John Cage 4'33

[williampiano]

Does anyone else think this is kinda ridiculous? Just wondering... 

[jimbo320]

Ha ha ha....Reminds me of the first time I preformed on stage and was struck with stage fright...

[ethure]

ridiculous? lol  i found him to be quite thought-inspiring.

[perfect_pitch]

Biggest waste of time ever...

I think it's pathetic that this piece is even considered a 'piece' of music.

[ethure]

Biggest waste of time ever...

I think it's pathetic that this piece is even considered a 'piece' of music.

I once read that he revealed the essence of music by that piece, or action -- listening. how do you think that as waste or pathetic?

[healdie]

Clearly some of you have never being to a performance of it, everyone I know who was sceptical about the piece admitted to having their minds changed by the experience and thought that it was a truly amazing experience

[pianowolfi]

Actually I very much like 4'33''. I think every performance is different, special and unpredictable. I also like the strict time limit. And, of course, it's cult! 

[perfect_pitch]

I once read that he revealed the essence of music by that piece, or action -- listening. how do you think that as waste or pathetic?

Easy - because listening to people cough, opening up packs of peanuts, adjusting themselves in their seat and yawning isn't music - it's noise.

Listening to music is something I do for hours a day - listening to noise is just annoying.

And do you SERIOUSLY think that John Cage really believed his statement? It's pompous and falsely intellectual. He wrote several pages of nothing basically.

What about this:

4′33″ No. 2

In 1962, Cage wrote 0'00", which is also referred to as 4'33" No. 2. The directions originally consisted of one sentence: "In a situation provided with maximum amplification, perform a disciplined action." The first performance had Cage write that sentence.

The second performance added four new qualifications to the directions: "the performer should allow any interruptions of the action, the action should fulfill an obligation to others, the same action should not be used in more than one performance, and should not be the performance of a musical composition.

What a bunch of pompous sh*t. Not to mention that he sued some other b*st*rd for having a minute silence in his piece of music. If he was so interested in the 'essence of music listening' and yet no two performances could be the same, plus the fact that there are no written notes - how could he have the nerve to sue someone?

I think the guys a tosser in my opinion. One of thos highly ambitious twats who strive to try and create something very sophisticated, despite having no substance at all.

It's like those pieces of art that is done by some 45-year old w*nker who thinks it intellectualises something and brings us to a new level of existentiallism or some sh*t like that, but it actually looks more like a 4-year olds spatter painting in their Nursery.

[pianoman53]

I think it's kind of pathetique to call this music pathetique... Not all music from the 20th and 21st century is for listening to a beautiful piece, but to create a discussion. What John Cage did here probably changed the world's view on the question "What is music" forever.

And really, no need to become defensive about it. If you don't like it, and just want to show everybody here that you obviously are a super important person, who knows what's intellectual and not, then you maybe could create your own website, where you can quoute famous musicians and write how stupid they are.

I am not a big fan of "Discussion-music" (There is most probably a better term for this, but I don't really bother to find it), but at least I try to be open minded about it...

[williampiano]

Oh no! John Cage's 4'33 for piano? I can't wait to see the look on the judges faces when I play this in a piano competition. 

Okay, well I guess since I started this thread I should at least post my own opinion about this piece instead of just calling it ridiculous. So honestly, it's nothing I would pay to go see, but I don't want to bash anyone who likes it. I can understand why people say it's interesting, listening to the sounds around you is part of the beauty of it. It's just really not for me though. I can listen to just the sounds around me anytime I want. I might like it more if I actually went to a concert where it was performed. I really don't know. But anyways, sorry if I offended anyone by calling it ridiculous. That's just kind of what I honestly think. That is all.

[pianoman53]

I don't like the piano recording. That really seems... over kill, in a way. I mean, he looks at the scores, and prepare himself, and then he hang up his arm. I don't know, I like it better when one just sits there.

Though, this is a piece that should be listened to live, not through a computer...

[perfect_pitch]

And really, no need to become defensive about it. If you don't like it, and just want to show everybody here that you obviously are a super important person, who knows what's intellectual and not, then you maybe could create your own website, where you can quoute famous musicians and write how stupid they are.

Who the hell said I was a super important person??? I simply stated my opinion because that's what a forum is for...

I am not a big fan of "Discussion-music" (There is most probably a better term for this, but I don't really bother to find it), but at least I try to be open minded about it...

So do I... I spent my years at Uni researching and analysing this music... I gave it a try and I thought it sucked. I have tried to be open-minded about this music - but I personally think it sucks. You don't like my opinion... I don't care... You like the music - that's your opinion.

[pianoman53]

Ok, then I'm sorry. But come on, there must be a slighly more polite way to say "No I don't really care for this music" than how you said it...

[dcstudio]

I think it's kind of pathetique to call this music pathetique... Not all music from the 20th and 21st century is for listening to a beautiful piece, but to create a discussion. What John Cage did here probably changed the world's view on the question "What is music" forever.

And really, no need to become defensive about it. If you don't like it, and just want to show everybody here that you obviously are a super important person, who knows what's intellectual and not, then you maybe could create your own website, where you can quoute famous musicians and write how stupid they are.

I am not a big fan of "Discussion-music" (There is most probably a better term for this, but I don't really bother to find it), but at least I try to be open minded about it...

you are a super-important person pianoman.  I mean that, you don't have to display your anger and call people "stupid" to prove it. You should be more careful here, sweetie.  You tell me far too much about yourself.  I think you should give improvisation another try, honey--sometimes it just takes a minute to get it. If you don't feel I should analyze you this deeply--than stop giving such an abundance of information.  Your anger is quite obvious to all who read your posts. 

God Bless You!

[ethure]

If he was so interested in the 'essence of music listening' and yet no two performances could be the same, plus the fact that there are no written notes
 

why are notes so important for music?

[healdie]

Listening to music is something I do for hours a day - listening to noise is just annoying.

but what is music if it is not noise? I would like to hear your definition of music please (or even how you draw the distinction between the two)

[perfect_pitch]

but what is music if it is not noise? I would like to hear your definition of music please (or even how you draw the distinction between the two)

why are notes so important for music?

You know what... I don't have to explain a damn thing. I've given you my opinion, and I'm open-minded about music, but just because I don't like this music doesn't mean I need to validate why for you guys. If you guys like noise, then you go for it but personally, I think it sucks, and that's my opinion.

[haydnseeker]

Has anybody ever issued an 'easy piano' version of it - maybe one that lasts only 1'33" ?

[dcstudio]

You know what... I don't have to explain a damn thing. I've given you my opinion, and I'm open-minded about music, but just because I don't like this music doesn't mean I need to validate why for you guys. If you guys like noise, then you go for it but personally, I think it sucks, and that's my opinion.

wow, people are angry here.  you are right though--if you don't like it...you don't like it. no problem -- John came to give a clinic when I was in school.  Nice guy...

[ethure]

You know what... I don't have to explain a damn thing. I've given you my opinion, and I'm open-minded about music, but just because I don't like this music doesn't mean I need to validate why for you guys. If you guys like noise, then you go for it but personally, I think it sucks, and that's my opinion.

I think we were only trying to bring up a discussion around music.

[perfect_pitch]

I think we were only trying to bring up a discussion around music.

Yes... and 4'33" isn't music.

[dcstudio]

Yes... and 4'33" isn't music.

in your opinion...that is..

and I must say I agree with you there--it's tough to listen to.

however...if people think that 4'33" is music and John Cage gets paid for composing it,  who am I to argue? takes all sorts to make a world...

[pianoman53]

In the 21st and late 20th music (as in any other art form) it's, most of the time, a comment or a discussion. So we need to listen in an other way than we normally do. This piece is, among other things, a way to tell us that there is no complete silence. Even if we were locked into a cell with super thick walls and no electricity, and no way to hear any sound from the outside (or inside of the room) we would still hear something. And to all that "My kid could have done it" - that's mostly wrong. If one studies, for example, paintings, there use to be some things that are very difficult (reversed mirrors and similar things [I don't know the english words for this]). And sometimes it's just as simple as "Yes, your kid could maybe have done it. But he didn't come up with the idea", and, sometimes, the idea is more important than the result.

But ofc, one doesn't have to like it (I actually don't), but I don't think that's reason for saying "omfg, it sucks, and they are all morons!".

[perfect_pitch]

And to all that "My kid could have done it" - that's mostly wrong. If one studies, for example, paintings, there use to be some things that are very difficult (reversed mirrors and similar things [I don't know the english words for this]).

REALLY??? This is an example of a so-called piece of art...



To me... it looks like the end result of the floor of a camp after an erupted food fight.

Apparently, it's worth $140,000,000 for some tosser to have just thrown paint on a canvas. I'm sorry, but this is the type of thing that makes me just thing - modern art has become pretentious, and pathetic, and ultimately lacks any real emotion or beauty (or even feeling for that matter). Sometimes the result is that some pretentious prick manages to convince people that their works are of such an intellectual nature, instead of it being a worthless piece of crap!!!

I don't care who Jackson Pollock is... but if I saw that painting in real life, I'd spit on it.

$140,000,000 - my arse.

[healdie]

Perfect Pitch: Irrespective of this piece you have still not given a personal definition of music?
 it is clear that you believe in a distinction between noise and music and I genuinely am interested to know where you draw the line

also I would say that that Pollock does contain emotion in fact I would go as far to say it contains trues emotions, consider this analogy between emotions and colour are emotions ever truly one colour? or are some more extreme emotions such as rage or anger a dissonance of different colours? to me the world around us is a dissonant place, nothing matches it is a virtual cacophony of colour, sound and motion etc, and this form of art represents the "real" world more adequately than more traditional art forms

To bring it back to music someone who is completely tonal represents an idealised world is there a place for that sure, but the real world is not consonant and it is not in harmony with itself so to say that those Art forms do not represent feeling I believe to be incorrect

[pianoman53]

REALLY??? This is an example of a so-called piece of art...



To me... it looks like the end result of the floor of a camp after an erupted food fight.

Apparently, it's worth $140,000,000 for some tosser to have just thrown paint on a canvas. I'm sorry, but this is the type of thing that makes me just thing - modern art has become pretentious, and pathetic, and ultimately lacks any real emotion or beauty (or even feeling for that matter). Sometimes the result is that some pretentious prick manages to convince people that their works are of such an intellectual nature, instead of it being a worthless piece of crap!!!

I don't care who Jackson Pollock is... but if I saw that painting in real life, I'd spit on it.

$140,000,000 - my arse.

Omfg, you're so cool!!!

No but seriously, what do you want them to do? Either they start over, composing pieces like second movement of "pathetique", so that everyone in the entire world would understand it (who cares if it has been done before? I mean, as long as it is beautiful, and can be understood by a 2 year old), or they can try to invent something new. But that's probably no idea... Let's just be super conservative, and go back to 1742, where music was nothing but simple music, where basically nothing was difficult to understand. Why do they even look for different ways to express themself? Stupid artists!!
...
This discussion seem to be stuck. So, as long as no real argument comes out of the "I hate everything that's new, because it's sh*t"-side, I'm out.

[lostinidlewonder]

4'33 is clearly not a piece of music or a song even. As perfect pitch pointed out it is noise.

The clear way to understand that this is not a piece of music is to consider how one knows when it start and ends. There is no way in which we can tell when the piece begins and finishes  thus it is not actually a piece but rather a written prescription on a piece of paper commanding the performer and listeners to merely spend 4minutes and 33 seconds meditating on the noise around them.

This type of command is not unique to John Cage and you can find much better and inspirational examples if you consider the silence we take in moments of respect. We have an emotion, a memory to meditate upon, then the noise actually becomes music as we "hear" the memories of those we have lost are amplified by silence. That is true and proper use of silence, not this pretentious use Cage has given us an example of.




 

[perfect_pitch]

Perfect Pitch: Irrespective of this piece you have still not given a personal definition of music?
 it is clear that you believe in a distinction between noise and music and I genuinely am interested to know where you draw the line

Well... for one - John Cage's 4'33" definitely stands out as noise... clearly.

- I'd put that one down as what???

- I'd just call that S H I T!

Do I believe beauty and lyricism and tonality help add to a convincing melody? YES! And although I think Schoenbergs Pierrot Lunaire is horrific to listen to... I can see that although the system of sprechstimme (sing-speech) was used to try and portray a haunting sound - I can at least validate that, and appreciate what it's trying to express... However I still think it sounds like s h i t!

Music to me... that sounds random, and totally void of any harmonic qualities or even THOUGHT, is where I draw the line between music and noise.

My question to everyone else... Is there anyone who would consider this as music and why???

[Derek]

My favorite rendition of this piece is electronic:

[pianoplayjl]

I think that anyone could have played that 'piece'. all that person needs is patience.

[pianoplayjl]

Basically 4'33 is not music in my opinion

[pianoplayjl]

I just discovered another piece by Ian Munro, part of a suite called silhouettes. In true Cage style, it is 33 seconds long.

[zolaxi]

I saw the sheet music for this once. Peters Edition.

The score was a blank piece of paper. I did not buy it, but just photocopied it, as it was only one page, with Cage's original fingering! HaHa!!

[pikko]

John Cage Year Lublin 2012

Lublin, Poland

01.01.2012 - 31.12.2012

John Cage Year Lublin 2012

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[starstruck5]

 

[barnardo]

Not to mention that he sued some other b*st*rd for having a minute silence in his piece of music. If he was so interested in the 'essence of music listening' and yet no two performances could be the same, plus the fact that there are no written notes - how could he have the nerve to sue someone?

Long after John Cage died Mike Batt credited John Cage as co-composer of a silent track on his own LP. Peters Edition Publishers took Mike Batt to court for giving printed compositional credit without permission and while refusing a standard performing rights payment. Mike Batt eventually chose to settle out of court (having printed the sleeve he couldn't really win) , and as a result a large sum was paid to the charitable John Cage Foundation. Mike Batt still made a lot of money from his album which did very well.
Suggesting that Cage sued anyone himself is inaccurate, and gives a false impression of the man that I don't think stands any scrutiny. He was charming and generous to meet (I remember) and could at least made people think or laugh at his ideas. A tremendous raconteur and a musician close to the centre of the visual and performing arts of his time.
Of course his creative ideas are provocative and will be dismissed as willfully contradictory by many, after all he tried to achieve non-intentionality in most of his compositions, to let the sounds be themselves and be chosen as sea shells on a beach. What places him within a long tradition of admired artists is that although he used randomness and noise ( often delicate sounds like the pizzicato played on a cactus!) he at the same time was a meticulous and uncompromising crafstman of each performance and his scores demonstrated painstaking artistic calligraphic aims..

4'33 remains one of his most famous pieces, but despite the premiere performance it wasn't specifically intended as a piano piece. If pianists would like to try something else by John Cage I would recommend the delicate Seven Haiku (1952) , or selections from Piano Pieces 4-19 (where the imperfections of the paper guided where the notes were written on each stave). Enjoy! Margaret Leng Tan on Mode CDs demonstrates how very musical it can all sound.

[danninglu_leilani]

As  many of you have pointed out, 4’33’’ is actually not a piece of absolute silence but random ambient sounds that are conventionally viewed as noises during concerts. John Cage’s intention is to guide people to hear these often ignored sounds as well as express his composition philosophy that sounds should just be sounds, and music should be free of composers’ ego. For some people who think John Cage’s statements are pretentious and insist that 4’33’’ is merely a pompous gimmick, they can stick with their thoughts and stop there. If the ideas I stated at the beginning are recognized, below are some scholars and critics’ interesting opinions on 4'33'' is.

Kyle Gann, an admirer of Cage, thinks that random sounds are music according to revolutionized definition of music brought by Cage. In his book No Such Thing As Silence: John Cage’s 4’33’’ ,he states that the line drawn between arts and non-arts is merely a perception that can be changed (20), and Cage is just the pioneer that broke the traditional boundaries of art and life by dissolving the line between sounds and noises through 4’33’’.

Critic Susan Sontag offers another interesting perspective in affirming 4’33’’ as music. She argues that 4’33’’ is not silence in a literal sense, since silence only exists relatively to sounds, just as up exists because there is down. And just as composers deliver messages in using sounds, they are also speaking through the intentional choice of silencing. Therefore, silence is a form of speech and has significant functions in music.

However, there are many philosophers who don’t think 4’33’’ can be counted as music. Julian Dodd stated in his TEDx speech that only when performers are producing sounds according to the composer’ instructions can the piece be qualified as a musical piece. Therefore, 4’33’’ doesn’t satisfy this criterion of music since the sounds spectators heard, the ambient sounds, are not performed by musicians according to Cage’s score. Mark Campbell approaches from the aesthetic function of music and denies 4’33’’ as music. He argues that music should bring musical experiences during which time is felt. According to him, the empty silent piece neither evokes feelings nor brings time and space sensible and therefore doesn’t count as music. Stephen Davies thinks music is organized sound and sound organization must have the function of excluding sonic events. However, since there is no line between performed sounds and ambient sounds in 4’33’’, the sounds in 4’33’’ are not music. Another guy Jerrold Levinson claims that the ambient sounds in 4’33’’ are what can potentially be regarded as music, thus whether it is music depends on subjective perceptions. But he personally refuses to see 4’33’’ because there is a distinction between what is music and what can be potentially regarded as music.

I think Levinson’s point accurately summarizes the debate: no matter what definition of music one adopts, the question of whether 4’33’’ is music is subject to individual opinions. Different people can use different definitions of music and have opposite opinions on whether the random sounds in 4’33’’ meet the definition. But no one can deny that 4’33’’ is unneglectable in music history and valuable in challenging us to think what music is, and where the boundary of art is. These ultimate questions posed through 4’33’’ will never stop demanding an answer from humanity, and the roar of John Cage’s “silent” piece will resound centuries after centuries. Personally, I appreciate this piece very much. It not only offered me a unique listening experience during which I could concentrate on the sounds around me and the noises of thoughts from within me, but also intellectually exciting explorations of what music is.

[Derek]

Of course it isn't music. It's existence and all the drivel written about it are just mountains of evidence on top of the current climate of toxic anti free speech nonsense that academia is going to fall apart as we have known it.

GOOD RIDDANCE. I can't wait til it all burns to the *** ground.

^That's how I actually feel about academia, so I don't think about it very often.

[Derek]

I like my older post about this better. 

My favorite rendition of this piece is electronic:

[danninglu_leilani]

Derek, like your Mario rendition of 4'33''.( finally a visual version of 4'33'' besides Rauschenberg's white canvas? lol)
While, as far as I am concerned, the academia still has a while before falling apart-some scholars haven't died yet and academic institutions are generating new ones. Let the academic say their words and the palyful play with 4'33''. This is one cool thing I find about this piece-it incurs discussions, vibrant discussions. Maybe the roaring comments followed the silence can be seen as a music piece, though not harmonious:)

[klavieronin]

For those who don't like Cage's 4'33, how do you feel about periods of silence within a piece of music? I can't think of any specific examples at the moment but I know I've heard music with long periods of silence (up to 30 seconds or so) that seemed to fit perfectly within the overall work.

[Derek]

Derek, like your Mario rendition of 4'33''.( finally a visual version of 4'33'' besides Rauschenberg's white canvas? lol)
While, as far as I am concerned, the academia still has a while before falling apart-some scholars haven't died yet and academic institutions are generating new ones. Let the academic say their words and the palyful play with 4'33''. This is one cool thing I find about this piece-it incurs discussions, vibrant discussions. Maybe the roaring comments followed the silence can be seen as a music piece, though not harmonious:)

Yes, quite right. Cockroaches do often get discussed right before they are squashed. Scaling up to world events, politics, philosophies, this may play out over 50 or 100 years or more, but cockroaches still get squashed.

[danninglu_leilani]

Yes, quite right. Cockroaches do often get discussed right before they are squashed. Scaling up to world events, politics, philosophies, this may play out over 50 or 100 years or more, but cockroaches still get squashed.

So you basically implied that 4'33'' was no more than a cockroach, and maybe the same case for some other avant-garde artworks that's shouldn't be counted as art at all. Don't intend to offense, but do you think only pieces from, say, Bach, Beethoven, and Bartok are music? What do you think about these contemporary arts, pointless except incurring pretentious discussions that are as well meaningless?

[klavieronin]

Yes, quite right. Cockroaches do often get discussed right before they are squashed. Scaling up to world events, politics, philosophies, this may play out over 50 or 100 years or more, but cockroaches still get squashed.

That's a rather odd analogy considering cockroaches and other insects are set to inherit the world once we blow our selves up.

Also this;

[Derek]

So you basically implied that 4'33'' was no more than a cockroach, and maybe the same case for some other avant-garde artworks that's shouldn't be counted as art at all. Don't intend to offense, but do you think only pieces from, say, Bach, Beethoven, and Bartok are music? What do you think about these contemporary arts, pointless except incurring pretentious discussions that are as well meaningless?

I see all postmodernism as pernicious and destructive forces which I would like to see totally eliminated from Western culture. The music isn't quite as disgusting or horrific as other aspects of postmodernism, it's merely annoying, but I still find it offensive on a deep, philosophical level. I also can't stand how seriously people take themselves who revel in this stuff. It's quasi-religious.

As for what real music is, I would say that I'm open minded enough to accept a fairly broad definition that would encompass and include things such as Xenakis or something of that nature, but with the proviso that one must take things for what they are: Xenakis and other such composers write music appropriate for horror films and no more "deep thought" needs to be invested in it than that. Another proviso would be admitting that everything schoenberg and on can be easily composed by a cat walking on a piano, for instance. But since honesty is the the lowest possible priority in the postmodern philosophy, we know this isn't going to happen.

[danninglu_leilani]

Derek, actually I resonate with you on the point that many post-modernism artworks are destructive forces, at least not constructive to humanity. Why make this already ugly world uglier with ugly music?
I also see the point you made about people making a big fuss over artworks that could be composed mindlessly. However, for 4'33'', John Cage did spend nearly six years on it. Every detail, including the length of the piece is full of deliberation. He genuinely did try to convey something here. What do you think about this?

[hardy_practice]

I also see the point you made about people making a big fuss over artworks that could be composed mindlessly.

But 'mindless' is exactly the type of music Cage was into making.  Separating the artist from the work of art takes genius.

[Derek]

John Cage was not a genius.

Now, if you just look at what he creates with an open, honest and common sense approach, what is John Cage? A creative sound-technician. Nothing more. He doesn't compose music (except a handful of mildly interesting pieces early on I suppose).

I don't think it is even worth debating. Reading into it, taking it seriously, calling him a genius, or any other type of hot air surrounding John Cage is just as ridiculous as fundamentalists saying their holy book is 100% literally true.

[klavieronin]

From John Cage's own teacher Arnold Schoenberg; "[John Cage is]… not a composer, but an inventor - of genius."

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I saw it once and couldn't stop laughing