Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Avant Garde/Experimental
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-06-2015, 04:17 PM   #111 (permalink)
Gotcha
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atop of the Throne
Posts: 30,953
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls View Post
The audience's intention is not to make music. That is Cage's intention, and since the audience is the focus of the piece and they are the one's making the musical sounds to be interpreted as music then in order for it to be music they should be intentionally participating or attempting to make music, which they are not.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
._. You just totally danced around the question. If you're going to say it's both, then you still have to show that it's one and the other, without just being either or.
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.
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 04:20 PM   #112 (permalink)
Fck Ths Thngs
 
DwnWthVwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 5,506
Default

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.
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...
DwnWthVwls is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 04:21 PM   #113 (permalink)
Gotcha
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atop of the Throne
Posts: 30,953
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls View Post
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?
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).
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 04:23 PM   #114 (permalink)
Fck Ths Thngs
 
DwnWthVwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 5,506
Default

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?
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Last edited by DwnWthVwls; 07-06-2015 at 04:30 PM.
DwnWthVwls is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 04:25 PM   #115 (permalink)
Gotcha
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atop of the Throne
Posts: 30,953
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls View Post
Yeh, but I asked if you consider it music. I understand it's a field recording, but I don't know if I would always consider field recordings music.
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.
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 04:27 PM   #116 (permalink)
WWWP f*cks dogs
 
Doug McClasky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 38,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
Where in the Debating 4'33" Handbook is this rule?
It's common sense. If you're claiming that something is something, then you have to show that it is something.

Quote:
It's music because John Cage said that it was music
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."

Quote:
and it has the basic qualification of using sound (the sounds of the environment).
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.
__________________
BRING ME THE HORIZON >>>> CHARLES MINGUS
i
Doug McClasky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 04:30 PM   #117 (permalink)
Fck Ths Thngs
 
DwnWthVwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 5,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
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.
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...
DwnWthVwls is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 04:32 PM   #118 (permalink)
Gotcha
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atop of the Throne
Posts: 30,953
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
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.
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.
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 04:40 PM   #119 (permalink)
WWWP f*cks dogs
 
Doug McClasky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 38,471
Default

And about this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
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.
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?
__________________
BRING ME THE HORIZON >>>> CHARLES MINGUS
i
Doug McClasky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 04:45 PM   #120 (permalink)
Gotcha
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atop of the Throne
Posts: 30,953
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
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.
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.