John Cage: 4'33"

[hadespussercats]

I think the Cage piece is. I haven't had a chance yet to listen to the other.

I can explain. But not now. Angry toddler.

[hadespussercats]

This and Cage's 4'33"...Does everyone consider these two to even be music? I can see calling Schulhoff's music...at least there's some percussion...but Cage's? What, silent music?

Ok, had a chance to watch this-- it's funny! I enjoyed it. It did feel rather German...

As for Cage's piece, it isn't silent. Or at least, not necessarily so. The composition frames a space-- much in the same way you could hang a picture frame just about anywhere, and people would see what was within the edges as a composition of some sort. The framing device-- whether it be a pianist simply lifting open the keyboard of a piano, or a conductor raising his baton-- draws the attention of the audience to the soundscape around them, makes them notice the details of it (in the same way that empty picture frame, hung on a wall, makes you really look at that section of wall.)

Cage was into aleatoric music-- music that happens by chance, that is influenced in the moment by the performer and the audience. Every time this piece is performed, what the audience hears will be a product of chance. Could be people laughing, could be sirens in the street, could be someone coughing, or whispering to a friend, or the sound of the pipes in the walls... But the audience is invited to listen to whatever it is with greater attention than they might have otherwise. Maybe you could liken it to a meditation bell. Except that there are no rules about how the audience is supposed to respond. They don't have to take it seriously.

I think it may have been in part a joke on Cage's part-- a funny idea to pursue. But something funny can still be interesting and worthwhile. Clearly it's an appealing idea, or there wouldn't still be so many performances of it, fifty (or more? I should check) years after it was written.

[FBM]

Ahh...good point(s). That revealed a hidden assumption on my part that they intend(ed) everything they did to be taken seriously.

[Robert_S]

Ahh...good point(s). That revealed a hidden assumption on my part that they intend(ed) everything they did to be taken seriously.

What, besides play and laughter, is worth taking seriously?

[FBM]

Damned philosophers!!

[Hermit]

This and Cage's 4'33"...Does everyone consider these two to even be music? I can see calling Schulhoff's music...at least there's some percussion...but Cage's? What, silent music?

Ok, had a chance to watch this-- it's funny! I enjoyed it. It did feel rather German...

Yes, that reminded me of Bach, Frederick II, Beethoven, Schumann, Bruch, Hindemith et. al. as well. Or maybe not. Come to think of it, it felt somewhat Monty Pythonesque to me.

As for Cage's piece, it isn't silent. Or at least, not necessarily so. The composition frames a space-- much in the same way you could hang a picture frame just about anywhere, and people would see what was within the edges as a composition of some sort. The framing device-- whether it be a pianist simply lifting open the keyboard of a piano, or a conductor raising his baton-- draws the attention of the audience to the soundscape around them, makes them notice the details of it (in the same way that empty picture frame, hung on a wall, makes you really look at that section of wall.)

Cage was into aleatoric music-- music that happens by chance, that is influenced in the moment by the performer and the audience. Every time this piece is performed, what the audience hears will be a product of chance. Could be people laughing, could be sirens in the street, could be someone coughing, or whispering to a friend, or the sound of the pipes in the walls... But the audience is invited to listen to whatever it is with greater attention than they might have otherwise. Maybe you could liken it to a meditation bell. Except that there are no rules about how the audience is supposed to respond. They don't have to take it seriously.

I think it may have been in part a joke on Cage's part-- a funny idea to pursue. But something funny can still be interesting and worthwhile. Clearly it's an appealing idea, or there wouldn't still be so many performances of it, fifty (or more? I should check) years after it was written.

In short, Cage outdid as a composer what Rothko achieved as a painter. Plaudits.

[Animavore]

In short, Cage outdid as a composer what Rothko achieved as a painter. Plaudits.

Freaky! I was just about to say something like this.

[hadespussercats]

This and Cage's 4'33"...Does everyone consider these two to even be music? I can see calling Schulhoff's music...at least there's some percussion...but Cage's? What, silent music?

Ok, had a chance to watch this-- it's funny! I enjoyed it. It did feel rather German...

Yes, that reminded me of Bach, Frederick II, Beethoven, Schumann, Bruch, Hindemith et. al. as well. Or maybe not. Come to think of it, it felt somewhat Monty Pythonesque to me.

No, I think you misunderstood what I meant. I was thinking Berlin cabaret, Weimar era stuff. Brecht, Weill...

[hadespussercats]

As for Cage's piece, it isn't silent. Or at least, not necessarily so. The composition frames a space-- much in the same way you could hang a picture frame just about anywhere, and people would see what was within the edges as a composition of some sort. The framing device-- whether it be a pianist simply lifting open the keyboard of a piano, or a conductor raising his baton-- draws the attention of the audience to the soundscape around them, makes them notice the details of it (in the same way that empty picture frame, hung on a wall, makes you really look at that section of wall.)

Cage was into aleatoric music-- music that happens by chance, that is influenced in the moment by the performer and the audience. Every time this piece is performed, what the audience hears will be a product of chance. Could be people laughing, could be sirens in the street, could be someone coughing, or whispering to a friend, or the sound of the pipes in the walls... But the audience is invited to listen to whatever it is with greater attention than they might have otherwise. Maybe you could liken it to a meditation bell. Except that there are no rules about how the audience is supposed to respond. They don't have to take it seriously.

I think it may have been in part a joke on Cage's part-- a funny idea to pursue. But something funny can still be interesting and worthwhile. Clearly it's an appealing idea, or there wouldn't still be so many performances of it, fifty (or more? I should check) years after it was written.

In short, Cage outdid as a composer what Rothko achieved as a painter. Plaudits.

Rothko? Not so much. More Duchamp. Or maybe Pollack.

[Rum]

As for Cage's piece, it isn't silent. Or at least, not necessarily so. The composition frames a space-- much in the same way you could hang a picture frame just about anywhere, and people would see what was within the edges as a composition of some sort. The framing device-- whether it be a pianist simply lifting open the keyboard of a piano, or a conductor raising his baton-- draws the attention of the audience to the soundscape around them, makes them notice the details of it (in the same way that empty picture frame, hung on a wall, makes you really look at that section of wall.)

Cage was into aleatoric music-- music that happens by chance, that is influenced in the moment by the performer and the audience. Every time this piece is performed, what the audience hears will be a product of chance. Could be people laughing, could be sirens in the street, could be someone coughing, or whispering to a friend, or the sound of the pipes in the walls... But the audience is invited to listen to whatever it is with greater attention than they might have otherwise. Maybe you could liken it to a meditation bell. Except that there are no rules about how the audience is supposed to respond. They don't have to take it seriously.

I think it may have been in part a joke on Cage's part-- a funny idea to pursue. But something funny can still be interesting and worthwhile. Clearly it's an appealing idea, or there wouldn't still be so many performances of it, fifty (or more? I should check) years after it was written.

In short, Cage outdid as a composer what Rothko achieved as a painter. Plaudits.

Rothko? Not so much. More Duchamp. Or maybe Pollack.

I would say a mix of Rothko and Magritte myself.

[hadespussercats]

I don't get the Rothko allusion. Beyond the fact that people think his paintings are a fraud, and this piece of music is a fraud, I don't see the common ground.

[Rum]

I don't get the Rothko allusion. Beyond the fact that people think his paintings are a fraud, and this piece of music is a fraud, I don't see the common ground.

I don't see Rothko as a fraud at all..nor Cage. Maybe just the big apparently empty canvases.

[hadespussercats]

I don't get the Rothko allusion. Beyond the fact that people think his paintings are a fraud, and this piece of music is a fraud, I don't see the common ground.

I don't see Rothko as a fraud at all..nor Cage. Maybe just the big apparently empty canvases.

I don't see either of them as frauds, either. As evidenced by my many posts to that effect.

I guess I never thought of Rothko as ever being about empty space he happened upon. He always fills it himself, even if it still looks blank to some. He always had a canvas, and carefully chose how that canvas would be painted. He isn't the sort to have hung an empty frame on the wall and called it art.

Duchamp did, IIRC.