[Ryokan]

You think you’re a little boy and if you cry then magically the history of music will change?

G

It would be good if others chimed in to give their view.

History of music? It was only written in 1952, I wonder what some of the great composers from the 15th -19th centuries would've made of it? Probably would've just chuckled and seen the humour.

 

[bigshot]

It would be good if others chimed in to give their view.

What's the point of that? Anyone who raises their hand is going to be verbally abused and called a liar. I really don't care myself, but others may not be up for that kind of treatment. It's pretty much self evident that not everyone considers 4'33" to be a serious piece of music. I personally think it's a shame that more people can name 4'33" than can name any of his other works.

You don't have to adopt a poe face and frown all the time if you listen to experimental music. In fact, it's OK to laugh. When I was a kid back in the 70s, my brother had a great collection of LPs. I remember particularly liking Cage's Fontana from the Electronic Music album because it was fun and weird and silly like Frank Zappa's best stuff with the Mothers of Invention. There was an album of music by Ligetti that was even better for that kind of thing. I played it over and over again. I forget what that was called but it had a big clock pendulum on the cover. I'd love to have that on CD now. Every time I played it for my friends it amazed and delighted them. We'd giggle until we were gasping for air. I've heard other recordings of the same piece but they didn't have the spunk of that 1960s LP.

By the way Ryokan, I referred to HC Andersen's emperor earlier in the thread and it flew right past then too. But I get what you're saying.

 

[Ryokan]

What's the point of that?

Just to see if we're the only two who think this way about 4'33". I'd be interested to read what some of the intellectuals on the science forum make of it. Maybe I'm just an uneducated heathen and fail to see the brilliance, or I'm in a better position to see through it?

 

[bigshot]

Just to see if we're the only two who think this way about 4'33".

I sincerely doubt that. But it really doesn't matter how many people think one way or another about it. The majority of people may be right or they may be wrong. People believe all kinds of things. 40,000 Frenchmen *can* actually be wrong.

 

[Steve999]

I sincerely doubt that. But it really doesn't matter how many people think one way or another about it. The majority of people may be right or they may be wrong. People believe all kinds of things. 40,000 Frenchmen *can* actually be wrong.

I think at the time the phrase was coined, it was 50,000,000 Frenchmen can’t be wrong, and in fact, at the time, there were less than 50,000,000 Frenchmen in the world, so it was true, because you couldn’t have 50,000,000 Frenchmen do anything, whether it consisted of being wrong, or dancing in the street, or whatever.

And in fact the population of France is now 67,413,000, plus or minus, about half of whom are men, so, still, 50,000,000 Frenchmen can’t be wrong, or do anything else for that matter, because there are just not enough Frenchmen.

As to your exact point, though, I would have to agree that, realistically, 40,000 Frenchmen could very easily be wrong about various things, and almost certainly are.

The opinions of @castleofargh notwithstanding.

IMHO, FWIW, & etc.

 

[bigshot]

40,000? 50 million? This is why I avoid doing math!

 

[castleofargh]

We French can be anything! We have unlimited potential, and are obviously excellent at being wrong.


@Ryokan, I could try to justify things by discussing the merits and mission of experimental art, but then we get a new problem trying to draw a line between typical art and experimental art. Which will be just as divisive for some particular pieces as trying to answer "music or not music?". Then there is the matter of when it was done, as somewhat revolutionary stuff at a point in time can very well remain anecdotal or be embraced as a new genre by the masses and artists. At some point, so long as we experience something often enough, good or bad, right or wrong, it becomes the new normal. That's the more primitive way of looking at things, but surely we're also able to open up to new and different from time to time, otherwise nothing would ever change (for the delight of old people in every generation).
What's sure is that at the time, most people were reacting like you do, simply rejecting the idea that the strange thing they aren't used to should be called music.
But why? What is the critical aspect that disproves music?
It's been made, has been performed, it is timed, has a duration and a partition. It has a public, it has instruments, sometimes. The creator does call it music. Should you go against all that and refuse it as music just because it doesn't feel right to you?
Silence on the stage, it, is a common ingredient in music. What bothers you is merely the amount of it, but then what's the legal amount of silence in music? Who declared himself king of music and imposed such a limit?
The public is the instrument. Is there a rule saying it can't? Many live events have the public taking over completely for some amount of time. Again, the debate isn't on having it, but on how much is allowed and who gets to decide?
One could argue that each time the music is different, so it's not really music, But that too was the will of the composer and of course it happens all the time with almost all music artists playing live. Just call it an improv where the public is the instrument, if that makes it easier for you to reconcile the experience with the idea of music.

My own point of view on this is that listening to it on my own isn't great. I am not a good musician to begin with, so it's not too surprising^_^. But being a room with a fairly large audience, that's probably a pretty fun experience. And I imagine the first time was the best, with people probably not knowing what was going on.

Again, it is my most basic and sincere belief that forcing rules onto any art form is natural and bound to fail. When it inevitably happens, some artist will and should push real hard against the walls of that made up jail. Cage, whether we like him and his work or not(I don't), pushed on many such walls, deliberately so. He is recognized for doing it, and 4'33" in particular is famous and pushed harder than anything probably ever had in music. I don't think you or bigshot not calling it music is going to change much of anything, so unlike gregorio, I don't care much that your opinion doesn't align with mine on this. I'm fine with anything on this subject.
But then I'm not personally a fan of Cage and his contribution, and only came to defend the general right for art to be whatever the F it wants. Because I consider that idea to be an important aspect and mission of art. At the same, time, millions of people call soundstage what is not soundstage, so if some decide to not call one piece, music, I'll survive .

 

[bigshot]

I think the listener has every right to pass judgment on what he's being presented. He may be right, he may be wrong. But it is his right. If that listener has experience in the art being presented to him, his opinion has weight as long as he defines his criteria for judging and supports his points in favor or against. Someone can say it's a masterpiece and be just as correct as someone who says it's total crap. It all depends on the criteria and the supporting points.

It's self evident that 4'33"is missing many of the elements people generally expect music to have. It shouldn't be surprising that some people would not consider it music. Opinion on the value of 4'33" among knowledgeable music listeners is far from universal. It really shouldn't be a surprise that someone might think it's junk. If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck...

Some people say that aesthetic discernment is entirely subjective. They say it can't be objectively argued. The reason they say that is the same reason why people come in here and say sound quality is purely subjective... they don't have the experience to make solid arguments themselves, so they assume everyone is as in the dark as they are. They may defer to "experts", be they high end audio reviewers or musicologists acting as press agents for musicians. It's never good to go by appeal to authority. People should expose themselves to a wide range of art, think about it, analyze what makes it good or bad, and learn to think for themselves. But of course people who think for themselves can seem threatening if you are completely intractable in your own opinions and refuse to tolerate anyone else's criteria without becoming insulting.

I'm happy to discuss many things without resorting to ad hominem attacks. If someone arguing the other side can't resist that temptation, I'm done discussing it with them. I consider insults to be the debating equivalent of an abdication. I'll just claim the win, talk with other folks about it and talk past the person who can't control themself. I don't need to keep going back to the same old insults, no matter how insistent the person is that I engage with them.

 

[Ryokan]

We French can be anything! We have unlimited potential, and are obviously excellent at being wrong.

The French won't put up with shenanigans for long.

At some point, so long as we experience something often enough, good or bad, right or wrong, it becomes the new normal.

Or a form of brain washing.

​

 

[gregorio]

History of music? It was only written in 1952

But that was 70 years ago and a lot has happened in the history of music since then. With the advent of tape recording, synthesisers and then computers, plus influences of popular genres such as rock, we had a rapid development of classical genres; Musique Concrete and other “Noise Music”, Aleatoric Music, “Indeterminacy”, Algorithmic Music and other genres/sub-genres. Most of them were at least partly influenced by Cage and 4’33”, not by the false idea stated here that it’s “nothing” but by the compositional idea largely invented by Cage and epitomised by 4’33”of “Chance Music”. Even genres that appear to have nothing in common with 4’33” were influenced by it, “Minimalism” for example. I could go on but 4’33” was one of the most important and influential music compositions of the C20th.

I wonder what some of the great composers from the 15th -19th centuries would've made of it? Probably would've just chuckled and seen the humour.

It is of course impossible to say, although it’s likely some would “get it”. Beethoven had his 9th Symphony slammed by some influential critics as just noise and “not music”, his publisher refused to publish another piece because it was “just noise” and Beethoven was forced to re-write it. 4’33” was not a “bolt from the blue”, it is an evolution with precedents. Berlioz and others used GPs (Grande Pause), Allais’ 1897 Funeral March consists of just 24 empty bars, an entire movement of Schulhoff’s 1919 composition “Five Pictures for Piano” is carefully notated with time signature changes and musical instructions but entirety of “Rests”, etc.

Anyone who raises their hand is going to be verbally abused and called a liar.

That’s clever bigshot, repeat the lie that I call any dissenter a liar.

It's pretty much self evident that not everyone considers 4'33" to be a serious piece of music.

So what does that prove? Beethoven’s 9th Symphony was considered by some to be “not music” just noise, the Rites of Spring was famously considered by many to not be music, as was much of the work of Alban Berg and the other 2nd Viennese School composers, as well as numerous other C20th compositions. Again, are you really claiming Beethoven’s 9th isn’t music, along with countless other compositions? If not, then your argument is invalid but don’t let that stop you from just repeating it ad infinitum!

And if that’s not already enough, it’s also self-evident (to anyone who’s not ignorant of C20th classical music), that 4’33” is not just a serious piece of music but one of the most important pieces of C20th music. After numerous pages of argument are you really still so ignorant of this fact or are you just trolling? And even if you are still so ignorant, since when has ignorance been a valid basis for an argument in this subforum or is that just for everyone except bigshot?

G

 

[Ryokan]

But why? What is the critical aspect that disproves music?
It's been made, has been performed, it is timed, has a duration and a partition. It has a public, it has instruments, sometimes. The creator does call it music. Should you go against all that and refuse it as music just because it doesn't feel right to you?
Silence on the stage, it, is a common ingredient in music. What bothers you is merely the amount of it, but then what's the legal amount of silence in music? Who declared himself king of music and imposed such a limit?

Just call it for what it is, a whimsy, a bit of fun, a social experiment. Why the need to elevate it to anything other than that.

 

[Ryokan]

But that was 70 years ago and a lot has happened in the history of music since then. With the advent of tape recording, synthesisers and then computers, plus influences of popular genres such as rock, we had a rapid development of classical genres; Musique Concrete and other “Noise Music”, Aleatoric Music, “Indeterminacy”, Algorithmic Music and other genres/sub-genres. Most of them were at least partly influenced by Cage and 4’33”, not by the false idea stated here that it’s “nothing” but by the compositional idea largely invented by Cage and epitomised by 4’33”of “Chance Music”. Even genres that appear to have nothing in common with 4’33” were influenced by it, “Minimalism” for example. I could go on but 4’33” was one of the most important and influential music compositions of the C20th.

Reminds me of the phrase: 'All the gear, no idea'.

 

[gregorio]

I think the listener has every right to pass judgment on what he's being presented. He may be right, he may be wrong. But it is his right.

A straw man argument repeated endlessly, which of course is an unacceptable argument in this subforum for anyone except apparently bigshot.

For the umpteenth time, NO ONE is disputing someone’s right to a personal opinion. What you do not have the right to do is force your personal opinion on everyone else and stand on your soapbox and proclaim it’s a fraud and a cheat. You are not god, you do not get to define music!

Just call it for what it is, a whimsy, a bit of fun, a social experiment.

On that basis why not “just call it for what it is,” a skyscraper or a helicopter? We don’t call it these things because it is not these things!

Why the need to elevate it to anything other than that.

I’ve tried to explain but apparently you’re oblivious and now doing a “bigshot”, just repeating the same fallacy. The answer again is; because it was not just a whimsy and the boat sailed long ago, it is already “elevated” regardless of your personal opinions/preferences.

Reminds me of the phrase: 'All the gear, no idea'.

Sure, Cage had “no idea”, neither did Xenakis, Feldman, Stockhausen and numerous other composers, nor those artists who recorded, performed or admired the piece; Brian Eno, the LSO, the Berlin Phil, Zappa and countless others. All of them had “All the gear, no idea” but you and bigshot have the real/right idea. You must be very proud that so many composers and artists are wrong and you are right.

G

 

[Ryokan]

For the umpteenth time, NO ONE is disputing someone’s right to a personal opinion. What you do not have the right to do is force your personal opinion on everyone else and stand on your soapbox and proclaim it’s a fraud and a cheat. you do not get to define music!

Ok so all the people mentioned have a sphere of influence and decree it's music along with their often powerful supporters/backers and it's mainly lay people who say it isn't. Guess which side of view will gain credence?

 

[gregorio]

Ok so all the people mentioned have a sphere of influence and decree it's music along with their often powerful supporters/backers and it's mainly lay people who say it isn't.

Not only the people mentioned but many other people/composers/artists not mentioned who were influenced by the piece and, contemporary western musical artists and composers “sphere of influence” is of course western music, who else should it be? In addition, we have all the western classical music history text books, plus all the universities and other education institutions around the world which teach the history of C20th classical music and of course those who study at those institutions.

Guess which side of view will gain credence?

I don’t need to guess, it’s already happened, it’s already part of classical music history and you cannot simply erase history because you don’t like it. Hilter tried and failed, so did Stalin. In fact Hilter inadvertently achieved the exact opposite of his goal but don’t let that put you off from trying!!

G