Nasro Subari Don’t know where you got that figure from. It’s 3.304 to 3 decimal places. 4’33” is 4.55 minutes. 15’02” is 15.03333... One divided by the other is 3.304
Dodd puts forth a definition of "a work of music" that Cage's 4'33" does not satisfy. One could just as easily concoct a definition that it does satisfy. Thus, his argument doesn't work for me. To someone who says that Cage's 4'33" is a piece of music, I would ask: how do you know that it is a piece of music, and not a piece of poetry, or drama, or dance?
And then why can't it be all those things? Or none of them? I hate arguments based on definitions, they tend to be mostly useless and a waste of time. :(
Cosmo Guerini My point is not about this definition in particular, but about definitions in general: a definition isn't so useful if people can't agree whether it applies.
However, definitions are essential when having a philosophical discussions. But you're right: a good definition is that on which all can agree. Dodd argues that music is "sound that is produced by a composer's instructions." Even in common vernacular, the term "music" is used beyond this definition. While sitting in a field, nature has a certain music. Language has music. Life in a city has a certain "music". What then do we mean? Can we have music sans composer? Does that mean that 4 instrumentalists playing together, but without a pre-determined plan fail to be music? Can we have music without instructions? Does a piece that fails to follow the composer's instructions (say when the Tuba player holds a note for an extra measure) suddenly cease to be music? I would argue that Dodd's definition is too narrow. We will have to broaden our definition until it encompasses a more general consensus. Any broadening of Dodd's definition that could include spontaneous sounds in nature or a musician's failure to follow a score, must encapsulate Cage's 4'33". Music is art of a sonic quality. Which challenges not the definition of Music but that of Art. Dodd's argument would be stronger if he argued that the definition of art must include intentionality (I would still disagree, however). Then Cage's piece would not only fail to be music, but it would fail to be art. But, as Dodd argues that 4'33" IS art, one must conclude that it is music.
Ivan Wohner An airplane makes a sound; does the designer of an airplane therefore qualify as "a composer" and the sound of an airplane as "music"? Who is to say whether a particular sound is "art"? How about art works (e.g. kinetic sculptures) that make sounds?
An odd thing my dad said, way back when I was a kid, about colors: black isn't a color. All the other colors of paint, crayons, cloth, bird feathers were colors, but since black doesn't reflect light (in a ideal limit), it isn't a color. Only light has color. Since then I've put plenty of thought into many things, and have concluded that Dad was nuts. Is zero degrees Farenheit not a temperature? Is the origin of a coordinate system not in the space measured by those coordinates? Does an account with a business cease to exist when, for a day, there is neither debt nor credit in it? Does Atheism count among the religions? Is silence a sound? Yes, because you can't reason about things without the minima and maxima, the null set and the superset of all subsets, a resting ground of all variables, an absence of all moveable pieces. Discussion of Atheism should fit right in with any discussion of religion, not because there's a definite culture or school of thought Atheism with the general qualities of a Religion, but because we don't want a hole in the space of thoughts and possibilities in which we roam in our discussions. Crayola does indeed put a "black" crayon in their boxes bought by millions of parents for their kids. So silence, when intended as music, must count as music, just so that it's in the continuum of music which is short, music which is soft, music which has many long pauses and rests, songs about four and a half minutes long written in triple pianissimo all the way through.
Nothing is black. Its just not in visible range. Even black holes have hawking radiation and thus a color xray range no doubt. Atheism is an absence in belief of religion. 0 F is actually a positive temperature in absolute temp [Kelvin] 0 is value and F is the measure of temperature. Its the property of substance that always exists. Every paramagnetic has small magnet in it doesn't make it magnet as they are not in order. Its like serving raw ingredients and asking people to it is as that makes the food. Its the arrangement. That's difference between chaos and order. & music is reproduce-able.
+Zubin Darbari i agree with the science about black ... there are 2 types of atheism by the way, implicit atheism (dont hold belief in divine beings) and explicit atheism (denies that any such being exists), they are different ... if i play something wellplanned out and written but can never be played back correctly does that mean it is not music? ofcoarse not .. any great work may neer be perfectly reproduced either yet we still consider it music .. on the other hand something random can be reproduced ... you can let ur cat scramble across the piano and you may not call it music but if i were to video tape that event and then map out the notes correctly and place it in a music sheet in function with my own perceived tactus (beat/pulse) then let one of those incredible pianists perform it correctly then you would have to say its music .. therefore in reality any sounds or absence there-off can be perceived as music
Renaldo Ramai Music is composed in the mind first. The composition is given to an instrument player who performs according to it. Your cat might make best music repeatedly, it will not be a composition just a skilled performer not that it is bad but this one is composed or not composed which I think is a better way of saying. Difference between sound and music is smooth flow.
music does not need to be composed or require a performer .. if i were to stand outside a room and i hear a thumping sound coming from inside, if i comprehend it to have rhythm, timbre and some sort of pitch then it is music regardless if i look inside and see a man reading sheet music striking a percussive instrument or water dripping from the the roof .. knowing what caused it had nothing to do with it being music or not ... its about how you percieve sound
I don't consider it music, but I get where people are coming from when they say it is. When I was taking music classes in college and the subject of abstract music came up. Some students provided their own works and one of them was just crowd noise. I couldn't buy into that as being music, but everyone else did (or at least, I assumed so). I learned the value of the phrase "music to my ears" and accepted that everyone has their idea of what music is. I actually like that variety of view.
What I most disagree with Prof Dodd here is that he places most of the responsibility in his definition of "music" on the composer rather than the listener. Is music not a way of perceiving sound as opposed to rejecting it (i.e. "noise")? Is music required to be a form of communication from a composer directly to a listener?
+Nick Sibicky If you then then can hear these musical elements then can you enlighten me? For example: What is the chord progression.? List the Major, minor, 7th chords etc. OR, list them numerically such as I, IV, V, I. Use letters (C Maj, a min) or roman numerals, your choice I'll accept either. If you hear rhythm is the piece in 3 beats to a measure? Or is it 4 beats to a measure? (3/4 or 4/4)? Or something different such as 6 beats per measure (6/8) with 8th note getting a full beat. Melody? Can you write it down? Even just several measures and I'll be satisfied. What is the first note of the melody? That would be a, b, c, d, or a flat, b flat, c sharp etc. up to g. Very simple, what is the fist note and beyond? Just give me the first few. If you will spend 10 minutes doing this I will be grateful and enlightened. If you can't then I don't believe you actually hear this combination of musical elements. You just pretend.
+dgk stl That is an extremely limited definition of music, but it is yours, so it is correct. Definitions of man-made concepts like music and art are entirely subjective. There is no right answer, it's all opinions. But an opinion I'd offer to you is this: music is organized sound. Take a babbling brook, for instance. It's music is the sound of water and stones organized by the slope of the surface over which it runs, and by the force of gravity, and by the wind, and by countless other factors. All sound is organized in this way, by the flow of time. 4'33'' is an invitation to hear the music being composed and performed in simultaneity all around you. There is no such thing as silence. If there is nothing else to hear, you will hear your own nervous system and blood circulation. That's just one possible perspective. I cannot and will not say that you are wrong.
+William Downing Its not my definition. Its a standard definition to clarify the difference between music and other sounds that occur whether naturally or other. You can say "All sound is organized in this way, by the flow of time" but music is more defined. It has meter. Meter is a more specific term and this nonsense of 4'33" has no meter. "Time" yes. "Meter" no. Nor does it have melody or harmonic progression. It lacks all three elements that make up "music". "Music" has a more precise definition than the load of crap you enlightened, zen, intellectual wanabees pretend that is has. Yes, its limited just like you suggest. We do that. We make specific definitions in an effort for precise communication. A table and a chair are similar but each one has a specific, although limited, definition. If you are asked to get a chair don't come back with a table and claim that in the metaphysical world they are the same. My window fan makes a pleasant sound that I like. But it isn't music, it is white noise (as we call it). So my window fan is not a MP3 player, a radio, a CD player ect. just because it can make sound. Do you get it yet? Not all sound is music even though all music is sound. Quit pretending.
This work seems to be more of an artistic and philosophical statement than a musical composition -- the 'music' in silence and random noise/sound. The closest analogy would be a blank canvas - presented as an image of pure potentiality, unfixed by color and form. Composition implies an intentional process of creation by the artist. In music, the elements of intentional creation can include silence, noise, pitch, rhythm, melody, harmony and timbre. Random structuring of these elements is sometimes used in in the human and computer generated creation of music, but these elements are then creatively integrated in a composing or a compositing process to form a musical composition. The absence of this intentional creative process in music composition is demonstrated in 4'33'' and makes it an artistic statement but not a musical composition.
@@ArgentAlapin You're right, and 4"33's guidelines were that mere noise and ambient sounds become the forefront of the piece. Guidelines do not necessarily equal to having a score either.
I would consider it to be music. The ambient noises that are produced by the audience and other parts of the concert hall are organized sounds, in the sense that John Cage was anticipating for them to be there, and therefore his intention was met. When you go outside and you hear a house wren chirping, that is music. Music is not just something that is produced by writers and composers through the medium of musical performers -- it is a natural phenomenon that is meaningless unless we actually take the time to stop and listen to it. That is what I believe to be the point of this piece. However, a musical WORK is typically something that is created by a composer of some sort... and hey, Cage CREATED this piece, and his purpose was for the performance to exemplify the noises of the hall, and not produced by performers... so I consider it to be a musical work. It's just not what everyone is used to hearing, and I appreciate that Cage always tried to step outside of the norm with his minimalist compositions.
Why does music need to be pleasant to listen to? And who's to say that screaming or silence aren't pleasant to listen to anyway? I fail to see how your argument applies.
The philosophy of music has been explored and critiqued in good detail over the last 60 years since Cage's piece, not to mention its rich history before that spanning back to Ancient Greece. Julian Dodd seems to miss a lot of this rich history, starting in this case from the works of Cage himself up to Richard Taruskin, Jacques Attali, Lydia Goehr and Paul Hegarty (to name but a few). Lydia Goehr in particular is interested in "works of music," (see Imaginary Museum, chapter 4) which has a history well explored in German philosophy, versus a definition of "music." Dodd objects to Cage calling 4'33" a piece of "music" and then defends his claim not through a definition of music, but through a definition of a "work of music," a distinction he doesn't actually call attention to. The definition of music that most scholars agree upon is the one provided by Blacking and Varese, and supported through Cage; namely, that music is organized sound. This definition is bolstered by Small and others that music should be thought of as a social process, or as 'musicking.' Dodd's definition follows suit but adds these strange words to the general definition of music as organized sound that the sound be organized "by the work's composer." Where he gets this addendum from I'm not sure, but it is the key to where Dodd misses the point. The question then is, "Who is the composer?" Starting perhaps with Cage, artists were beginning to imagine an art world where art and everyday life would collapse. One way it would collapse is through the breakdown of communication and intentionality. Cage wrote about this extensively in Silence. One of the main ways Cage would let go of his ego (to the extent possible, since he still signed all his pieces with his name), would be through his indeterminate methods of composition. In fact, to realize Cage's "tool pieces" required an act of composition, so that there would be co-composers. In Cage's Music of Changes (the year before 4'33") he wrote a piece that required its performer, David Tudor, to write a realization for (itself its own piece). A deeper method of the collapse it to bring the music inward, as a function of ontological listening (see Heidegger, Being in Time p. 206). If Dodd imagined listening as music, he would have avoided the question of whether or not 4'33" was music altogether. In fact, Cage would later remove the 3 movements of 4'33" and make it 1 movement, and then claim that the piece no longer had to be 4'33" and that he performed it by himself for hours as a form of personal meditation. Listening is music, and it is organized "by a composer" even (the listener). Its organization is simple: it begins here (when I start listening) and ends (when I stop listening), and then we debate how we known we've begun and ended. 4'33" is more than music: it is a multimedia work. The person traditionally thought of as the 'performer' (David Tudor in 1951, for example, who gave the premier), should be thought of as a conductor/performer. The 'composers' of 4'33" are the audience members. They may take and interpret the sonic information in the time allotted and contemplate it or ignore to their own liking. "Art is paying attention" says Kaprow. Music, then, is paying attention to sound (and perhaps this is too conservative). But there are other definitions of music! The score, for example. The score is referred to as 'the music.' So what happens in the case of Renaissance paintings that contain scores with actual readable music notation on them? Is that music? Of course it is! I can read music, I can hear it in my head. I can see it, too, it can be beautiful to look at.. And what about improvisation? Improvisation (and its rich philosophies from Bailey and beyond) show the ephemeral nature of music and what it does to a rigid definition of a "work of music." These confusions are wonderful and ignored by Dodd who tried to take his scalpel and cut out the part that wasn't music. What is this conservatism? Dodd claims that 4'33" isn't music, but its a piece "about music." Small's definition of musicking, which he insists is more accurate than a reified ideology of music, engages every aspect of the process of making music, including the objects of musical consumption (tapes, records, CDs, instruments, notation), and the advertisement and production of events (making fliers, selling concert tickets). At the end of the lecture Dodd says, "but who cares?" The question is right, but the answer is, 'Dodd cares;' so do I; so does Heidegger. There has been a lot of deep conversation and discussion about the definition and nature of music, and I'm tempted to surmise that Dodd has not taken the time to really be a part of those discussions. These TED talks are getting out of control. "[T]he proudest human being, the philosopher, thinks that he sees on the eyes of the universe telescopically focused from all sides on his actions and thoughts." Nietzsche (On Truth and Lie in an Extramoral Sense)
"The definition of music that most scholars agree upon is the one provided by Blacking and Varese, and supported through Cage; namely, that music is organized sound" But ambient noise is not organized by anyone. "Renaissance paintings that contain scores with actual readable music notation on them? Is that music? Of course it is! I can read music, I can hear it in my head" It is "music" in metonimical sense, but in fact it's visual representation of music. It's shadow on the cave wall :)) You couldn't experience it as music if you'd never before experienced music in its audible form (and thus were able to "hear it in your head" as you say). So it can't be the music itself, because you need to have a prior idea of music in your mind (to have something you can translate the score back into). A caveman could listen to a song and "get it" without ever having heard a piece before I can describe some taste to you and if this description is accurate and detailed, you'll be able to imagine this taste pretty well, as long as you have some points of reference. But if you never tasted anything sweet, I can't successfully explain to you what sweet tastes like. And this shows that verbal description of taste is NOT taste (it can only help to revoke it). "And what about improvisation? Improvisation (an its rich philosophies from Bailey and beyond) show the ephemeral nature of music and what it does to a rigid definition of a "work of music"" Improvised doesn't mean unorganized, only that it's organized ad hoc
Or a simple thought experiment. Let's say all music ever created was totally wiped off (all the transcriptions, all memories from every human brain) except for only one work, say Minuet in G Major. Then Minuet in G Major is certainly still music. In the sense that the idea of music as existed before the cataclysm could be recreated based on that piece alone. Now what if the only piece not "deleted" from the world was 4'33". Is 4'33" still music??
vibovitold Thanks for taking the time to engage with my lengthy comment. 1. "But ambient noise is not organized by anyone." What we learn from Cage is that the act of listening itself is 'music,' or, as Cage writes (in Credo, I believe), "If this word 'music' is sacred and reserved for eighteenth-and nineteenth-century instruments, we can substitute a more meaningful term: organization of sound." For some (you perhaps), music is too sacred. For Dodd it is not that 'music' is too sacred, it is that he confuses 'music' with a 'work of music.' I have not read Dodd's book, but I noticed that in it there was only one page with references to Lydia Goehr, who makes very clear the distinction. That says to me that he probably did not take it very seriously, though I'll reserve judgment on that until I read that page. What Cage and others claim is that listening is (or can be) music. The music begins when I decide to listen to something as music, and it ends when I stop. Therefore ambient noise is organized by the listener when they choose to listen to it as music. Now we can argue what counts as starting and what counts as stopping. Keep in mind that Cage, Kaprow, and other artists were interested in collapsing art and everyday life (and even Nietzsche wanted to live his life as art). 2. "So it [paintings with music notation] can't be the music itself, because you need to have a prior idea of music in your mind." You are correct that the musically illiterate may not have access to aurality through music notation, but I do. I can hear it in my head. This kind of music is not metonymical, as you say, it is metasonic. Imagining a beautiful sunset, or a strange juxtaposition of colors, is a visual experience in the mind. Unfortunately we do not have a word for 'aural imagination' or hearing music (or speech) in your mind. If you say that hearing 'music' in your head is not music, then reading this comment is not language. Furthermore, your argument on cavemen not being able to read music doesn't fly either. Cavemen (or even most people today) probably wouldn't recognize Duchamp's Fountain as (a work of) art either. [Dodd does not make your argument here.] 2A. Your 'taste' comment is not the same as 'music,' because music has a broader definition that incorporates the imagination of music. By your definition, no music score can be called music, and perhaps no recording could be called music, since the recording of a symphony is not a symphony, but a bad sonic representation (or description) of one. Then many examples of so-called 'electronic music' meant to be listened to as a recording only would perhaps need a new term to describe its medium for those who think the term 'music' is too sacred (unless, perhaps, the composer specifies an operator to press PLAY, and then the operator would be the performer (and I'm perfectly fine with that)). 3. "Improvised doesn't mean unorganized, only that it's organized ad hoc." You either missed the point, or you should use that point to figure out Objection 1 (on ambient noise). Dodd is clear that he believe a work or music MUST have instructions. Dodd's powerpoint says: "A work is a work of music only if it is made up of sounds organized by the composer. "It is a necessary condition of a work's being a work of music that its performances can only comprise sounds produced by performers of the work as a result of their following the composer's instructions." (see 8:11 in the video above) I am unsure where he gets this definition Derek Bailey and other Free Jazz and Free Improvisation practitioners were improvising without scores and many times without instructions. Sounds were not organized before the improvisation (since organizED is past tense). These sounds are not "composed," they are performed in real time. "Organized ad hoc" makes no sense: these works are in the process of being performed. (We can argue about the merits of idiomatic and non-idiomatic improvisation another time.) Now, if Dodd had understood Goehr, then he might have come to the conclusion that the case of free improvisation is NOT a WORK OF MUSIC, but it is still MUSIC. Dodd uses the terms 'music' and work of music' interchangeably. What is the difference? I don't have my Goehr in front of me, so I'll do my best: A "WORK OF MUSIC" attempts to crystalize, Platonize, reify, make a 'thing' out of music that can be understood ahistorically and therefore universally. These mythic attempts take place in a sacred temple, the concert hall: the imaginary museum of musical works. Such developments were born out of German 19th century transcendental philosophy to explain a history of Great artists, writers, composers and Great works of art, literature, and music. "MUSIC," on the other hand, is the organization of sound. But it is not merely the organization of sound, it is also the process of making it, performing it, rehearsing it, listening to it, thinking about it: music is always its musicking. See my essay, "Aural Reification and Gerunding: Thing and -ing." 4'33" pisses a lot of people off because it works to dispel the mythologies of Western music and the musical work (and yet it fails because it has erected its own mythology!). If music is about listening and not about piano lessons, then what? (Or as Cage says, "Are sounds just sounds or are they Beethoven?"). Dodd's point is that Cage did not organize the particular sounds that occur within the parameters of the length of the piece. But I don't know anyone who abides by his definition of a "work of music" nor do I know anyone who agrees that the definition of "music" is synonymous with his definition of a "work of music." I am highly interested and invested in these questions. I study noise(/)music. Thanks to those who reply and engage. I hope Dodd will reply, and I regret the antagonistic tone I took at the end of my first response. I was annoyed that he felt the need to remind his audience that he is a philosopher; I found that to be a way of imparting extra authority to a thesis he is wrong about. 4'33" is not Pluto.
Yes it is music. This guy makes presumptions about what music is or is not, by whose definition? His? Who died and made him music god? John Cage DOES direct performers in his work. This meets his "condition" and the end result is intentionally silence. What the audience does during that time is entirely up to them. Cage would like them to perceive the ambient noise inside this "silence" as part of the piece. it's a thought provoking work of art AND it's a piece of music. I conclude 4'33" is music and I have as much a right to determine that as this philosopher guy has saying it's not. Each person gets to decide that for themselves but no one can bring about a final judgment. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's a subjective thing, and all this is part of why Cage wrote this piece of music in the first place, and why many songwriters write music for audiences, to get them to feel and think about what they are feeling. For me, it's music, and this guy's full of crap. He'd probably say the same thing about me, but he'd still be wrong. Cuz he doesn't get to decide what isn't music for me, or for you, or for anyone outside his own brain.
Actually, I think you clinch the argument for it being a piece of music in an objective way. Music is the organization of sounds and silence in time. Whether or not those sounds and silences-or just sounds or just a sound or just a silence-are satisfying for the audience is another matter. I mean, I don't care for 4'33", but I don't see that denying it's music makes any sense. (FWIW, I love Cage's Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano.)
ChannelNameIntentionallyLeftBlank I would disagree on the condition that 4'33" isn't an organization of sound and silence, but instead a disorganized jumble of *unintentional* sound and silence, not necessarily even needing to be influenced by people at all. The importance of this is that if any sound (or lack thereof), regardless of its source or its intent (or lack thereof) can be considered music, then music has no meaning or value as a concept, being merely a synonym for "sound" or "noise".
Zachs Mind The reason this piece stands out among nearly all other works, is that it seems, for all the world, like something that isn't really music. Such a response aligns more or less with general intuition. I think this speaker did a remarkable job of determining the artistic value of such a work as opposed to merely dismissing it, while also including, and in fact, providing some kind of logical framework for this intuitive reaction. I do believe that if one is to define a concept, one needs to take into account the general usage of the term, since words are social artifacts, not private property. If this speaker has no right to decide what music is, then Cage does not either. I do think the speaker intelligently engages with Cage's question, making us the richer for it. My view is that Cage was less interested in defining, or arriving at closure with respect to the subject, than he was with suggesting, or opening up the subject. In so doing, he invites some things which endanger the subject a bit. Cage places the art in a precarious place: making music that is at times barely audible, barely listenable, naively simple, or too complex to follow.
Three words are important. Sound - Composition - Meaning. Music is composed sound with meaning. Therefore composed silence (written on a score with a time limit of 4:33) is music. The meaning is created by the composer and the listener.
I completely disagree. By instructing the performers to not play, it amplifies the significance of the surrounding ambient noise, and thus by giving instructions to the performers they have a strong effect on the sound of the performance (i.e. the ambient sound). It makes the audience intensely aware of the sounds they make - in some cases, it stops them from making ones that would otherwise be masked by a more traditional performance, and others can't help but to act (cough, shuffle, do things) out of nervousness. The performers are playing the _audience_, which is a different instrument that plays different sounds every time, and the _audience_ is most definitely producing sound in ways directly connected to the actions of the performers as done by the instructions of the composer. By the speaker's own criteria, that makes this a work of music. If you have doubts about this, look at any performance of this piece during the actual movements and between them... or more precisely, listen to the audience. There is a distinct change in ambient sound when the piece is being 'played' vs. when it is not - the performers are controlling the audience as per the conductor's instructions, turning them into the instrument. I'm not a big fan of many of his works, but I actually see the point in this one. Wouldn't pay money to hear it performed, though. XD
Proff. Dodd is absolutely correct in asserting that 4’33” is not a piece of music, but only by his own definition of what music actually is which, here, is quite a narrow definition - the result of issuing instructions to performers. How might he classify works which feature aleatory elements? He is willing to concede, even promote, that tuning radio sets to unknown broadcasts and static is music.
Your logic is flawed: "Does a greater being exist?" More questions arise from this than the 4'33" debate yet more people continue to have completely different answers one way or the other. The answer is not necessarily yes nor no, it's not something that can be a fact based on a strict set of aesthetic judgements. It can't be. Just because the piece takes place using the idea of sound not necessarily used in musical creation, not performed specifically for the purpose of creating music or with any set restrictions on the 'instruments' available does not mean it cannot be music if listened to in a musical context. If somebody listens to 'whale song' which is merely communication and considers it music, who are you to tell them otherwise?
Andrew Ellis It's not a piece, it's a blank sheet that he calls a piece. The problem with this extreme deconstructionism is that anything can be music. And if anything can be music, then everything is music. And if everything is music, the word loses all meaning. If all sound is music, and the absence of sound is music, then what is music? It becomes a meaningless term.
To be fair, the point of the piece was, I think, pretty much to stir things up and get people thinking about sound being created by non-traditional instrumentation, I don't think anybody here literally thinks all random sounds can should be construed as a piece of work. This I guess is more of a thought exercise, a philosophical gesture to get people to think outside the box. It's a one off to get people to think differently and I think that's what's to be applauded, not as a format by which other people can do the same thing and think they're clever.
I've heard this argument before, but I don't find it compelling. If his objective was to get people to think outside the box, he could have done it with a T-shirt that says "think outside the box". So you're supposed to just infer that the whole point of the exercise comes down to thinking outside the box? In what way? How? What's he trying to point out? There is nothing here. There is LITERALLY nothing here. To say that this is art of any kind or that it makes some kind of statement is pretentious in my opinion.
devourerofbabies You're welcome to your opinion. I think myself and many others have read to much into it and it's become overly academic both through Cage's explanation and through subsequent interpretations of the 'work' which doesn't help. I did, however, through having debates and conversations with peers start thinking more widely about sound using 4'33" as a gateway to do so in a way that talking about a slogan t-shirt wouldn't do. Maybe that wasn't the intention but it's had that effect on me and many others, it's a very polarising debate and that helps with exploring lots of avenues on the subject, the more we explore the more we learn. Surely if anything you can see the positive effects of that even if it were not the original intention?
it is music, in the same way that a blank canvas is a painting. it isn't music. it's a concept. the concept is legitimate, but it doesn't require 4 and a half minutes of tape to explain its meaning, or message, which is, "all sound is music." but nobody will ever say, "i love this song" or "this is my favorite song" because it's not a song, it's just an idea. the "song" could be extended or shortened to any length and its content would not change, it's just as similar to any one song as any other; these two traits separate it from everything else which we call music. all in all, it is music if you define music as essentially purely philosophical. if you view music more technically, more viscerally, more "artistically," then it isn't music.
The problem with this is that Professor Dodd contradicts himself. At 3:00 and 3:10 he argues that 4'33" is a work of art but not a work of music. At 7:20 he goes on to talk about the definitions of a work of art and a work of music (reminds me of Socrates a little). His definition of a work of art is that such a work is created "by working in an artistic medium and then arranging elements of that medium". He gives the paint example. However, later on he makes the argument that 4'33" is not a work of music - in which the medium is the performers and how they play - because Cage does not instruct (arrange) them in any way. But isn't that what is required for works of art as well? By Professor Dodd's argument, he proves that 4'33" is not a work of art. In fact, at the end of the presentation, he shows on the slide that 4'33" is "a work of conceptual art" yet he doesn't define what "conceptual art" means in relation to your standard work of art. So what is the professor arguing here? All this video proved to me is that he needs to work on his argument and come from a different angle (personally, I would define a "work of art" in a different manner), because this doesn't work. NOTE: I did not attempt to prove that 4'33" is or is not a work of art/music. I merely wanted to point out that the professor's own argument is flawed.
"I did not attempt to prove that 4'33" is or is not a work of art/music", well you should, because the fact is that the expert talking about music here, is not a musician by himself, nor does he love music in any way. He is just ignorant. Art critics should be eliminated from our civilization, because they claim expertise they don't possess and they impose opinions on the unsuspected and "ignorant" masses. And you spent all this time trying to persuade someone that he contradicts himself. Of course he does, what he says has nothing to do with knowledge. In fact by the title I could tell that he is ignorant, because if he had any relationship with music or art at all, he would never spend 15 minutes talking about something that really is not worth even thinking about.
I am a upcoming musician/producer/arranger & from watching this video I've come to realized how uneducated some people can sound at time. He does contradict himself. I completely disagree with his 'suppose' argument or whatever it may be & would hastily suggest that he goes & do a talk on something he's better at because right now he just seems to be picking around. People seem to see or think of music as one thing: which seems to be when an instrument is playing or someone is singing, other that than they claim it to be 'ambient noise' as he say. But Music...or anything in the Art is abstract & can be anything. It has no limit but it would seem that people have limit there thinking scope & only think within a small box & anything outside of that is wrong or NOT MUSIC!!!! He really needs to stop. What he's saying is soooooo opinionated, that's all I'm getting right now. Don't care who agrees or disagrees, if he can voice his opinion, then why can't I!
I think it's the right decision, because it is a total waste of everyone's time. You can't "play" (if you wanna call it that) this to an audience that is not expecting to hear the room's noise, and in a talent's show where you actually have to show talent.
Honestly, I think that this piece can only work if the audience is unaware. Because, if an audience is aware of the intent of the piece, they could bring their 'own' performance into it. For example one can expect that the piece is to call attention to the current sound in the room, and that person can begin to sing. Possibly this also could be the intent, since the piece only dictates that the performer makes no sound. So even an aware audience could be a valid performance. But since in the description and Cage's explanation of the work, the idea was to have the audience focus on the ambience, and a person creating their own performance could possibly not be considered ambience. Ack, but then again, you can say, a car driving by blaring a song loudly on the car stereo, is ambience.
The score may not indicate that it wants the audience to focus on ambient sounds and noises however, this is constantly stated by Cage in his interviews and is now a widely known characteristic of this piece, so in Dodd's definition, if it wasn't 'music' when it was first composed, it certainly is now. Also, it's through Cage's idea of what silence is - non-intentional sounds - that the piece evolves around, so even though the instrumentalists aren't playing, they too are contributing to these 'non-intentional' sounds. Finally, we need to consider Cage's view of music being just a part of life, which he considers to be theatrical. In that sense, any movement or other visual elements within this piece also contribute to the audience's heightened awareness within the time frame of 4'33''.
The medium is indeed the message. Contemporary to Cage, Jackson Pollock turned paint itself into the medium and, on the other hand, Robert Rauschenberg's white paintings made the canvas a conveyance of the medium of light. As a piece of music, Cage has prefigured that the site of the performance is the structure (micro) and the subdivisions of the 4:33 (macro) act as a formal internal structure, which may or may not be interpreted by the performer. Therefore, it is expected that sound, purely sound, is the medium and this is understood by an audience when they begin to perceive the sounds of their environment, be that uncomfortable shuffling. The piece, for me, is a musical composition and, the music that follows Cage builds upon that act of 'silence.' I have read many times that 4:33 is a piece of musical theatre and, by extension, performance art. Having said that, I do disagree with your argument regarding the medium of the work and the organisation of such.
Overheard at a rehearsal for 4'33": Oboist: ...and over at measure 84, shall I take that full-measure rest right in line rhythmically with the previous and following measures, or do you suppose it would come off better with a bit of emphasis, maybe a bit of ritardo? Conductor: Good question. I see... well, before that point, the score is building up energy, with soaring alternating arcs of silence, gradually going from not using the strings to the woodier instruments, but at the same time you have these absolutely soundless action punches in the support, the... er... the bass parts, and you're kind of caught in the middle having to not play both as they come together there... and... yes, yes, I think you have a good idea. Quite perceptive! Really, if Cage had wanted us to NOT do that, he'd have written four quarter rests instead. Ha ha, with all you talented musicians here, why they made me the conductor, I don't know! (laughter among whole group) First Violinist: Because, Joe, you have a face made for having your back to the audience! (more laughter) Conductor: (tap, tap) Very funny, Maeve. Okay everyone, note what Linda suggests, we'll go with a kind of ritardo in measure 84, just a little slow down, then resume the normal tempo. And... remember to watch me! Don't miss that downbeat, because if we aren't all together in doing nothing, right on the beat, the audience is going to get sore. Again. Trombonist: Yeah, sounds great. Hey, I've got a smudge on my sheet music here, or.. a little tear in the page, in measure 115. I can't tell what was written there. Is that a hushed D that I don't play, or a D flat? Tuba: D flat. I got the exact same part as you, but down an octave. But damn! I just realized something! I got my B flat tuba here, but I'm supposed to be playing my E flat, which is out in my van in the parking lot. Damn! DAMN! Conductor: Chill, Harvey. Ah, that could be a problem. Could you transpose the key mentally as you go along? Tuba: Hey, I'm a tuba player! How smart do you think I am? (scattered laughter) Conductor: Well, Harvey, don't mind the instrument. This would be a serious problem with other pieces, but for this one, just finger the notes as if you had your E flat. Because...I'll tell you a little secret... the audience isn't going to notice! Tuba: Okay, cool, I'll do that. No problem. Conductor: (tap, tap) Okay! Let's play through the whole thing again, with all the changes discussed. And remember to pay attention to that quirky one-beat measure at the top of page four. I expect to hear exactly one beat of nothing there, between the restful quietude before and bold stillness following. (make big downstroke with baton, then holds still...) (faint sounds of an air conditioner, muffled outdoor traffic...) (four and a half minutes later...) Conductor (looking surprised, in a good way): Hey, nice! That was all right! You did great! Yes, fantastic! We'll do fine at the concert. I suppose that'll be all for today. Yes, let's pack up. No more 4'33" for now. We don't want to peak too soon. Unless anyone has any comments or suggestions? Cowbell Specialist: Uh, yeah... so, maybe this piece could use more cowbell?
I'm confused... He says that sounds become music when the composer organises them in a certain way and the performers follow his instructions. Now, I disagree with that, because let's say a modern, avant garde orchestra is performing a Mozart piece, and they improvise a new section, or embellish the notes in some way. That is still music, despite the fact that the performers are not following instructions of the composer, but rather improvising on the spot. Similarly, if I'm performing a solo acoustic guitar piece, again with improvisation, then yes I'm meeting that standard - I'm the composer and I'm following my own instructions on the spot. But what if I make a mistake and accidentally hit a wrong note, or let an open string resonate when I didn't mean for it to? The audience may not know the difference, and it could very well sound musical. That is still music, despite the fact that I, as a performer, was defying my own instructions as an on-the-spot composer. Also, in the case of 4'33, who's to say the audience members are not performers? If we establish that music need not consist of performers following the instructions of a composer, and thus account for improvisation, then aren't people in the audience allowed to 'perform' by shuffling their feet, coughing, or clapping their hands? That is, after all, rhythmic (or can be), and may well be intentional. And if it's not intentional, is it still music? The audience's primary purpose for being there is to behold the performance. But who defines who the performers are and who the audience is? Why can't I, as an audience member, declare myself a performer and clap my hands at rhythmic intervals to contribute to the music, seeing as those claps can be seen as 'mere noise' or 'ambient sounds'. Do you think the audience can be considered performers in a performance of 4'33? How about in a performance of any other piece? Could Cage have meant for the audience to become the performers, by placing the silence in their hands to do with as they pleased?
+Kevin Shaabi I’m similarly confused, Kevin. The lack of creativity, in this talk, towards approaching definitions of music is surprising, especially from someone who (from the description) is supposed to be a researcher on “the ontology of jazz”!
+Kevin Shaabi To me it all depends on intent someone playing the piano when hitting the wrong Note is still intending to make music the issue with 4'33 is that there is no intent the people in the audience are not intending to make music so therefore it is not music.
+tvo770 you need to research chance music more thoroughly and understand how that relates to what kevin said about a mistake or not ... if i play 4 notes on an instrument a listener can hear that as music, but what if 4 water droplets fall at the same rhythm .. lets say the listener doesnt know what produced either sound .. are they both not equally valid? the answer is that they are both music with or without intent or control
+Renaldo Ramai No. They aren't the same. Music is a language. Random noise that sounds "musical" in some way, is not an intentional attempt to communicate and is therefore, not music. It's the same as the occasional noise one hears that sounds like a word: it isn't the wind attempting to talk to you through the hollow of a tree...Or water attempting to sing by falling on rocks.... It's just a coincidence of sound.
If you believe sounds are part of music, as Cage did, then 4'33" is most certainly music. And actually some sounds e.g. bass drum, side drum, castanets which are untuned ARE part of music, so who's to say other sounds can't be? It's a philosophical standpoint. Cage was a really interesting, engaging person and very humorous
That is exactly what I thought. It is the same thing with the radio example he gives in the talk actually. The sounds are intended to be random and the world itself becomes the performer.
If "everything in the environment" is a performer then everyone is a performer. Which means no one is. A bit like giving every first grader a Blue Ribbon for their project to signify they were the best. If everyone gets a Blue Ribbon then Blue Ribbons are meaningless. As are "performers". The word becomes vague because everyone is a performer. Then we have to invent a new word for people who spend thousands of hours learning how to perform a musical instrument.
+Emerald Apple Actually, music is inclusive of random noises, if that's what the composer intended. Sure, it may not be interesting, but it's technically music, because it's organized sound, random or not.
I've been trying to learn this on guitar but I'm finding it hard to my fingering right. any tips on how to mast the last ten seconds of the 3rd minute. thanks
I must say that I find this argument ludicrous and narrowminded. Does this mean that jazz is not music because it is largely improvised? Or that any piece that includes audience participation is not music or that you must cut out the parts that involve anyone not holding an instrument? Trying to narrowly define 'music' by saying that it must have a score and be played by musicians, is like trying to define a 'house' by saying that it must have walls made of wood with glass windows. The millions of people that live in grass huts, tents, igloos, and stone castles would beg to differ. Every "performance" of a piece of music is different, and includes the ambient characteristics of the performance space, the skill or lack thereof of the performers, and the whims of the conductor or bandleader. Every performance of Beethoven is unique, regardless of what the composer instructed in the score. If you are to hang your argument on the "instructions", then the Cage piece is clearly music as the instructions are clear to the performer: 'Remained quiet'. Each performance of any work includes ambient sound, but 4'33" is unique in that it is a performance that is made up entirely of ambient sounds. I have heard many performances of this work played by everything from solo instruments up to full orchestra, in concert halls, smaller venues, and outdoor settings, and each one was a unique performance of an extraordinary piece of music who's main tenant is… Listen. Prof. Dodd, if you cannot hear the notes and rhythms in the sirens, coughs, and shuffling feet, then you're not listening closely enough.
Are you saying that any sound is music if you think it is? If, using that definition, you asked me what I'd been doing today and I told you I'd been listening to music, I would be telling you about my state of mind, my interpretation of what I'd been hearing, as opposed to telling you anything about the sounds in my environment (since they could have been anything). Is it "narrowminded" to think that such a definition would less useful than the conventional one?
I have to agree with Dodd on this definition of music when talking about acoustic music intended for performance. However, his definition of music excludes electro-acoustic and electronic music. In fixed-media electronic works, the composer literally sculpts sounds through synthesis or manipulations of samples and then literally arranges the sound by fixing a point in time when the sound should occur. In fixed-media works the pre-arranged sounds are not performed by anyone with or without instruments. Instead, speakers produce the loud and an audience, whether in a concert hall, a laptop, or earbuds receive it and perceive it as music. In these situations there are no instructions on how to produce the sounds. If 4'33" does not fit into Dodd's definition of music what about electronic music?
A brilliant talk, very thought provoking, however I would disagree with your conclusion. To be sure, Cage takes music to it's limit in this one (4:33), but I think that was the point (or at least what I got out of it). Cage does instruct the players in what to do; they are not to play - and for a very specific length of time. Since it was intended as a concert work, one can predict the kinds of sounds one would hear (shuffling, clearing of throats, dozens of outdoor sounds through the window) a large but fairly finite list. By instructing the players not to play he brings the normally unwanted sounds to the forefront - for artistic purpose; like a soloist. In a general way that is what all composers do. He's written a concert for "unwanted sounds" and ensemble (or accompaniment). Remember, Cage's whole "thing" (well, one of his things) was to bring chance elements into music and I see this as just part of that process. Mind you, this is my opinion but saying 4:33 is not music is your opinion. As you said, "does it matter?" no; I agree it doesn't. But it does make for some interesting discussions.... :)
This is great! The idea of 4'33" as music has always niggled me but Professor Dodd articulates why this doesn't matter. Cage himself said that when he started any new works after this, he used this compostion as a starting point i.e. all sounds should be very carefully selected and added with the enviroment in mind. At the same time, all sound could be listened to with interest or to be regarded beautiful e.g. a pneumatic drill would normally be regarded as an ugly and imposing noise, but if you consider this sound in all it's complexity, and without knee-jerk annoyance, could it also be regarded as interesting, beautiful or even to inform or influence a composer's sound palette? Professor Dodd mentions that, Cage was a Zen Buddhist, so the removal of the ego for this composer could mean that this work was the ultimate conclusion for his future direction. 'Beethoven was wrong!' said the normally mild-mannered Cage. At least a drill does not INTEND to scream for your attention. If you are still unconvinced by the importance of this piece, where do you think Ambient or most of current TV and film music comes from?
I would ask this: If I were to compose a work, name it 4'33" consisting of the musicians not playing their instruments for four minutes and 33 seconds, would I be in violation of copyright? If not, this is not only not music, it is not art. If so, then John Cage is guilty of making what ought to be in the Public Domain a copyrighted work, as libraries have been playing it over their speaker system almost nonstop for decades.
@GN Since he cannot control what the audience does, he did not compose it, did he? He cannot claim ownership of random noise. It's tantamount to an artist putting up a white canvas, naming it 24" by 36", and when asked, "What does it mean?" they respond, "What do YOU think it means?" The artist put nothing into it and expect you to get something out of it. That makes it not art. 4'33" is not music.
In my opinion, this is music, because it has all the elements of music. Rhythm: Depends on the weather and reaction of audience. Pitch: Same as rhythm Instrumentation: Anything Articulation: Same as rhythm Dynamics: Same as rhythm And also, just like black is a color, (0,0) is a coordinate, 0 is a power... I think this is a very innovative piece. I hope the professor will see this and the sounds that the audience produce is also music
To me, and I love Cage and his works, 4'33'' is not so much meant to be music as much as a reflection on the fundamental absence of silence. It introduces a void where there is usually sound at the foreground and lets the audience note how there's a lot more there.
Objections and doubts are a good thing. Otherwise, thought subsides and fades out. "The beliefs which we have most warrant for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded" - J. S. Mill
I personally think that art isn’t something that happens anywhere but the mind. With that said, all sound can be music and if it is perceived as music, it has been realized as such. So I would say 4,33 is music but I do like his closing statement, it doesn’t matter. To clarify further art is something that happens in the mind but is stimulated by things that happen in the physical world. Humans do not need to create the stimulus for it to be art, the human simply needs to be present and aware of the artistic nature of all things for it to then become a piece.
As James Pritchett said: The most helpful role for 4′ 33″ is to inspire silence. It can remind us that it is up to us to turn our minds towards the silence, to recognize it as we encounter it, even if only for a moment. The silence that Cage spoke of is something that is accessible to each and every person at any time.
acording to this photography can be art only if its arranged in a studio. the thing is photography as art can be only a questioning of capturing a moment and framing it.
@@SpontaneityJD I can't exactly remember the context as I have watched this video 3 years ago, but I suppose that music is art. At least in my eyes it is.
The piece 4'33'' is basically everywhere where "music" is not intended. There is no musician needed, no scores, no conductor, no audience or whatever. As John Cage said, it's e.g. The sound of traffic. Because it's actually the "absence" of intended sound, I would say it's not music since music is always intended sound (correct me if I'm wrong). Now we could agree on a definition of music which says that music is also music if it's not intended: Imagine some having a fork in his hand and then accidentally hammering onto a few cups. It may create sound which he then declares as music. That would mean that music is when people intend to hear something, no matter if music is intended to sound or not. Having that definition in mind: If there is a person who intends to hear traffic, or a dishwasher, or rain, or glass breaking or whatever(!) as music, it means it is music FOR THAT CERTAIN PERSON. As a result I would say, the definition of music in an artsy way of thing is rather a subjective one. Which would lead to the problem that normally definitions exist in order for everyone to understand on a same basis. Definitions crate borders around something. We need definitions in order to easily and quickly describe a certain content. But now in the situation concerning 4'33'' we obviously can't agree whether this piece is part of the content we describe as "music". Obviously this peace makes us think critically upon what music is, something most people probably didn't think of before and I think this is great. Because for me art (music is part of art) is something most people look at extremely narrow minded and I hope there are some outside who might come to change their view on a few things. -I did not really want to state my final opinion on anything. -I was just letting what is on my mind flowing out into a comment here. -Have mercy on any language mistakes or what so ever since I am German and only do learn English at school. I thank everyone who made it up to here! :)
For the same reason that made those people whom you quoted to say something about the subject: curiosity. Explanatory theories can be instrumentally or intrinsically valuable. We can need them to do other things, or just because we are curious about the subject. In fact, why would we need music, poetry, drama, or fiction? Because we value these things independently of other considerations. Part of the reason we value these things for themselves is that we are curious.
Short answer no, it's not music, because music is sound. It's like trying to say that darkness is a form of light, which in fact it is the absence of light, it's only negative space if there is any contrast, otherwise it is simply a void. Why someone would focus on what label should be given a piece art rather thinking about its characteristics and meaning is sort of like getting stuck on the question of whether or not a bowl of cold cereal can be classified as stew, or trying to write thesis on whether or not a VAZ-2101 can be considered a pickup truck in its factory configuration. Why focus on if it's music or not? Would that change its status as art? Do we have to turn everything into art by making it so that nothing is officially recognized by some organization as being music because they say it is?
"it's not music, because music is sound" Riiiight, and the rests in a piece of music where no instrument plays (e.g., the first half of the beat in the 6th bar of Beethoven's Op. 67, any tutti rest in orchestral music, rests in solo piano music, etc.) aren't really part of that piece of music. Please, think a little bit before writing such nonsense.
4'33 doesn't have traditional musicians play any notes, but 4'33 is not a silent piece, the audience and ambient noise is the sound of the piece. so if music is sound, then 4'33 is music.
I feel like the entire idea of music is solely based on it's presentation and all depends on the true definition of music. If your definition of music is something that is organization based with rhythm and other common aesthetically pleasing elements then sure lowercase isn't music. However if you think of music as anything that can provoke emotion through sound (regardless of source) then I personally feel it is very much music. In the same sense that modern art is "art" depending strictly on it's presentation it would only make sense that works like John Cages 4'33" are simply everyday normal sounds placed INTO a musical canvas. Therefore being music despite the lack of ego only because they are presented as so. The organization goes beyond the actual score I think is what the real mind f*ck is. It's that the organization of this composition is actually from the audience attending. The audience/everything IS the instrument
This guy seems incredibly nervous, confused, and perhaps even extremely angry. Every time he says "right" I feel like he's about to lash out at the audience. I'm surprised this is on here---the entire argument is delivered terribly, and he seems like he is just trying to justify a personal belief.
He still seems really angry, and I don't really like his way of working out the problem. It's slow and overbearing in my opinion---he could find a more eloquent way of conveying his ideas, without making the audience feel like he's about to whip out an uzi and start spraying.
There is so much wrong with this talk. There is a score for this piece. It is organized. And has Mr. Dodd not heard of aleatoric music? Music, where the instructions are very vague? "police sirens isn't music" - false. Sound is music when given context. Mr. Dodd should catch up on 100 year old movement called futurism - orchestras of sirens and factory equipment.
Sorry for the late reply, but you seem to be using a strawman: police sirens are indeed noise when they are not being used to create music. (He made a point of not excluding contemporary takes on music, but he also said that for a sound to count as music, there has to be a basic form of intent, which is lacking in the "police sirens" he is talking about.) On the opposite side of the same coin, your violin can only produce noise except when you intend for it to create music. However, when your violin makes no sound, it is neither making music nor noise, and the same must be said about a performer who is told to go on stage and not make sound; the only sounds left are the ambient noise.
“you seem to be using a strawman” - and yet you didn’t give an example of me doing it. “for a sound to count as music, there has to be a basic form of intent, which is lacking in the “police sirens” he is talking about.” - Yes, I wonder, why he said it. I have heard police sirens a lot in songs and compositions. I don’t understand why police sirens can’t be music. “your violin can only produce noise except when you intend for it to create music. “ - no. It can be a part of music if someone else intends it to create music. “However, when your violin makes no sound” - it always makes sound, even lying in its case. The air moving keeps moving the strings and the resonance box. “it is neither making music nor noise” - that can never happen as long as the violin exists. “and the same must be said” - NOTHING must be said. “the only sounds left are the ambient noise” - no, because the instruments resonate, and the performers’ bodies change the resonance of the hall. “the only sounds left are the ambient noise.” - except those noises were intended to be the composition. I was going to not post it because at this point I do not really mind not calling this piece music, or calling it music, I don’t think a label like this means anything in this situation. I enjoy listening to Cage’s 4’33’’, that’s something I can say for sure. However, I will still post it just to correct the mistakes of your comment.
I'm slightly unsure about his definition of music as it doesn't account for improvisation, but I suppose it's sufficient for the purpose of the point he's trying to make in the talk which is quite valid and interesting in its own right
I would like to respectfully disagree, while also agreeing at the same time. The definition of music I use in my classroom is very simply "organized sound in time," which is also mentioned in the video. Professor Dodd's addendum that the sounds must be organized and presented to the performers therefore negates the argument that this is music. However, what if we look at it backwards? What if the audience is unknowingly the performers, and the "performers" on stage are actually part of the audience? At this point, since the work has gained so much fame in sparking debate, the audience members already know their roles. They have essentially memorized their parts as any good musician does, and shown up for the performance. Even those who do not understand what the performance is about, like my students who watch it and laugh, ask questions, and fidget during the performance because they are confused, are participating in the performance just by being asked to watch. I always conclude our discussion of the piece by posing the question, "is it music?" The classes are usually evenly split between yes, no, and unsure. I will personally say that I have always been on the fence, but in the loosest form of the definition of music, I would have to say it fits. But that's just my opinion, and I think this debate could last forever.
Vibrating Dolphin would say that music is music if we say it is. 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence can be music if we say it is- after all, aren't people the deciding factor to something's artistic status?
You're confusing cause and effect. If we call something music, it's because we think it has the qualities that "being music" implies. It doesn't gain those qualities because we call it music. If I start calling lemons "music," it doesn't turn lemons into music. If everyone starts calling lemons "music," the meaning of the word "music" has changed. But it doesn't mean that lemons have become music.
Adooviklet What is the point you think Vibrating Dolphin is making? "silence can be music if we say it is" seems to suggest that anything can be music if we say it is. I think that the meaning of words is a little more constrained than that. See: definitionsinsemantics.blogspot.com/2012/03/humpty-dumpty-principle-in-definitions.html
Cage kept saying that music was beyond the boundaries of instruments. Listen to Water Walk. Because really, sound OVERALL is music if you hear it as music ;p
I totally agree with you. And other part of the reason we value those things is that we, as human beings, we have feelings, I dare say. Art is feeling. Music is all. 'The only truth is music'-Jack Kerouac
Right. An example can be found in Thomas Clifton's essay 'The Poetics of Musical Silence'. 'To focus on the phenomenon of musical silence is analogous to deliberately studying the spaces between trees in a forest: somewhat perverse at first, until one realizes that these spaces contribute to the perceived character of the forest itself, and enable us to speak coherently of 'dense' growth or 'sparse' vegetation....' It's a pleasure, a real pleasure talk about this. I do thank you.
I wouldn't call Cage a minimalist. He didn't really like Philip Glass or Steve Reich's music. But I agree that Prof. Dodd's ideas about music are quite formal and more than slightly antiquated.
It strikes me rather interesting since the piece 4’33” is actually scored in notes and rhythm but only with a dynamic dedicated to this single piece that means “make no sound”. In that sense the piece is not much different from one from Beethoven, except different traits such as use of invented dynamics.
What 4'33" and later 0'00" suggests to me is that on some level John Cage was taking the idea of "composition" to its logical conclusion : that the composer was merely someone that relayed instructions and a compostion the set of those instructions, whether or not following such instructions lead to music or indeed even sound. What precisely is the instructions "In a situation with maximum amplification, perform a disciplined action" suppose to "sound" like. It's a meaningless question, close to asking what the color blue sounds like. A person following instructions to build a jet engine is not performing a piece of music. A computer executing a set of instructions is not performing music. Yet I feel as if the suggestions I just made are very much in the spirit of Cage's work. It's as if what distinguishes a set of architectural instructions from musical instructions is ... intention or perception. So if you wanted to be obtuse I suppose you could imagine the construction of Burj Kalifa as one of the longest and most elaborate musical performances in music history :p
Perhaps the core question here is what one can feel or understand about musichood. Silence is music. Silence remains dependent on the world of sound because it is only there that it can acquire meaning.
And this may be relevantly different from "art" in the primary sense in which rock art, painting, music, calligraphy, sculpture, etc. are "arts". What is meant by "art of X" where X does not fit with the above "arts", is that the practice in question requires skill and it can be beautifully (elegantly, etc.) done. But this is what is to be expected if there is a continuum between art and non-art: there are art-elements in non-art practices.
Absolutely. What a different world this would be if only more people were concerned about divergent thinking. "Where all think alike, no one thinks very much."-Walter Lipman
@4:20 it seems to be in line with the argument that seeing a comedy in a cinema so that when you laugh you are laughing along with a roomful of people enhances the experience of watching the film. That the audience is part of the process is clear to anyone who has seen Rocky Horror Picture Show or thrown spoons during a midnight screening of The Room.
"Art is everywhere, except it has to pass through a creative mind."-Louise Nevelson (As you can see, I like quotes). Fine. Never give up looking for an answer. And please, let me know if you find it. As human beings, we put a lot of subjectiveness, even when naming subjects intelligible. Why should humanity needs an explanatory theory about art? "Art is never finished, only abandoned"- Leonardo da Vinci
I've removed a couple of comments because they it felt like too many and not really important. No special reason. The score for 4'33'' reads "tacet" so the concept of silence is involved explicitly, even if the piece is not silent. I agree that 4'33'' is not a silent piece. That is part of the reason why the properties of silence ou mentioned can't be what makes 4'33'' music. The other part of the reason is that silence of itself is not music, even if 4'33'' was silent.
Hey all! I have a new cd called 700mb. It's an incredibly long piece. Available on CD Baby for a mere $10. The MP3 download version is called 128kps and is a mere 256MB. Recorded with some ambient mics(Neumann u47 tube) through a classic Neve 5088 console. Some contact mics were used. All recorded in the public washroom at Grand Central Station New York using members of the royal philharmonic symphony defecating. The cd includes a scratch and sniff surface! Get yours today!
To Dodd, music is something that someone does to us. To Cage, music is something we allow to happen to us. Why is Dodd so concerned about maintaining a Euro-centric, authoritative (in both senses of the word) definition of art?
My view is that either sound or silence only acquire meaning by used in human practices (language and music being 2 examples). In themselves, neither sound nor silence have meaning. Silence is the absence of sound, and so is conceptually tied to sound. Yes. The core question is musichood. How we understand it or experience it is another, deeply related question. As for "Silence is music" I can only ask: what is the argument for it? Of course, there are musical silences, musical contextualized.
That 4'33'' is an important *artwork* gives no force to the idea that it is *music*. To the extent that some music may be issued in recordings for playback, not performance, it is true that there is more to music than performance and instructions for performance. But the point made about instructions and performance goes deeper: in paradigm cases of musical works, there are sounds which are merely ambient to the performance. 4'33'' eliminates this.
9:02 “It is not as if a composer pulls sounds literally out of the ether and literally arranges them into something and hey presto we’ve got a work of music…”. Actually, many composers do exactly this!
@devourerofbabies I don't think you can ever objectively say that a certain sound isn't music - people can choose to listen to something such as 4'33" and hear it in a musical way, making a subjective choice, in the same way that you choose to not listen to it. You have a right to an opinion, but not to state that opinion as objective truth. I would be interested to hear if you have tried to listen to 4'33" at all, and what it is you find so non-musical about it?
I ask this question. If someone says I earned a PHD in music or BM, are some arguing that the person can just go to a classroom and sit "silently", no lessons taught for a number of years and earn that degree? what then is the use of learning how to understand/ interpret arrangements of musical notes.
The point is not whether much was said, but whether enough was said to make the point intended. I disagree that Dodd's proposed condition is a necessary condition (some pieces of music are not even performable,e.g, electronic compositions for playback). The point of doing philosophy is not to prove how much one knows, how smart one is, etc. It is to think and rethink puzzling aspects of things that can't be solved by mere observation. One can always be wrong, but that is what makes thinking fun.
if a composer creates art involving sound it is music. his composition creates the auditory experience when it is "performed." Even though it varies what you hear when you listen, it would not occur in such a way without him composing it. There are other definitions which wouldn't classify this as music & it would be fine to agree with them. From an artist's perspective. Art is an intentional conscious experience. So to compose something that causes one to experience silence or ambient noise is music as an art piece but not music in the sense that it has notes. Silence (still ambient sound) can be musical or have notes but not all silence is art. You can disagree with an artist if you want but art is a work created by an artist. In the case of 4'33" it's not much work, but still a work nonetheless. Art is created by artists, the artist defines the work.
For everyone bashing this guy's lecture, perhaps we are in a compromised position even to begin with, with such a question as "is it music". The reason is simply that by now there have been so many ways to interpret what "music" really is, and what counts as music. So many of us are arguing about 4'33" with a different sense of "music" in the mind of everybody, therefore not even really arguing in the same dimension. I think a more valid and objective interpretation would be: this piece counts as music by certain standards of what's considered as music, and does not count as music by other standards. Look, the whole point of the Avand Garde is to shock, to question, to shake our understanding of music in attempt to redefine for us what music could and should be. But we don't need to be held hostility; we always have our right to reject their challenge. Just because Futurism and composers such as Edgard Varese pushed us to accept sirens as music, doesn't mean we must go along and think so. While I personally think of 4'33" certainly as a piece of music, I respect this lecturer for having a different opinion with a different definition of music in mind, in the pluralism of today's postmodern climate.
It's a performance art piece. Really, it's the equivalent of an 'artist' walking up to you and asking you to 'just listen to the noises around you for a few minutes''. They can't take credit for the ambient sounds, but they can of the idea. If however Cage wanted to record 4'33, then it would indeed be classified as ambient-noise music.
Someone had to take a blank canvas and say "this is a work of art!" just to determine the outer border of what we can call 'art'. What is interesting is the specificity of Cage's time measure of 4.33 Is this silence different from other silences? I have to say it is.
Why not? you can fill the plinth, or not. Is Duchamp's fountain more than a mere urinal? Why a composer couldn't fill the silence of a piece of music with no intentional sounds? I'm afraid there's no final argument. There's a score, there's a performer, there's an audience, there's no silence, there are recordings... there's controversy Your cat could not be a musician, but I think we've reached another core question, what is the very definition of music.
If we say 4'33" is't music, we could say that Cage has discovered the outer edge of what COULD be music by more or less stepping over the line. The art of the last century, possibly owing to the two great wars, faced kind of existential crisis. In retrospect, it would be logical in that situation for some artists to pin their faces up against the void, so to speak, courting the possible obsolescence of the arts. Cage accepted the death of art as a possibility, and yet was about as prolific and disciplined an artist as ever there was.
I disagree with him completely, I believe it is music. Using his Criteria (2 only) It is organized sound performed by performers. The tool for organization is in fact the sounds are produced by everyone in a chance way. The performers are not only those on stage but everyone in attendance. The composers instructions are very clear. TACET which means do not play as he notes, and they aren't playing, they may be vocalizing though or something may fall. Even though they are indetermined sounds, this does not exclude them from the piece.
although professor Dodd does not classify Cage's piece as music, as per his definition, i still think it is incredible. It carries the property of a transient score, depending on the environment, therefore capturing small snapshots of life.
I would say it qualifies as music. The performers are given instructions (“tacet”) which they follow, but no instruction is given as to how the work as whole should sound like each time besides that the musicians remain silent. The sound is organized by creating an absence of sound with the performers and letting the atmosphere take over. Comparing to Cage’s radio work, it’s the same- the performers receive instructions, they carry them out, and you’re not expected to hear the same performance twice of the same piece.
"The cat, a picture of a cat... Art is X" There is something missing here. A connection between the conclusion and what is supposed to ground it. "For me, art is all a creative mind feels." Surely a creative mind belongs to an individual, and individuals experience (feeling is a kind of experience) many things. A creative mind smelling coffee generates an artwork? How do you distinguish the smelling of coffee by a creative mind and the smelling of coffee by an uncreative mind?
Good arguments both ways in the comments here. "4'33" definitely fulfilled it's purpose; people are still arguing about it to this day. Who can say really if it is or isn't, that's up to the listener
+FastgunEd I have a friend who just took an 8 1/2" X 11" piece of white copy paper and framed it. He is now trying to sell it. It is called "8 1/2 X 11". Prettiest picture I've ever seen.
Silence is a part if music. In Beethoven's 5th there are sections where in instrument may not play as instructed by the composer. This silence is part of the music as silence is an important part of music. I do feel that John Cage dug himself in a bit if a hole by saying that this piece takes ambient sounds and makes them a part of the performance. 4"33 is music as it is made up of instructed silence (a tool for creating a piece of music), but ambient noise is not a part of the piece.
Perhaps what Cage is up to is arguing that it is _not_ necessary for a work of music that it be sounds organized under the directions of a composer. Could not 4'33", and other things he produced, all constitute a careful refutation of Dodd's view?
i think it is a pioneering piece of work, as there is a philosophy behind why it was constructed this way. Generally all music lies on the 2 d scale between predictability and variability, but this piece is utterly unpredictable, and not variable at all. It sets a boundary on music. It has the minimum skeleton- 4 parts, and a beginning and an end. If it came from a lunatic on the street, it probably wont mean anything, but it comes from John Cage, who has a repertoire in making music with minimal predictability. This ascertains, that it was an intelligent piece of work. Also it tells a lot a about art and artists, who go to the limit of madness to define and prove new ideas.
It seems like Dodd's definition of music doesn't include improvisation, since those sounds were not explicitly directed by the composer? I suspect Dodd would agree that structured improvisation would be music, but what would he think about unstructured improvisation (e.g. tapping arrythmically and humming with no particular key)? It sounds like he would say yes if the explicit instructions were "tap arrythmically and hum something off key," but do those instructions necessarily have to be explicit for such improvisation to be considered part of the piece? I would argue no, explicit instructions are not required for improvised sounds to be considered part of a piece where such improvisation is expected. So there's the question I'd like to ask Dodd: Cage's piece does not include explicit instructions for improvised sounds, but what about IMPLICIT instructions for improvised sounds? The work only includes instructions for the pianist to sit there silently, opening and closing the keyboard cover a couple times, for the duration of the piece, however I would argue that Cage composed that piece with the expectation that there WOULD be incidental sounds happening for the duration of the piece's performance, so I would argue that these improvised sounds were indeed part of the composition and thus I believe 4'33" would be considered music under the definition that music is organized sound.
Cameron Hall I think it is a performance of some kind, and therefore art of some kind. I performed this piece this week with a drummer. I confessed it was unrehearsed. Half way through a couple of guys walked in and started chatting. At the end of it, the audience applauded. I think they accepted it as a performance, even if it wasn't music. In fact, I think the fact that it's NOT music is where most of the entertainment cane from. Do I think it's art, but yes, not music, that in fact is probably the whole point.
+Logan Griffin Music is a language and like all languages, it has minimum requirements of operation that cannot be fulfilled by random noise. The most fundamental of which is meter. We recognize nothing as music that does not convey meter. The halfway point between music and speech demonstrates this: things we describe as "sing-songy". They have meter but lack tone so we tend to find ourselves annoyed by them because our minds are being jerked in two different directions. Being musically incompetent, Cage didn't understand the difference between silence - which is random - and musical silence - which requires meter. The silence you hear in the rests of a composition by an actual musician like Beethoven or Paul Simon, isn't truly silent: you carry the beat on from the music before the rest, in your head and if the rest goes on for too long you will lose track of the beat and the music will feel disjointed when it starts back in. Had Cage known what he was doing he would have put a performance note in the score explaining that the meter had to be somehow conveyed to the audience. Silently tapping a foot or finger would have been enough. Then, 4'33 would have conveyed musical silence and the ambient noise between the first and last beats could be considered musical.
So according to Julian Dodd's definition of music, from my perspective it follows that photography is not a visual art unless the the photographer arranges every object, every detail of what appears within the photographic frame. I don't think so. (And what about improvised music? As Derek Bailey has pointed out in his book, Improvisation, the first music humans ever made was improvised music - no composer/performer separation, no instructions.)
This is a classic case that happens a lot in these discussions where the criteria given are not analyzed thoroughly enough to check their validity, and consequently they disqualify things that everyone would qualify as music. This particular case misses the mark when it comes to improvisation. A group of musicians can come together and completely without instructions or even the involvement of a composer create music. A good example of this is Indian Raga. So, his criterion that music is created by performers following instructions from a composer does not match intuition, and must therefore be rejected. Argument invalid.
Kris Christenson The way he worded it wasn't so great, but I think it's fair to say that in that situation the performers themselves are simply composing on the spot; the difference with 4'33" is that no one is composing anything, with all sounds happening more or less by accident.
Taurelion In Philosophy wording is incredibly important. He discounted 4'33'" on a technicality, so the same technicality must disqualify anything else that fails its test. When someone improvises, they are not following the instructions of a composer, therefore by the criterion he gave improvisation is not music. He also indicates that a performer must be creating the sounds that are a part of the piece. What about in the case of a recording? When I listen to recordings in my living room am I listening to something other than music? Is it for some reason just a facsimile of music reproduced in digital form? Or if I listen to a score that was realized entirely electronically in the first place? Is that for some reason not music because no performer was involved in creating the sounds? No, that's a ridiculous notion, so his criteria fail again. What's more, music is a subjective art form created entirely by humans. Therefore, there are no natural laws governing it. Since subjectivity is a slave to opinion and all human beings have the ability to create unique opinions about subjective material. It then follows that no one person's opinion on subjective matters has any more merit than another person's. Therefore, no one can decide what is or is not music. Therefore, if John Cage says his piece is music, no human being can say he is wrong and have it hold any weight.
Kris Christenson I don't have any issue with your second paragraph, aside from the fact that it's not entirely consistent with your original comment; by the same logic, this professor's definition, even taken at face value, is still perfectly valid. As for the first, a recording of a performance or music created on a computer could still be considered a "performance" depending on how you choose to define that, though at this point either side of that argument would be nitpicking too much for my taste. If we're going to really go all the way with this, though, I'd propose that the actual music isn't a mix of sounds and silence at all, but instead that it is the experience itself. Cage's own definition falls short in that it doesn't account for the possibility that the sensations we identify as "music" can occur without the associated sounds ever occurring. For instance, when you "hear" a song in your head, it is a purely mental phenomenon. This could become all the more relevant in the future if we start augmenting our brains with computers and gain the ability to simply download a song into our brains, especially if that song was itself only ever created via electronics. Music would then be created and experienced without physical sound or silence being involved at all.
That's an interesting point, and I think it falls in line with Cage's definition of music perfectly. He defined music as all sound, which I think he would say includes the sounds "in your head." But back to the point of an electronically produced score. There is a difference between a performance and a performer. By the definition given by the presenter, music has to be performed by performers. It would certainly be a stretch to say that a computer is a performer in the same way that a human might be a performer, because the computer doesn't make decisions in reaction to the instructions given them. So it seems quite plain to me that by his definition this would be discounted as music, which is counter-intuitive. I know this is nitpicking, but I must reiterate that it was nitpicking that lead him to disqualify 4'33" in the first place, and this argument is against his point, not yours so the nitpicking is necessary.
Kris Christenson Great point. However, if the speaker asked instead if 4'33" were a musical composition, as opposed to whether a performance of 4'33" is music, he could explore such nuances better maybe.
This is not music. It has all the hall marks of deception- everything is actioned in pretension. It is trying to replicate silence, yet accomodates all other unintentional random unorganised noises. Sad, that many have replicated such work.
Rather than music as contextual (organized/disorganized) noise, I find Cage's 4'33" an example of what means to read in silence. Keep the ambient noise (or music?) to a minimum.
This Masterpiece of art is the music I listen all nights when I go to bed. It's basically the music i heard the most in my entire life. This is so intense, what a modern piece of Art!!! Naaaaah just kiding.This is just a way to make fun of those who paid to go see him on the scene. I think they got trepanated pretty well. Btw, I played this performance before, exactly the same music to the single note when i was playing on a muted synthetizer when i was young. This is plagiarism. What about copyrights? Anyone remainging silent with an instrument must pay copyrights for performing this song. "Music is an art form whose medium is sound and silence." Wikipedia's definition ===> sound A N D silence
It can't be plagiarism because no two performances will ever be the same. You're missing the point, it's not over-intellectualising anything, in fact it's almost the opposite, to strip it down it's just a way to make people listen to the beauty in the sounds of their surroundings. Nobody's arguing really about the piece as far as understanding the process behind it, it's actually pretty simple and interesting, people in the comments are almost solely politely discussing the idea of a set of 'official' music aesthetics. It's sad that you'd come on here and be the only negative person because you fail to grasp something so incredibly simple.
Forget new music, Professor Dodd just excluded folk music, improvised music, a tune that you whistle as it comes to your head. None of those count as music under his definition. Composer's instructions a requirement? Terribly narrow parameters in order for his point to even remotely hold up.
I think it does, if we consider the performer as composer. I do think it falls apart, however, when one gives thought to the listener of a CD track: by pressing play the listener produces the sound rather than the performers.
But the point is that a performer is producing silence, because, silence (no-playing sound) in stage is part of performing music. This is the same in 4'33'' or in any conventional piece of music. Your claim is wrong.
The same way a philosophical point can be part of an artwork, without thereby making the artwork a piece of philosophy. Likewise, art elements can figure in all sorts of human skilled activities. This lends force to the extended use of "art" to refer to those practices. As for emotions, not all art, I believe, involves emotion or emotional responses. And responding emotionally to something does not make it an artwork, though some have thought that making things to arouse emotions is what art is.
Well, my thought process is A.) If the music was conceived with the intention of exploiting aesthetic sounds, does that not make the audience/everything making sounds performers?B.) In jazz, many performers rely on improvisation which is not under the jurisdiction of the conductor i.e. the audience members are simply improvising the entire piece in a series of 3 movements.I'm not sure if that's clear, but I think I'm making sense, at least from the Point of View of a musician rather than a philosopher
Apart from wasting 15 minutes of my time by not really saying anything substantial at all, his argument is flawed in a few ways. As I have seen a few people point out in the comments already, Dodd Contradicts himself by giving his juxtaposed views on the definition of art and music. "This piece is art but not music", "Music is a form of art". Secondly he states that for something to be a piece of music the performer has to follow the instructions of the composer but 4'33 clearly gives instructions for the performer to follow and although its idea is to draw attention to/bring together the ambient surroundings of a performance this does not lessen its validity as piece of music. Finally if you read about Cages theory about three different entitys involved in a piece of music (Composer, performer, listener) you would understand how 4'33 can very easily be considered a piece of music and, in my opinion, one of the most important pieces of music in the 20th century.
Rowan, In regards to your first point, there is no formal contradiction between the two statements you listed. "Art" is the larger category of which "music" is a subset (according to Dodd) so something can be part of the larger category of "art" but still fail to fall in the realm of "music." According to Dodd, all music is art but not all art is music. You may disagree with his definitions and applications of definitions but there is no contradiction in the way Dodd set up his view.
I’d argue that the piece IS organised sound- he has organised the ambient noise to be in the forefront of the performance. The performers (the audience) are even instructed to produce certain noises by the etiquette of the theatre. The music is arguably an extension of Aleatoric (Chance) music. And regardless, it’s not a single scholar or individual who decides what is music it is society as a whole, and if you google 4’33 it comes up with song
