John Cage Question - 4'33"

General
#21

Sorry Sid and Bachido,
Here’s my confession to all of you.
I work at an air terminal during the day.
Specifically my job has to do with checking in passengers.
Well today we were open for early check in for tomorrows flight
And a total of two passengers showed up during the three hours we were doing the early check ins. That basically means I was sitting there doing nothing for three hours.

Nothing that is, except flooding the bachido forum with my thoughts .

What else is there to do right?

#22

Anyway yeah agree with Sid. Finding time for silence each day! Woooo!

#23

I am not even going to attempt on writing as much you now Kevin haha.

I will just add to my statement that if listening to 4:33 and getting some great trip and revelations from that, then you have done something that benefits you. One should of course never claim that philosophy is bad :slight_smile:

#24

Kevin, there’s nothing you need to apologize for in this case. An apology supposedly “cancels out” what went before it, and there has been nothing said here by you or any of the other respondants that warrants “cancelling”. While I have chosen personally not to share any thoughts on this post’s subject matter, I will say it has turned out to be rather an intriguing read (to me at any rate). And if any Bachido member is not keen on certain ideas and/opinions being shared in this, or any, forum post, no problem - they are free to express their own alternate ideas and opinions, as those writing above this post have already done. Or they always have the choice to hit their “back” button and find something more to their taste. :-). To each their own, live and let live, and all that stuff … :smiley:

And Kevin, have you ever considered getting into one of these discussions with some of the passengers waiting for their flights??? (can’t you just imagine it…!!! It would make delayed flights s-o-o-o much more interesting!)

#25

Thanks Linda,
Well I wasn’t so much apologizing as offering my confession as to why it is that once in a while you might see these super epic long posts from me here on the bachido forum. In the future if you ever see these long posts appear you can pretty much asses that “it must be a slow day at work for Kevin” haha!

#26

I never heard of this tune . . . cool that it’s out there though . . . shall read this in detail on the weekend but it looks like a lot of good points have already been made . . . of course the post lengths are fine . . . :slight_smile:

#27

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

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

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

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

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

#28

I agree with what you are saying, Leilani Lu. Music is seen as a means of communication and expression. It seems contradictory, but silence can be used to convey feelings and thoughts even when you are not saying anything. Sometimes saying nothing says something. Silent protests and even giving someone the “silent treatment” when you are mad at them is a way of communicating your feelings. The piece 4’33" is intended to make the audience see this. However, I believe that it is subjective to the person viewing this to determine whether or not it is music like when you stated that music is subject to individual opinions. It is communicating something and giving the audience a unique experience but does this mean that it is music? John Cage is truly able to give us a “listening experience” in which we are able to hone in on sounds and subtleties that we wouldn’t normally notice. I was able to hear someone laughing and coughing. The noises that I heard amidst the silence were actually loud and very noticeable. Music is something that evokes feelings and experiences from the audience so in this sense, the piece can be seen as a form of art but the question still remains. Should this piece be considered music?

#29

Porky Pong, I love the point you made about saying nothing says something! As for whether it’s music, my personal opinion is that the piece itself is not, but what you heard during that 4 minutes 33 seconds could be.You heard coughing and laughing during 4’33’’, which are normally seen as the non-musicals and you seemed to take this opinion, so for you it’s not music. But for some, like I remembered an avant-garde musician saying" whatever you intend to listen is music", it’s music. The piece itself is like an empty picture frame that directs you to look at the views within, but I wouldn’t say a frame is a painting. For me, from another aspect, since the sounds you heard were not produced by the performer according to the score of the piece, like Cage’s piece is as well not the origin of the sounds, 4’33’’ is not music itself. Does that make sense?

#30

This is a very interesting piece that I can’t believe I’ve never heard of up until this thread was necro’d, haha.

I find it fascinating that this sort of “minimalist music” exists, and is as equally controversial as its counterpart in the visual arts. In regards to both cases, whether they are art, music, etc. I really think the discussion comes down to the fundamental definitions of what (X) is.

Personally I believe that any form of artistic expression is, just that. Art and music exist to act as a form of visual or audible expression of emotion, soul, or any other form of message. Therefore I think that 4’33 is a proper musical piece. Whether the ‘performer(s)’ are actually performing or acting as musicians is another topic however.

Though I would regard 4’33 as music, based on the definition of music as an audible form of artistic expression, I’m not so sure that it could be classified as ‘good’ or otherwise enjoyable music. Just as with visual minimalist art, I think there is an amount of effort, speaking in terms of mental effort, that must be apparent in the work. Certainly, various pieces of modern art exude a certain air of lack of care towards the piece, as an attempt to ride on the coattails of real experimental pieces.

4’33 to me seems like it is a very deliberate creation, intended to convey a certain message, and this is clearly audible from the first few moments from the performance. It intends to be a controversial piece, however this does not necessarily mean it is enjoyable.

Overall, it reminds me very much of the whole ASMR movement, medium. Whereas ASMR tends to have a more defined purpose of relaxing sounds, in both ASMR and 4’33, I think the underlying purpose is to evoke some form of appreciation for those sounds that we tend to move into the backs of our minds. Perhaps encouraging us to slow down, and take in that which is around us once in awhile. It makes for a sort of exercise that you can apply to conventional music as well, taking a listen at any piece with multiple instruments for example, and carefully dissecting it, picking out specific instruments patterns and giving a new meaning to a piece depending on which part of the whole you choose to focus on for that moment.

Sorry for the long post.

#31

Tino Piccini, I like the message you take from 4’33’’:" to slow down, and take in that which is around us once in awhile". And you got a point there, 4’33’’ is composed with extreme deliberation. Actually Cage started to conceive the piece in 1946 when inspired by an Indian classical musician , and didn’t finish it until 1952. There were a lot of thoughts and intentions in this piece.
As for your definition, I have a question: how to tell whether something is artistic expression or not? It’s quite subjective. So do you think whether sounds are music hinges on the composer’s intention?

#32

To briefly cover my views, I think that judging things from one’s own perspective is necessary to any form of criticism. One should always be observing everything around them and acknowledging the difference in things so that they can expand their scope of understanding, however I don’t think that pure subjectivity allows us to get anywhere.

Addressing the actual questions, firstly I believe that something is artistically expressive when you can feel that it is artistically expressive. It is honestly a very difficult to explain phenomena, but I think it’s the underlying reason as to why we revere certain works, they feel expressive. It’s like a part of a person’s soul is impeded in their work. If you think of the most famous works of art, I think you’ll understand what I mean. Another why to tell is to find pieces which lack this feeling. For example I have a painting in my room which I am very fond of, however I do not get a feeling of artistic expression when I see it. Something can be visually, rhythmically, tonally appealing, etc. but it becomes clear when it is art because you can immediately understand that it is, art.

So I’m not sure that it is only intention that would make sounds music. Harking back what I said about feeling a soul in a work, I think this is only achievable through somebody pouring themselves into what they are creating. I can take a bunch of random noises, mix them together in anyway that I wish, and claim it is music, but it would not feel like music unless I ‘poured myself’ into my cacophony of rocks smashing together. I can have the intention to make a “smash hit” (puns), however It would never succeed if I first off lack the understanding of it, and secondly did not dedicate enough will to it.

Here’s the painting I refer to. I’m interested to know if you feel expression from it, so hopefully my point makes more sense haha.
https://imgur.com/fMfc1ZO

#33

I can recognize the figure and the Chinese characters in your painting! excited…I could feel what you mean by artistically expressive, but I would say the pic in your room is a piece of art though it’s rather realistic and not that “profound”. The problem is, and often in contemporary arts, the creator’s artistic expression is not recognized by the audience as artistic expression. Like the famous “Fountain”- is it appealing? does a toilet evoke your artistic expressive feeling? does it speak part of your soul? can you immediately take it as art? The scenarios when the artists put artistic intention and the audience felt it are easy to deal with, but what about cases these two don’t match? Are we passing on the right of judging whether something is art or not to the audience?

© 2020 Kyle Abbott