Discussion on John Cage's 4'33

corrections · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:11 pm **Posts:** 15265

pauldrach wrote:

OK, I see what you mean now. Yes, 4'33'' does comprise only a single idea that isn't developed throughout the piece. But how would you develop that idea? Any sound in the piece itself would have distracted from and destroyed the very essence of that idea. Also that there is only one musical idea captured in the piece doesn't mean that there isn't a deeper set of ideas behind it. I think in this case developping further on the idea could only have had a negative effect on the overall piece as it would have been contrary to the original idea. You seem to be someone with a very rational approach towards art though, so I see why you wouldn't enjoy 4'33''. If your brain is constantly seeking new ideas while consuming art and that need isn't fulfilled that is only logical.

Perhaps the idea could have been incorporated into a larger work as pnoom suggested. Or perhaps the idea wasn't worth developing through music. There are many ideas that aren't necessarily worth developing through music. The idea itself is to some degree neat. But without development an idea is just an idea.

corrections · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:11 pm **Posts:** 15265

Adrian Tofei wrote:

A small child doesn't have a concept or an idea, but he is much more creative then any mature human. I was talking about the power of intuition in creation, not reason. Only with reason, the act creation is not possible becouse you are using what you know; you must forget all you know, you must step into the unknown, to risk everything in order to create (creating = making something really new, with no anchors in the past, in what you know and understand). You need reason in order to express the result of the act of creation... the act of creation itself is beyond reason... something beyond reason strucked Beethoven before writing the nineth symphony... we don't know what becouse knowing implies reason and what happened is above reason... then Beethoven used his brain and ideas and concepts only to materialize what he feeled, but that wasn't the real act of creation... it was only a great tecknique. John Cage stopped gest before materialising the act of creation.... he felt a lot and he didn't do nothing..... and by doing this he pointed on the real act of creation, on the process of creation for the first time in the history of music. A lot to say... I don't wanna get into details becouse I'm not fluent in english and I struggle too much to express myself... I don't wanna loose the essence on the way.

That state does not exist and never can. Every experience you have influences you. They don't define you necessarily but they do absolutely effect you and they are impossible to get rid of.

corrections · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:11 pm **Posts:** 15265

pauldrach wrote:

I don't think the piece is mainly about the environmental sounds. It's a piece that is supposed to consist of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence, and nothing else. Cage noticed after he had conceptualized the idea of a silent piece, that there is no such thing as complete silence. Every silence incorporates sounds, there's no way around it, and that is part of the listening experience of 4'33''. It is not part of the initial concept though.

In your last post on page 19 you wrote: "The reaction to a piece can and should go beyond merely the emotions evoked." While I agree that the reaction to a piece can go beyond the emotions, and while I also agree that it usually will go beyond them, I don't think that it necessarily should go beyond them. There are pieces that work better when you just switch off your thinking and try to lose yourself in the music, where an analysis might destroy that experience. Minimal music for example. Why would you want to analyse that? Yet it may be beautiful.

That's not how I heard it. I think most of the analysis of this piece has consisted of people projecting onto Cage.

pauldrach · **Posted:** Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:29 am

I don't know about most of the analysis of 4'33''. It's just the way I understand it and it's the way I can appreciate it best. And concerning your statement that silence without sounds to give it context would be meaningless: You're probably right that silence on its own would be impossible to appreciate, even impossible to recognize. But silence ripped from a context of sounds could never exist. Even if it was possible to get a performance of 4'33'' to be completely silent, you'd always have sounds preceding and following it. They may not be part of the piece in the narrower sense but of course they give the piece a certain context.

Oddjectivity · **Joined:** Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:10 pm **Posts:** 13

It's neither music nor terribly original, but it's mildly amusing as a piece of performance art I suppose. That 4:33 of silence is the most famous piece in Cage's oeuvre speaks volumes about his ability as a composer.

It's greatest contribution has been to encourage ever-so-slightly thought provoking debates on such subjects as "what is music" and "is silence music".

john17 · **Posted:** Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:57 am

I know a guy that eats a lot of potato chips and plays WoW, he says he hates all classical music except this piece. It's the one piece he can stand, but he listens to it all the time. He says he's written a piece himself called 10'27 which he listens to in sequence with 4'33 when he has a 15 minute break at work. He is possibly a great composer, but I'm waiting to hear what the musical elite pronounce about him before I'll say that out loud. Once that's established though I can't wait to view the philistines from my haughty perch.

pnoom · **Joined:** Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:11 am **Posts:** 5127

pauldrach · **Posted:** Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:39 am

Very good, yes.

On another note, in 2002 British musician and producer Mike Batt was reportedly sued by Cage's heirs after he had credited one of his pieces called "A One Minute Silence" to Batt/Cage. Batt explained that his piece was a much better silent piece as he managed to express in only one minute everything Cage had needed 4 minutes and 33 seconds for. Apparently the whole story was only a hoax though.

George · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:43 am **Posts:** 4199

Oddjectivity wrote:

It's neither music nor terribly original, but it's mildly amusing as a piece of performance art I suppose. That 4:33 of silence is the most famous piece in Cage's oeuvre speaks volumes about his ability as a composer.

corrections · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:11 pm **Posts:** 15265

Oddjectivity wrote:

It's neither music nor terribly original, but it's mildly amusing as a piece of performance art I suppose. That 4:33 of silence is the most famous piece in Cage's oeuvre speaks volumes about his ability as a composer.

It's greatest contribution has been to encourage ever-so-slightly thought provoking debates on such subjects as "what is music" and "is silence music".

Making Cage really more of a philosopher of music than a truly great musician.

Brian B · **Joined:** Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:34 am **Posts:** 98

I think the point of 4:33 was that Cage wanted to promote the concept that music can be considered, basically, 'the organization of sound in time'. I assume he thought that the structure of sound could be interpreted instead of necessarily being consciously 'composed', and therefore that any structure of sound captured within time could then be defined as music. Basically, I also assume he wanted us to broaden our perception of how we not only define the term 'music', but he wanted us as a result to understand sound experience differently, 'outside of the box', maybe. I wonder how John C. would resolve whether or not narrative of any kind of written literary work could be considered music, as one example of the organization of sound in time, or if this specific structure has specific conditions that exclude it (narrative) from being within his concept of 'music'? Just my whimsical thoughts...

Brian B · **Joined:** Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:34 am **Posts:** 98

Another thought...once interpretation is added to a definition, intent is automatically irrelevant - the person experiencing the sensory input solely decides its classification based on their personal thoughts of it.

Tudwell · **Joined:** Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:06 am **Posts:** 4277

George wrote:

Oddjectivity wrote:

It's neither music nor terribly original, but it's mildly amusing as a piece of performance art I suppose. That 4:33 of silence is the most famous piece in Cage's oeuvre speaks volumes about his ability as a composer.

I take this to mean you like some of Cage's other works. I've never listened to him. Anything you can recommend?

Brian B · **Joined:** Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:34 am **Posts:** 98

...or am I limited to having to accept someone else's view of what they would call music because they decide to call something that has no consciously concieved/arranged sounds 'music', i.e., the composer solely decides what music is based on a very broad definition like 'the organization of sound(s) within time'. I don't think his point was to exhibit the fact that randomly occurring sounds are all around us all the time - that's a trifle banal because it's so obvious. I think he chose to use an avante-garde listening experience to try to have us re-define music...interesting

Brian B · **Joined:** Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:34 am **Posts:** 98

...the natural extension of accepting 4:33 as 'music' is that any and all sounds can be considered music, without exception. Question: if we accept that, than is there any real difference between sound and music, or are they just different words that both include all sound experience, when we choose (the only difference being an individual choosing to call a specific sound experience 'music' whenever they want to, perhaps)

Discussion on John Cage's 4'33

Who is online