…as a publicity vehicle. People debate all sort of stupid shit. I mean, Great Taste or Less Filling?

Publicity. To sell recordings of 4'33? I wonder how many he's Soundscanned.

Yes, we do debate all sorts of stupid shit. This board = case in point.

Me, I like debating and challenging the conventional conceptions of silence and such. If you think it's stupid then stop.

don't you need someone arguing the "it's stupid" side to have a discussion?

He's arguing (also) that even debating it is stupid. That's when discourse dissolves.

First off, it's interesting you so narrowly define publicity as sales while expanding the meanings of composition and silence to fit your needs. Obviously 4'33" has given Cage plenty of publicity, or it wouldn't be his most famous work.

Here's my basic point. I design for a living, and while I do not consider myself an artist, I do create things. Every day.

Cage didn't create anything. He didn't create the cough. He didn't create the catcall. He didn't create the coincidental noise.

If I'm in a room of absolute blackness and close my eyes, I can see colors—reds, yellows, greens and more, swirling and flowing. That does not mean there is light in the room, nor does it mean I have created visual art.

It's pretentious nonsense. And debating its merit is even worse.

Hey DumpJack, wanna come stand in my closet and see my masterpiece?

he creatd an environment for others to cough and catcall.

So did the theatre owner and architecht, but I don't see them getting any credit.

I'm not sure if my appreciation or validation is required. Significance is significance.

did the guy who made the paint get credit for Picasso's paintings?

He provoked it.

I am wondering about sales of this recording out of curiosity. Because I have "heard" it on CD. I think publicity might be a more commercial word than you were looking for. Regardless of the attention brought to Cage by the ridiculousness of this piece - I admit that it's ridiculous because it leans so extremely on its ideology, rather than aesthetic, which is usually more relevant to musical discussion - I think it's worthwhile topic, maybe more appropriate for another forum, like an academic/a-musical one, brought about by another reason, perhaps not by an "artist" at all.

I agree that what's been created musically is of debatable worth. I think the idea is worth discussing, and I'm glad he incited it. I'd never insinuate that this is a masterwork.

If you want to go by this environmental argument, sure. If we want to go by the provocation argument, then let's give the credit to some guy who molests a kid who turns to painting to rid himself of his demons. Where do you stop?

William's Mix is pretty interesting, though.

I know yr a VU fan like me, so I'm gonna use them as an example, but I've played VU albums for people (mostly s/t and +Nico) and I can tell you that a ton of people think it too is pretentious. I can see where your argument would be valid, but at the same time, isn't calling it pretentious just as bad as arging whether or not its art. One man's garbage...

That would be material, not environment. And so, no, the paintmaker's not an artist. It's like saying the CD manufacturer is on par with the artists who composed the cover.

I tend not to give those people the time of day. They're the same ones who want to argue about existentialism. Hey, I know I exist, I don't need proof.[quote="Cage"][/quote]

If music is made up of sound, which is temporally based, then the organization of that sound is music. That is to say, sound has a beginning, a middle and an end. To organize it, technically, is to create music.

Personally, i think 4'33" is music, but a crappy piece of music, but if you want to get your panties in a bunch over it, go right ahead...

True enough, I see your point as well. I'll try to sum up how I feel using an example. Let's say a 5 year old kid is playing with a tape recorder. The kid accidentally hits 'record' taping a few background sounds, a cough, shuffling etc. Then shuts it off as accidentally as he turned it on. And let's say it's exactly like Cage's work. Is it art? Most, I'm guessing would say it is not art. Yet one version of it is consciously created so people believe it is makes some kind of a statement and they fawn, debate and ascribe all sorts of meaning to it. Why would no one put all sorts of meaningful interpretation into the work of the 5 year old kid even though it's completely identical. Because a famous artist decided to do the same and since his talent is undeniable, then there must be some message or statement of purpose here.

This is just an opinion. If you love this type of thing, more power to you. You have a highly labile limbic system. I just see it as terribly ostentatious.

Isn't 4'33 technically a 3 part piece?

Someone's still gonna argue that this is disorganized sound, so not music. But it is contained within the parentheses of the piece's length ... Something bothers me about your definition of music as a temporal thing, but it's pretty much irrefutable. Unless we accept the possibility of music being infinite.

Yes, it has 3 movements.


In a 1982 interview with NPR, John Cage revealed that he wanted to make his "music so that it doesn't force the performers of it into a particular groove, but which gives them some space in which they can breathe and do their own work with a degree of originality. I like to make suggestions, and then see what happens, rather than setting down laws and forcing people to follow them."
So basically he's a big fan of indeterminacy.

And music can be infinite... well not quite infinite, but Cage tried that too. The current performance of his organ piece ASLSP (As Slow As Possible) is slated to last about 639 years. (With no intermission, unfortunately for the organist )This performance was started in Germany in 2001. Read about it here... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2728595.stm

The last paragraph makes me laugh...

Yep the 'piece' is supposed to be whatever happens in the room at the time of playing, and thus no two performances are the same

This is more agreeable with the conventional definition of art (of people used here) than is Cage's piece precisely because the child has created something, whether accidentally or not. It is a relatively immovable recording of sound that is clearly encapsulated in time by its beginning and end (another of our definitions), like Cage's, but it is far less ephemeral than Cage's piece of incidental sound. Of course, it depends on the context in which this recording is presented - or whether it is somehow later recontextualized, like a friend of mind actually did with recordings she made as a child – before it is accepted as art or music.