pc issue of the day pt. 4:33 isn't music

**Frownland** · 07-06-2015, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

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

._. 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.

DwnWthVwls · 07-06-2015, 04:20 PM

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.

**Frownland** · 07-06-2015, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

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).

DwnWthVwls · 07-06-2015, 04:23 PM

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?

**Frownland** · 07-06-2015, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

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.

The Batlord · 07-06-2015, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

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.

DwnWthVwls · 07-06-2015, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

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.

**Frownland** · 07-06-2015, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

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.

The Batlord · 07-06-2015, 04:40 PM

And about this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

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?

**Frownland** · 07-06-2015, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

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.