Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
Pollock's art was at least still visual. It was everything that a painting was (so far as I know), sans the "normal" act of painting. 4'33, however, has no value other than as performance art.
What exactly makes 4'33 music rather than just art?
|
Go trot through my 1300 arguments explaining why in this thread:
http://www.musicbanter.com/general-m...-what-not.html. The very basic answer is that the piece still relies on sound. It's a common misconception to refer to it as a "silent piece" since while the instruments are silent, the piece is not silent at all. Due to its sonic elements and the fact that it's intended to be music, then it is music. It has a value as performance art though, but the overarching field is music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart
I don't really care: just stop telling me I can't detect humour or sarcasm when, when applied to you, this can be literally impossible at times.
|
Impossible
for you. I don't get some of your jokes sometimes, I don't give you an earful about it. We have different senses of humour. It happens. Get over it.