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

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.

**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.