The thing is, that wasn't Cage's intentions since the bolded is true in most cases, but not all. The audience isn't the only thing that can make noise.

Where in the Debating 4'33" Handbook is this rule?

It's music because John Cage said that it was music and it has the basic qualification of using sound (the sounds of the environment). What makes it performance art about music is that it was making a statement about what music can be by stretching it to its furthest limits and saying that any sound could be musical if one is in the right mindset.

So you would say that if anyone went anywhere and turned on a system to record the sounds around them, than that would be music?

Sorry if I'm rehashing things from the other thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_recording#Music

And you totally are. It's cool though, I can always use more practice on this topic. It's weird how this always comes up whenever I'm reading a book by Cage (reading For the Birds atm).

Yeh, but I asked if you consider it music since that's essentially what 433 is.. I don't know if I would always consider field recordings music.

Two people go out with systems, stand side by side, and start/stop recording at the very same time. One says it's music the other one says it isn't. Who's right? What about the 'intention behind the music' point you keep going back to?

That depends on what the artist who recorded it wanted it to be, but I've largely only heard of field recordings as being done for music so I would say yes. If it was someone making sound effects for a film, maybe I would say no. Then again, the person who was doing that came along and said that it was music then I would concede because it's not up to me to decide what music is or isn't.

It's common sense. If you're claiming that something is something, then you have to show that it is something.

If that's the only qualification then the rest of this paragraph is pointless. If it isn't, then just saying something is music isn't enough and this statement is pointless. Unless of course just saying something is something is enough for it to be something in the art world, in which case art classifications are just an exercise in masturbation.

"It's music because I want people to think it's music."

So ultimately, this is what we're dealing with. It's music because it intentionally uses sound? If so, "music" seems a thin enough concept that it shouldn't matter whether or not you call it music or just art. Seems like it would be more about prestige than any legitimate artistic statement.

:beer:

Well then go ahead and stop using the word music since we're using the term for 4'33". I'm still going to be using the term.

And about this...

Why not? I'm allowed my own interpretation of art in general, why shouldn't I be able to also interpret what kind of art it is?

Because it's not up to the listener to decide what the piece is. You're free to your own interpretation, but if you go around saying that Jaws is a film about aliens and Spielberg comes and shuts you down on it, your interpretation is wrong. You can still hold onto that interpretation, but since you didn't create it, it's not your place to say, especially after being told otherwise.