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

DwnWthVwls · 07-06-2015, 03:47 PM

If that's the case then shouldn't you shift the focus to the things making sounds? If they are just making sounds without the intention of making music than how is it music? Music is deliberate, right?

**Frownland** · 07-06-2015, 03:56 PM

^ding ding ding ding. It's both. Why must there be separation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

If that's the case then shouldn't you shift the focus to the things making sounds?

That is where the focus is. With the instruments being silent, it works as an ampifier of sorts for us to be able to pick out those sounds.

As far as music being deliberate, that's just another arbitrary boundary that you're creating. On the song Master of Puppets, Kirk Hammet's string slipped off of the neck of his guitar and pressed against one of his pickups, making a note higher than he would be able to accomplish by just playing on the fretboard. Was this sound deliberate? No. Does this happy accident mean that the song (or at least that guitar solo) is no longer music during that moment of unintentional sound? No.

DwnWthVwls · 07-06-2015, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Due to its sonic elements and the fact that it's intended to be music, then it is music

The audience's intention is not to make music. That is Cage's intention (via recording musical sounds outside of the performers sounds), 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 they should be intentionally participating or attempting to make music, which they are not.

**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.

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.

The Batlord · 07-06-2015, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

^ding ding ding ding. It's both. Why must there be separation?

._. 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.

DwnWthVwls · 07-06-2015, 04:16 PM

But my point was about the necessity of an audience for the performance which Steely Dan apparently did not need, so consider that point dead and buried, and let's get back to picking apart Frownlogic.

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?