Music or Not

[WolfbrotherKronos]

I've been reading some of John Cage's lectures and essays and it got me to thinking about some of his compositions. If you don't know who he is, John Cage is a 20th Century composer and his most well known work is the one below...is it music or not...discuss :) And the quote you hear at the beginning is actually John Cage speaking.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HypmW4Yd7SY

[_CLOUD]

.. what does he do?

 

after actually paying attention to the vid (he's using the stopwatch to make music right?): yes it is music. because as he said in the beginning of the vid music "the material of music is sound and silence, integrading these is composing." He is actually making a beat. That you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't music.

[WolfbrotherKronos]

.. what does he do?

 

after actually paying attention to the vid (he's using the stopwatch to make music right?): yes it is music. because as he said in the beginning of the vid music "the material of music is sound and silence, integrading these is composing." He is actually making a beat. That you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't music.

 

I never said I didn't like. I actually really like this piece and have performed it.

 

It is named 4'33'', for the length of time it is performed. In the music score, the performer is instructed not to play. The stopwatch is for keeping time.

[_CLOUD]

.. what does he do?

 

after actually paying attention to the vid (he's using the stopwatch to make music right?): yes it is music. because as he said in the beginning of the vid music "the material of music is sound and silence, integrading these is composing." He is actually making a beat. That you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't music.

 

I never said I didn't like. I actually really like this piece and have performed it.

 

It is named 4'33'', for the length of time it is performed. In the music score, the performer is instructed not to play. The stopwatch is for keeping time.

 

So he's actually sitting there completly still and doing absuletly nothing for 4 minutes and 33 seconds? Well then it isn't music, since he doesn't make any sound. You can take my opinion with a grain of salt however, since I never studied music.

[WolfbrotherKronos]

No problem...just wanted to generate some discussion. If a few more people post, I'll bring some more stuff in.

[F Horn of Valere]

[disclaimer-- since you have performed this I'll assume you might be offended by my fact opinion. I don't deny that this is art (even if I think it is a lousy attempt at it); I only deny that by definition, it includes music.]

 

Music is a collection pitched sounds, period. Silence can enhance the sound through rhythm, but it does not make it music. Much like software can enhance a blurry image, but when you take away the image, the software is nothing on its own. Silence strictly relies on sound to enter the sacred realm of music.

 

For a comparison, writing is words on a page. If you have nothing to say, you did go out and "write" a blank book... you went out and did nothing. In this case, he had nothing to say, so he produced no music. IMO, his idea is fairly idiotic if he claims it is music. Using his logic, I am the most profound racecar driver, poet, wrestler, orator, hotdog eating competitor, actor, and magician. My driving, writing, wrestling, debating, eating, acting, and tricking is so much more profound because I have no reason to drive, nothing to write, no one to wrestle, nothing to say in debate, nothing to eat, no lines to act, and no tricks to perform. You should all come see my show where I include all of them in the same act!

 

I will admit, though, that there is one arrangement of his piece which I absolutely adore... The Lost Boys recorded an audio commentary over a piece similar to this one (the only difference being a page turn, and maybe the length). They had a fun time describing the soul put into it!

[cosmicpanda]

Mr. Horn of Valere, music doesn't have to be entirely organised sound. Many composers of the past century have experimented with chance devices in their music, and then of course there's jazz improvisation. As you say, it should include some sounds, and in fact Cage's 'silent' piece does. His goal was simply to get people listening to the musical possibilities in the world around them, which include all manner of interesting noises. It's very meditative if you get into it, but I can understand the point of view of those who think it's weird.

 

Also, silence can be useful in music for more than just 'rhythm'. Listen to the use of a general pause at about 6:30 in this piece for an example:

[WolfbrotherKronos]

[disclaimer-- since you have performed this I'll assume you might be offended by my fact opinion. I don't deny that this is art (even if I think it is a lousy attempt at it); I only deny that by definition, it includes music.]

 

Music is a collection pitched sounds, period. Silence can enhance the sound through rhythm, but it does not make it music. Much like software can enhance a blurry image, but when you take away the image, the software is nothing on its own. Silence strictly relies on sound to enter the sacred realm of music

 

I'm not a person to get offended. Again, trying to get some discussion going. So I'm happy to see you here :-)

[F Horn of Valere]

I never said the sound has to be organized, just that it has to exist and be pitched. The point is that silence in no way makes the music; it only modifies it. You can't call something music if it only has a modifier, just like you can't have a novel with just punctuation and no words.

[_CLOUD]

I agree with what Valere said.

[cosmicpanda]

Well, as I said, I understand if it's not everybody's cup of tea. However, I do wish people would get over the 'silent' thing. It's not silent. The music is whatever noise happens to be happening at the time. That should actually fall under your definition of music, since it exists and is pitched (unless you exclude all 'unpitched' noises, including percussion).

[_CLOUD]

Or you can measure music with a set ammount of skill. What he does requires no skill whatsoever so it's not music. There is a difference between making a sound and making music.

[cosmicpanda]

Physical technique in playing an instrument, you mean? That's a funny way of judging the worth of music. Is music with more notes per minute better than music with fewer? Also, what about the skill of the composer? You can argue that John Cage didn't write any notes, but he did have to think up the concept behind the piece, which was listening to environmental noise. Nobody else had, up until that point, so it's not like just anybody could have done it. Some skill was required there.

 

As to your 'difference between making a sound and making music' - how so? It comes down to the way you listen to it. If you fire a gun, you might think that's just noise - but if you listened to cannon fire during a performance of Tchaikovsky's 1812, then you'd vest the sound of the noise with musical importance. Musicians in the last century thought about these issues quite a lot, and Cage's 4'33" is really quite a logical extension of that, pushed as far as it can go.

[WolfbrotherKronos]

In my personal opinion, I think of this piece as more of a philosophical piece than an aesthetic one. Cage is trying to define what music is. I think it's pretty neat that is where our discussion is actually centered. When I get a chance to later, I'll post another piece. When I made this thread, I wanted to use it to discuss music that we might not come into contact as much. If you have anything...please post.

[BFG]

I remember studying this for music, way back when...

 

I think our consensus ended up being that sound was music when intended to be music by the composer. That was straight-forward (as in about 15 minutes of the class) - we ran over because we couldn't decide if sounds that the composer had no way of making could ever be intentioned by the composer. For example when we were listening to 4 33 we heard four lorries go by. The composer intended for us to hear 'music', but the lorry drivers were just making noise.

 

I think I tend to agree with Valere - it can't be music without sound, and the composer can't take credit for what you hear when listening as it's out of his control. It is probably an excellent meditative piece, in teh way that listening to the sea/ocean can be meditative, but that's not music either, it's just a soothing sound.

 

 

 

[On a side note - and vaguely connected - and mostly to be annoying - If a tree falls in a forest and their's nothing there to hear it, would it make a noise?]

[_CLOUD]

[On a side note - and vaguely connected - and mostly to be annoying - If a tree falls in a forest and their's nothing there to hear it, would it make a noise?]

 

If you are counting sound as a matter of perception then somebody has to be there to hear it. But if see sound in a more scientific manner then it's just the manipulation of airwaves meaning that nobody has to be there for a sound to exist.

[_CLOUD]

I think some questions just can't be answered. I think it isn't music and somebody can disagree, I'm fine with that.

[F Horn of Valere]

 

 

I think I tend to agree with Valere - it can't be music without sound, and the composer can't take credit for what you hear when listening as it's out of his control. It is probably an excellent meditative piece, in teh way that listening to the sea/ocean can be meditative, but that's not music either, it's just a soothing sound.

 

 

 

Exactly. He can't take credit for ambient noise. It would be like if I published a blank diary and then tried to claim that the handwritten entries are my creation. Not only would that claim be bogus, but it would also be bogus to claim that those entires make a novel. The ambient noise is not pitched.

 

 

Also, for clarification, no one here said that more rhythm makes better music; one whole note can make a piece, albeit a crappy one.

 

This "composer" would have actually written music if 4'33" had one note struck at the beginning and end of the piece. It should transform a meditative soundtrack into a poorly-written (but philosophically deep) song.

[WolfbrotherKronos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnC5DhNqZ6w

 

Here is another piece...not debating if it is music or not, as it is...just want to know what you think of it.

 

Btw...it is about 10 minutes long...don't have to listen to the whole think if you don't want to.

[F Horn of Valere]

Personally I think it is a bit boring, but I prefer it over the 20th century dissonant phase, so it definitely could be worse, even if it lacks a central plot line.

 

And even though you were not debating this, yes, it is music. It is tonal, and rhythmic silence enhances it as well.

[BFG]

[On a side note - and vaguely connected - and mostly to be annoying - If a tree falls in a forest and their's nothing there to hear it, would it make a noise?]

 

If you are counting sound as a matter of perception then somebody has to be there to hear it. But if see sound in a more scientific manner then it's just the manipulation of airwaves meaning that nobody has to be there for a sound to exist.

 

I would have thought that sound only exists if it's perceived. Otherwise it's just oscillating air particles?

[WolfbrotherKronos]

Personally I think it is a bit boring, but I prefer it over the 20th century dissonant phase, so it definitely could be worse, even if it lacks a central plot line.

 

And even though you were not debating this, yes, it is music. It is tonal, and rhythmic silence enhances it as well.

 

Technically it is 20th Century...but it's not in the dissonant phase...rather the minimalist one.

[F Horn of Valere]

That it is minimalist instead of dissonant is why I can stand it!

 

Ironically, one of my family's biggest claims to fame is a dissonant composer, one of Paul Hindemith's star pupils and now a cursed name by serious bassoon students everywhere who are usually required to play his bassoon sonata at least once. I downloaded some of his work on iTunes and subsequently deleted it because I couldn't stand it. I prefer music that has a plot, as opposed to music that consists of random chords thrown at the page, much like I prefer Leonardo over someone throwing darts at paint-filled balloons.

 

In this case, there isn't really a plot, but it isn't chaotic either, so in my tastes, it falls more in the middle, to where I would not insist on turning it off if it were on in the background, but not something I would go listen to at a concert unless to show moral support to the performer.

[WolfbrotherKronos]

That it is minimalist instead of dissonant is why I can stand it!

 

Ironically, one of my family's biggest claims to fame is a dissonant composer, one of Paul Hindemith's star pupils and now a cursed name by serious bassoon students everywhere who are usually required to play his bassoon sonata at least once. I downloaded some of his work on iTunes and subsequently deleted it because I couldn't stand it. I prefer music that has a plot, as opposed to music that consists of random chords thrown at the page, much like I prefer Leonardo over someone throwing darts at paint-filled balloons.

 

In this case, there isn't really a plot, but it isn't chaotic either, so in my tastes, it falls more in the middle, to where I would not insist on turning it off if it were on in the background, but not something I would go listen to at a concert unless to show moral support to the performer.

 

Makes sense.

[cosmicpanda]

I remember studying this for music, way back when...

 

I think our consensus ended up being that sound was music when intended to be music by the composer. That was straight-forward (as in about 15 minutes of the class) - we ran over because we couldn't decide if sounds that the composer had no way of making could ever be intentioned by the composer. For example when we were listening to 4 33 we heard four lorries go by. The composer intended for us to hear 'music', but the lorry drivers were just making noise.

 

I think I tend to agree with Valere - it can't be music without sound, and the composer can't take credit for what you hear when listening as it's out of his control. It is probably an excellent meditative piece, in teh way that listening to the sea/ocean can be meditative, but that's not music either, it's just a soothing sound.

 

Okay, so going back to the 1812 overture - if you were to hear gunfire at a rifle range, you'd think that was just noise. However, when Tchaikovsky calls for cannon in his piece, then that same sound becomes musically significant. What Cage did in 4'33" isn't much different. He said, "hey, take all of this sound that isn't music, and then treat it as if it were." He can take credit for that idea. He's not taking credit for the sounds themselves.

 

 

Also, for clarification, no one here said that more rhythm makes better music; one whole note can make a piece, albeit a crappy one.

 

This "composer" would have actually written music if 4'33" had one note struck at the beginning and end of the piece. It should transform a meditative soundtrack into a poorly-written (but philosophically deep) song.

 

Ehh.

 

I think you're replying to the point that I made about the rate of notes being played per minute (ie. sheer technical skill on display) being a good way to judge the worth of music. That was in reply to Cloud's 12th post about judging music by the skill displayed, which seemed to suggest that because the performer does not use pianistic (or whatever instrument) technique, that it is not music. I used the measure of 'notes per minute' because I wanted to talk about virtuosity on display. Rhythm, which is the term you use, isn't the same thing - it is the temporal relationship between notes, measured in purely relative terms. A piece with one note is arguably not rhythmic, anyway; I've heard at least one piece of music that features a final movement that consists of only one note, which worked quite well in context. Don't make blanket statements.

 

I'm just not going to touch your last statement. At the end of the day, I can't convince you to like this piece. At the end of the day, though, I hope you can agree that 4'33" makes sense as a musical piece in the historical and cultural context in which it was composed (ie. the fringes of American musical academia). It may not agree with your preconceived idea of what music should be, but that doesn't mean that Cage's idea of what music could be was wrong. Who decides these things, after all?

 

About dissonance - well, okay, I can understand your objections to it. Some recent composers are very uncompromising in their aesthetic, which isn't a way to make friends.