4:33 is.

Thaha. I agree, but that's just because I don't want to listen to crazy britney.

The discussion of 4'33" is just that if there is no sound at all, is it music? rather than, the actual production of sound waves, is that music? Even there you can discuss if something is music. Is the sound of an engine music? Only when put it's put into context, imo. Not even something as absurd as an engine can be used as an example; is a clarinet playing a note music? Only when it's put into the context music. I think John Cage would disagree with me, but that's my current opinion about it.

edit: I am in an extent saying the same as you, except John Cage's 4'33" puts an extra parameter into the discussion.

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pltinum /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thaha. I agree, but that's just because I don't want to listen to crazy britney. The discussion of 4'33" is just that if there is no sound at all, is it music? rather than, the actual production of sound waves, is that music? Even there you can discuss if something is music. Is the sound of an engine music? Only when put it's put into context, imo. Not even something as absurd as an engine can be used as an example; is a clarinet playing a note music? Only when it's put into the context music. I think John Cage would disagree with me, but that's my current opinion about it. edit: I am in an extent saying the same as you, except John Cage's 4'33" puts an extra parameter into the discussion.

I think Cage is challenging those definitions, though. The context you speak about is the concert: people are going to a concert to hear "music." The cultural assumption is that "music" means something, and that going to hear music means that there is some performer who is doing something for you, the audience. Like Nirvana said, "here we are now, entertain us."

Cage is challenging those assumption not only by saying that maybe we shouldn't always expect to be "entertained" all the time, but that we also participate in the experience, the way in quantum physics the observer of the experiment is said to participate in the experiment, not just observe it (schroedinger's cat, etc.). I think Cage would say that if you took those same people in the audience and put them on a subway train, that wouldn't be "music," because it's not the same context, with the same expectations.

So when we widen our definition of "music" to include these other ideas, our participation in the event can be the "music," not just what the "performer" does. Context matters, but so do our definitions and assumptions.

 

[waex]

Here is the DVD that contains a recording of 4'33".

John Cage - The Revenge of the Dead Indians: In Memoriam John Cage

 

[Pltinum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think Cage is challenging those definitions, though. The context you speak about is the concert: people are going to a concert to hear "music." The cultural assumption is that "music" means something, and that going to hear music means that there is some performer who is doing something for you, the audience. Like Nirvana said, "here we are now, entertain us." Cage is challenging those assumption not only by saying that maybe we shouldn't always expect to be "entertained" all the time, but that we also participate in the experience, the way in quantum physics the observer of the experiment is said to participate in the experiment, not just observe it (schroedinger's cat, etc.). I think Cage would say that if you took those same people in the audience and put them on a subway train, that wouldn't be "music," because it's not the same context, with the same expectations. So when we widen our definition of "music" to include these other ideas, our participation in the event can be the "music," not just what the "performer" does. Context matters, but so do our definitions and assumptions.

Totally agree! Except I don't know if Cage would say that, he is a pretty radical thinker (although I'm not sure, it's somewhere vaguely in my memory).

Besides, definitions are made to define things how they are known or accepted at the time of writing. Definitions are hardly ever exact.

@waex: thanks! gonna check it out!

 

[Le Le]

@Userlander:
The other night, I was honestly wondering, what if Britney Spears (aka BS) would include a track of silence on her latest, ever so brilliant album, would that ruin the (experience for those who (claim to) appreciate) silence? That is what bothers me most about this whole experiment. In the end it is all about the context, and the context is mostly artistic wankery.
@Pltinum
Maybe it is because I am terribly drunk, but I really get your point Sadly I'm into biology rather than art (at the moment), but I think you are right, challenging art might just be a form of art itself (although far from my choices of art). Maybe Vlaams should be art too, because it challenges Dutch in a positive way *-) Interesting topic. But I disagree strongly with participation being a part of music. All music is art, but not all art is music. If you go as far as silence, it is more art than music (no music at all, just very weird art). Music in the end is, for me, still about beautiful sounds, touching lyrics and emotional melodies etc, maybe I am just too conservative for this shizzle.
I don't think this makes sense, I need a bed badly.

 

[Zarathustra19]

I know opinions vary almost ridiculously about this and other experimental "art" forms, but here's one more.

Would we call a blank page "literature"?
A blank canvas a "painting"?

Taking it somewhat out of the artistic range: is the absence of computer code still a program? Is leaving spool of yarn in a ball still weaving?

Maybe my analogies aren't applicable to one another but silence is not music. Silence is the canvas upon which music is "painted". The philosophical idea of there not being silence is an interesting one, but I think representing abstract philosophical ideas in an art form is nothing more than pretentious. Ever since minimalism began in art and perhaps even before, its been systemic and is destroying the traditions of art, music and literature. My 2 cents on the issue.

Cheers!

 

[jelt2359]

It is as much what you do, as the ideas that underpin it. Britney Spears can recreate the form, but perhaps not the substance, that underpins 4'33".

Very postmodern. Love it. Reminds me also of watching a movie vs listening to music in a fancy place. In a movie, loud laughter is part of the fun. In a fancy concert hall, one must be dead silent to 'appreciate' the music. Um ok so nothing can be dead silent but nonetheless, why the difference? Why the stuckupness?

Well, why not eh, John Cage?