According to Wikipedia (hehe) Cage's goal was to have the listener hear the sounds in the room itself, that those sounds were the music. If so, then would the music not change with every performance, totally randomly? How can you legally protect a random sound?
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. All I know is that Cage's work has been covered and royalties paid to his estate. *shrug*
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
As I've got a background in epistemology, I want to address on little thing before going on: appeal to authority is a valid method of obtaining propositional knowledge. It is a fallacy of logical argument, but we aren't constructing an argument. In propositional matters, particularly those around definitional questions in specific subject areas, authority should be regarded as valid unless there is an argument to the contrary. At least, epistemologically speaking. And that, as Forrest Gump would say, is all I have to say about that :)
Recognizing a true authority often is the larger problem. Many are unable to distinguish a true authority from a poser. People are easily fooled when confronted by that which they do not understand.
-=tension & release=-
As I've got a background in epistemology, I want to address on little thing before going on: appeal to authority is a valid method of obtaining propositional knowledge. It is a fallacy of logical argument, but we aren't constructing an argument. In propositional matters, particularly those around definitional questions in specific subject areas, authority should be regarded as valid unless there is an argument to the contrary. At least, epistemologically speaking. And that, as Forrest Gump would say, is all I have to say about that :)
Recognizing a true authority often is the larger problem. Many are unable to distinguish a true authority from a poser. People are easily fooled when confronted by that which they do not understand.
In some cases that is true. However, this isn't one of them. Cage's reputation as a composser and professor of music is well established. His works, including 4'33 are referenced in all the standard sources. He is regarded as one of the most important American composers of his era, and 4'33 is considered by many to be his most important work.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
4'33 is pretentious rubbish, calling it music is ridiculous :roll:
It's not hard to find someone saying the same thing about everyone from Bach to the Beatles.
It does not make a work less important.
4'33 is music. It is recognized as such by composers, performers, orchestral directors, music critics, music publishers, national and international courts, and audiences.
Let me clarify then: That it is pretentious rubbish is just my opinion, and you are quite correct in saying that somebody, somewhere holds that opinion about just about everything.
The point I am making is that it is not music - it is an absense of music by any defination, and that much is not opinion. Whether that makes it music in itself or not is again back to opinion, which is why I disagree with your point about appeal to authority.
Cage's view is that those are all just as much a part of the musical experience as the intentional sounds are.
If he thinks that musical experience and music are the same thing, he's missing the point (again opinion). The musical experience is a combination of the music itself and the way it is presented, be that the performance or the setting etc. 4'33 is merely the latter, it is missing its fundamental element.
But what does that have to do with being an authority on deciding the definitive definition of music? He makes music, that's not the same as deciding the limits. I'm not even sure there can be anyone who can be considered to be able to speak with any authority on this matter at all.
But what does that have to do with being an authority on deciding the definitive definition of music? He makes music, that's not the same as deciding the limits. I'm not even sure there can be anyone who can be considered to be able to speak with any authority on this matter at all.
I will certainly agree that the definition of what is music is a largely open question. But again, Cage's works are referenced in standard sources for music. His works are published as music. His work is purchased as music by orchestra directors.
Given that such a large population of people who's job revolve around music consider it music, that to me has something of an air of authority about it. When I find Cage and his works discussed in great detail in standard academic and popular sources on 20th century music, and when Cage, whose gained great prestige as a noted composer, claims it was written as music, then I'm left looking for any significant claims of equal authority to the contrary. A few exist, but not many.
There appears to be fairly uniform consensus among those whose job is to study, write about, comment upon, purchase, and perform music that this work is music.
That it's odd, avante Garde, and contriversial isn't disputed either. But those qualities don't detract from the consensus on the fact that it is in some way music.
Which again, is Cage's point -- to make the audience ask themselves how music is defined.
In some ways it's hard for me to think of another composition that so clearly achieves it's compossers' goals for the piece than this one!
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
The point I am making is that it is not music - it is an absense of music by any defination, and that much is not opinion. Whether that makes it music in itself or not is again back to opinion, which is why I disagree with your point about appeal to authority.
You're simply wrong. There are plenty of definitions of music, widely accepted, that include Cage's 4'33.
If he thinks that musical experience and music are the same thing, he's missing the point (again opinion). The musical experience is a combination of the music itself and the way it is presented, be that the performance or the setting etc. 4'33 is merely the latter, it is missing its fundamental element.
Maybe, maybe not.
Again, I personally hold that music is a discursively defined categor7. It exists only in the dialogical connection between performance and audience. It doesn't exist as a thing itself.
If that's the case, then it is impossible to say that the musical experience is a combination of the music and the way it's presented, for it is precisely the case that music is what is expierienced in the presentation of music. Perhpas the only hermeneutic that can be applied to the question is that music is that which when we experience it is called music.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
*edited* Probably best to just agree to disagree then, although I'd like to see (purely out of interest) the definitions you mention.
Levinson's definition applies: "man-made or arranged for the purpose of enriching experience via active engagement (e.g., through performing, listening, dancing) where sounds are primarily attended to for their sonic qualities"
Cage provided the arrangement . Cage's intent was to provide an enriching experience. He intended the audience to be actively engaged. He expected the accidental sounds of the performance to be attended to for their sonic qualities.
Levinson specifically commented on 4'33 saying "It should be apparent that there are no longer any intrinsic properties of sound that are required for something possibly to be music"
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
Just listened to 4'33.I will buy sheet music for it.
A good track to play along my guitar, with headphones stuck in the ears.
Levinson's definition applies: "man-made or arranged for the purpose of enriching experience via active engagement (e.g., through performing, listening, dancing) where sounds are primarily attended to for their sonic qualities"
Cage provided the arrangement . Cage's intent was to provide an enriching experience. He intended the audience to be actively engaged. He expected the accidental sounds of the performance to be attended to for their sonic qualities.
Levinson specifically commented on 4'33 saying "It should be apparent that there are no longer any intrinsic properties of sound that are required for something possibly to be music"
A definition specifically formulated or altered to include 4'33, then? I thank you for providing it, but I cannot possibly bring myself to be mature enough to exit the conversation without mentioning how firmly bitten my tongue is. I'll see you in another topic :wink:
A definition specifically formulated or altered to include 4'33, then?
Not at all. Sorry.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
but I cannot possibly bring myself to be mature enough to exit the conversation without mentioning how firmly bitten my tongue is. I'll see you in another topic :wink:
I am not quite that mature either but I am comedic enough to mention that I told my bassist that I wanted to do a cover of this peice, only thing is that I want to change the tempo a bit and alter the key to suit my vocal range. :lol: This has been an interesting one.
On the original topic. Thought the dude was awsome. Dont care if there is or isnt soul to it. I'd love his technical abilities.
Jim
“The hardest thing in life is to know which bridge to cross and which to burn” - David Russell (Scottish classical Guitarist. b.1942)
You can use all symantics and definitions you want, but a man sitting at a piano and NOT playing isn't music any more than someone sitting behind an easel an NOT painting is art. Yeah, yeah... the first person who does it will get the "great visionary and artist" tag, but, really, is it music or painting?? Sounds and looks to me like someone tried to get a name for oneself by causing a stir. "Look! He DIDN'T PAINT!!! Isn't that interesting? Wow... it is white..."
You may call the approach novel. You can describe the experience as interesting. You can even consider the person behind it as innotative. But calling it music insults all the people who take time and engery into creating real music.
And, yes, I had to look what the heck 4'33" was since I had never heard of it...
-=- Steve
"If the moon were made of ribs, would you eat it?"
And KP, are you trying to make a statement by using an Avatar which ISN'T an Avatar? :lol:
-=- Steve
"If the moon were made of ribs, would you eat it?"
