[bigshot]

I’m with ya… Organized means it was created by man, not random or natural sounds. Expressive means that it is created by a composer with the intent of communicating a musical idea artist to listener. I think both of those qualifications are important to prevent random birds chirping or accidental sound (like a burp) to be qualified as music.

 

[gregorio]

Appeal to authority! Bandwagon argument!

Duh, of course it’s an appeal to authority, the authority of the history of western classical music. As opposed to your appeal to authority, yourself!

John Cage's 4'33" was an April Fool's joke that some folks weren't bright enough to recognize as an April Fool's joke.

That is a lie and deliberately repeating the same lie makes you a what? All the hundreds of posts you’ve made fighting against ignorant and/or lying trolls and here you are being a perfect example of one. Does that make you a happy hypocrite?

What definition of music classifies 4'33'' as such? I'm assuming you are aware of the fact the one brought up doesn't do it.

You might like to start here, with wiki’s Definition of Music.

My definition is broader than the typical definition.

But narrower than any of the more valid definitions and as you’re not actually god, you don’t get to define music. I’ve read an awful lot of musical theory over the decades, never seen “bigshot” cited as the authority.

I consider music to be "expressive organized sound".

You can consider whatever you want but as you’re not god, what you consider does not define what music is.

Webster defines it as... vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.

Which eliminates a great deal of C20th music, music composers and entire genres of music. So obviously is it wrong or at very least, massively outdated and incomplete.

Organized means it was created by man, not random or natural sounds.

Sure, Cage, Feldman, Xenakis, Ives, Stockhausen, Lutolawski, Hovannes, and countless others composed aleatoric music but according to the great god bigshot, none of this music is music because “Aleatoric Music” isn’t music. So the “Darmstadt School” never existed and neither did the “New York School” because the musical genre/movement of “Indeterminacy” isn’t a music genre by commandment of the lord god bigshot. Let’s get to burning all those music history text books and demolishing all the music conservertoires and universities that teach this history of music. Fortunately Zappa and many others are already dead but Brian Eno, the London Symphony Orchestra, the Berlin Phil and numerous others can still be burnt at the stake for their blasphemy against Bigshot’s commandments.

Expressive means that it is created by a composer with the intent of communicating a musical idea artist to listener.

So like 4’33” then!

G

 

[bigshot]

FALSEHOODS!

4'33" doesn't fit my definition of music as being "organized, expressive sound".

Atonal music isn't random and it definitely *is* organized. However whatever sound is produced by the audience during 4'33", it is spontaneously random and *not* organized in any way. Cage says the sound of the audience is the point of it, so he isn't expressing anything, the audience is. He's more of a ringmaster than he is a composer. Bring on the clowns!

By the way, you missed VNandor's request.

 

[gregorio]

FALSEHOODS!

You must be talking about yourself!

4'33" doesn't fit my definition of music as being "organized, expressive sound".

Exactly, YOUR definition of music, not the definition of music. The two are different because you are not god but clearly you believe you are.

Atonal music isn't random and it definitely *is* organized.

Speech and the sound of a combustion engine for example are not random and are organised but this too is a straw man, as I wasn’t referring to atonal music but Aleatoric Music.

However whatever sound is produced by the audience during 4'33", it is spontaneously random and *not* organized in any way.

Which again is just another falsehood. Firstly it is organised into 3 movements of specific duration. Secondly, Cage didn’t only specify audience noise and lastly, as he did specify audience noise by definition he has organised something.

Cage says the sound of the audience is the point of it, so he isn't expressing anything, the audience is.

Oh good, self-contradiction as the basis for an argument, you’re out doing yourself!

Which is it; is he not expressing anything OR does Cage say the sound of the audience is the point of it? If Cage has a “point of it” then by definition he’s expressing something. Some people are obviously too stupid or ignorant to understand what that point is but that’s always the case with music that pushes the boundaries of it’s day.

By the way, you missed VNandor's request.

No I didn’t but again, don’t let the facts get in the way of another false assertion.

G

 

[bigshot]

Maybe you just don’t understand anything I’m saying… or you refuse to. You still haven’t answered BNandor’s question if I’m not mistaken.

 

[gregorio]

Maybe you just don’t understand anything I’m saying…

When you say “my definition of music” are you talking about something other than your definition of music?

You still haven’t answered BNandor’s question if I’m not mistaken.

You are mistaken but don’t let that stop you.

G

 

[sander99]

By the way, you missed VNandor's request.

No, he didn't.

Just say it already. What definition of music classifies 4'33'' as such? I'm assuming you are aware of the fact the one brought up doesn't do it.

There were more than one brought up. This one does do it:

There are numerous definitions, none of them universally true/accurate. My favourite and one of the closest to being universal was by Luciano Berio: “Music is everything that one listens to with the intention of listening to music”.

And the one I mentioned did as well.

 

[gregorio]

There were more than one brought up. This one does do it: …

And, the quote below was a direct response to VNandor’s question and a more comprehensive one.

You might like to start here, with wiki’s Definition of Music.

Unfortunately, this is Head-Fi so there’s no rule against bigshot making up a falsehood and then repeating it over and over. Of course, this makes him a gross hypocrite but apparently that’s nothing to be ashamed of for many on this site.

G

 

[VNandor]

There were more than one brought up. This one does do it:

And the one I mentioned did as well.

I missed this. It's also included in the wiki article. I think it's a good definition because it directly reflects on the inherent subjective nature of music. If one accepts it as is, it makes discussion of what music is and what isn't kind of pointless.

 

[gregorio]

I think it's a good definition because it directly reflects on the inherent subjective nature of music.

Yep, I agree, that’s the main reason I like it.

If one accepts it as is, it makes discussion of what music is and what isn't kind of pointless.

I agree with this as well and it’s my main criticism of Berio’s definition because clearly there has historically been a point to the discussion of what is and isn’t music. Personally, I think some mention of composer involvement or intention probably needs to be included in a definition.

In the specific case of 4’33” though, we have a composition of particular importance to the history of western classical music; the basis or epitome of several different musical “schools”/sub-genres of music composition and a significant influence for many of Cage’s contemporaries and other composers who followed. This is just historical fact period, regardless of Bigshot’s ignorance, preferences or made-up falsehoods.

G

 

[Ryokan]

Music is a form of sensuality.

 

[Steve999]

Music is a form of sensuality.

I actually would guess there’s a whole lot to that. Both in terms of pure aural sumptuousness and in our tendency to metaphorically or literally recreate the musical aspects of our most intense physical erotic drives and pleasures by the artistic use of sound, whether this is done intentionally or not, I would guess often not, but sometimes definitely it’s intentional.

All imho & etc., and keeping in mind this is a G or PG rated board.

 

[bigshot]

Is something music if you listen to it hoping to hear music and you don't hear anything at all?

If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?

I'll give you another hippy dippy "truth"... If everything can be music, then nothing is music.

"beans, beans the musical fruit..."

It's just a hop, a skip and a jump to Michael Jackson's monkey, or the "spin art" Hirst is advertising for sale on Facebook.

 

[bigshot]

No, Gregorio knows an awful lot about a lot of things. I defer to him on technical issues. His blind spot appears to be creativity. But that's OK because a studio engineer's job is to follow the artists' and producers' lead on creative decisions and facilitate the implementation of their direction. He teaches engineering, I teach creativity. The two things work hand in hand.

Artistic creation is a process, just like an architect builds a building. From outside, it looks like subjective magic, but it is the exact opposite. It involves thousands of small decisions which must be analyzed, weighed and balanced. Anyone who has worked side by side with a creative artist knows that process and what it involves. It's objective analysis in service of a subjective goal. But you don't see the thought process and struggle from the outside. You just see the sum total at the end.

Music and film making are unique among artistic mediums because they are collaborative processes. One person doesn't do it all by himself. With classical music, you have a composer, conductor and performers all working together to create a musical whole. Each one brings something to the work, and it wouldn't be the same without their contribution. When you eliminate composition, direction and performance you end up with nothing at all.

John Cage's 4'33" is a sonata for music critics. You don't hear musicians singing its praises. Everything that it is exists outside of the boundaries of music making. It's an experiment in reductivism- how much can you remove and still have it called music? As such, it's an entertaining "what if?", and it gets lots of discussion among non-artists, but ultimately, it's as empty as it can possibly be- by design!

I remember being with a brilliant animator when he was watching a critic talk about his art form on TV. The critic said "it's all good- just like ice cream!" The artist started laughing derisively... "Yes, it's all good. Nothing is bad. Hahaha! What an idiot!" Art isn't all good. Some of it is definitely bad. You determine which is which by establishing criteria to judge by, not by revising your definitions to allow nothing to be something.

 

[gregorio]

Is something music if you listen to it hoping to hear music and you don't hear anything at all?

It doesn’t matter because if you “don’t hear anything at all”, you should book yourself a nice vacation in a morgue.

He teaches engineering, I teach creativity.

It would be nice if just once in this discussion if you could make a true assertion rather than just make-up falsehood after falsehood.

John Cage's 4'33" is a sonata for music critics.

Again, just another lie, or rather two lies in one sentence, which is impressive, even by the standards you’ve demonstrated up till now. It’s neither a sonata nor was it “for music critics” but again, why let the facts get in the way of BS? This also covers all the BS which follows the above quote!

G