Is 4:33 music?

>tfw to dumb to play 4'33"

Attached: card_1fe.png (400x402, 61K)

but tell me, what then actually is 4:33? is it possible to be recognized, or heard? can it be performed by one's self? is it occurring right now, everywhere?
How in the fuck can one man lay claim to the ambient sounds of nature and call it his own composition?
What an asshole.

No. Silence is not music.

It only worked the first few times he performed it after that the magic of it was gone

It's music purely in the conceptual sense

but tell me, is a blank reel of film a movie?

Has a filmmaker made a blank reel of film and released it? If so then yes, it is, in the conceptual sense.

sure, why not.

Attached: littlefamilyguyage.png (761x1012, 293K)

I have it on repeat

ALL DAY

read his lectures.
then fuck yourself.

does not =

>read his lectures.

cringe

Derek Jarman sort of did this with "Blue"

the point of 4'33" is the environmental sounds from point a to point b can be a piece of music if the listener decides it to be so.
So a blank film could be the same, except to experience the film you're suppose to be looking at the screen, which is blanck, technically that can be a film, but it is very limiting compared to 4'33".
But also like 4'33" you could take the concept anywhere and consider anything you're looking at to be a 'film'

Yes, it's also the greatest music piece ever. It's simple, stop flooding your way with dopamine provided by manipulated sounds and actually be in touch with what's around you. Take advantage of your senses.

then please skip ahead to fucking yourself

read the lectures after - they're really good.

can you run a projector with a reel of blank film and call it a film? furthermore, can you run a projector with nothing in it but a bulb and call it a "movie"?

so then is that to say all sounds are music? why then is actual music special? is it artistic intent?

this is a bunch of postmodern neomarxist bullshit. i advise you to stop destroying western civilization before i get angry

ohhh

sounds good.

but Anthony McCall wants his art back

>"I'm John Cage and I've composed the sounds of nature. That'll be $14.99."
>"Plus tip."

Attached: c_cage_john.jpg (355x220, 9K)

>neomarxist
god youre gay

It's not postmodern, nor is it neomarxist you unfortunate tard. You clearly have no idea what either of those things mean, only that you should be angry about them.

>implying I would pay for music
The idea of the track is the track.

>all sounds are music?
If the listener wants to hear it that way.
>why then is actual music special?
it's not in the grand scheme of things, but the artist is also a listener and if they want to hear something a certain way then they can construct it as such, and other listeners may like it too, people generally prefer arranged sounds to environmental sounds
>artistic intent
Cage's point is that the importance lies on listener's intent, since musical value is subjective to the individual listening to it.
An artist may make a piece of music, but it could be considered "just noise" to a particular listener. It's up to the listener to ultimately turn the piece into 'music' by intentionally listening to it as such, rather than just hearing it as background noise. The same intent could be applied to all sound, intentionally made by man or not.

>is it occurring right now, everywhere?
yes, you just have to sit and experience it.

>How in the fuck can one man lay claim to the ambient sounds of nature and call it his own composition?
I never claimed it was a composition, just an idea.

>when a 4'33" performer accidentally plays a note

Attached: 1419556526862.jpg (321x306, 12K)

>when a 4'33" performer starts listing IQ, and crime statistics

Attached: thinking man.jpg (900x900, 134K)

The problem is that, the artist gives the listener something to listen to. What has John Cage given us? It's not my problem that the average idiot doesn't ever subject themselves to silence. His statement seems pretentious, privileged, effete.

so in a practical sense, does it have value as music?
you do agree that 0 has no value, right?

>What has John Cage given us?
Hundreds of hours of works, but he's only ever remembered for a four and a half minute piece.

>pretentious, privileged, effete
lol hobgoblins of the weak

>not 'postmodern'

I wanted to argue, but mies' Farnsworth house is from 1950, 433 from 1952.

I suppose its squarely modernist, given a perspective with no gradiation

sure, it's just not very good music

well, it worked. he's certainly remembered.

It's toying around with the definitions of what is music the same way Fountain played around with the definitions of what is art. Specific, the idea of organized noise - well, what's the most extreme version of that? Pure silence for a specified period. It's a fantastic idea that forces us to consider what is music. The same concept of trying to define what something was also reaching the same sort of conclusions in other fields (see: Godel).

*silent bump*

Yes. If performed in a concert setting, with the musicians turning their pages in "silence".

I don't like this theory

Lol, I remember a website selling the score for like $10. I guess it offered some sort of commentary or preface to the piece. It sounds terribly absurd still

Not the piece itself. See below.

Not exactly the audience, but the sounds in the enviorment. The point 4'33 '' is to uplift 'non-musical' sounds to a music of its own; as musical happenings. It's the culmination (and at its most abastract and universal) of John Cage's idea that anything can be music; Water Walk and Variations IV are some of his previous explorations on the topic. The latter is surprisingly soothing.

The piece is not silence. See above.

producing and hgighlighting the state of receptive attentiveness which effects consciousness and understanding and cognition and emotion is the point of the work.

one an 'art viewer/listener' is aware of this, there is no longer any need for art and/or we go forward and explore anyway.

unless your 'art' is for entertainment and 'le feels'

lol

*highlighting
*once