If John Cage had never done anything else with his life, I would agree with you. But the simple fact of the matter is that Cage wrote essays and gave lectures about the philosophy of the non-existence of “true silence” in addition to having had years as a more traditional composer under his belt.
He wasn’t some jackass who decided he was going to dupe the world. There’s a big, BIG difference between an established and talented composer or artist trying something that you might see as “gimmicky” and some regular schmo off the street taking a chainsaw to a sofa and trying to sell it to a museum as art.
Look, others have pointed this out: that work was far, far from being the only musical work he ever did. On top of that he gave lecture upon lecture, wrote articles, books and gave lessons on music. It was necessary for him to not only argue that any sound could be listened to as though it was music, but go “hey, let’s all get together and try to actually do it for a few minutes.”
I’ll say it again: the label of “hack” or “genius” is irrelevent, in his later works, Cage was looking for ways to as much as possible remove the composer from the work. He never, ever claimed that he created anything with this work. It’s only a framework, an opportunity for listeners to find their own music.
You’re looking for creation, talent, skill and meaning in this piece. There is none. “Just sounds.”
It’s not this single experiment that’s considered radical. It’s all of Cage’s musical philosophy which at the time was in direct opposition to the leading trends in contemporary classical music. He forced other composers to take a stand with regards to his thoughts, even to this day.
OK, so he’s an essayist and a lecturer. I’ll grant him that. He may even have been quite skilled as an essayist and as a lecturer. I’ll even go so far as to say that some of his other works may have demonstrated great musical skill (even though the other works of his I know of do not). That still doesn’t change the fact that the “piece” under discussion here demonstrates no skill at all, and to the extent that Cage “wrote” such a skilless piece, he’s a hack.
The piece was precisely, exactly, not about skill; in fact he’d probably agree with you. If you made a little more effort to understand the analyses that have been offered, you might see that.
It’s an entirely conceptual piece, meant to put you in a situation where you will think about, among other things, the very things you are saying: the relationship between music and its composer and its listener.
In other words, everything you’re saying is true, Chronos, and is part of what 4’33" is intended to communicate.
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. It takes a great deal of artistic, conceptual, intellectual “skill” to communicate so many profound things so simply. I mean, how can you get more simple than silence? The fact that Cage was able to communicate such a great deal of very profound *stuff *with nothing but silence, and the context of that silence, well you can’t get much more *skillful *than that.
How much skill went into writing “Taps”? Versus, say, John Williams’s longest, noisiest film score? Which one carries more emotional impact? The answer to that question may not be black and white, but it’s certainly debatable.
No, no, I get what Chronos is saying. See, just thinking in general takes no real skill either. I mean…do you really need to read Plato to be able to think up some of the same ideas that he and Socrates debated? Talk about some serious hacks who received way too much credit for doing something that anybody else could have done. :rolleyes:
Sorry. When you float an argument that gets non-jokingly floated in roughly half of all Cafe Society threads, you might want to make it clearer that you’re joking.
In my view the concept of skill is not only irrelevent (to this discussion) it is also an obstacle.
Why do many people value skill in arts so much? Is the value of a work dependant on the skill required to produce it? As a thought experiment, I could snap a random picture with a digital camera – no skill required here. I could also paint an image by hand, one pixel at a time – lots of time and skill required here. If, however, both resulting images are identical, they’re the exact sequence of bits, can you say that one is better, or more valuable than the other?
If you hold onto the notion that something requires skill to be of any value, you are likely to miss on a lot of potentially fulfilling experiences. Yesterday evening, the sunset was so beautiful that everyone at work stopped what they were doing to go look at it. I tried to call my wife to tell her about it but couldn’t get through; the line was busy because she was trying to call me to tell me the same thing. It was a spectacular sunset. However, no skill at all was involved. It was part of nature and it was beautiful. Nathan Milstein playing Bach’s Chaconne is also part of nature and it is also beautiful. It would still be beautiful if it had occured randomly, without human intervention. I don’t need Bach to appreciate the Chaconne just as I don’t need God to appreciate the sunset.
Or to put it another way: which of the images on this page took the most skill to produce?
Absolutely. And lets sound trite about it: fascinating sights are all around us, from the grace of a flock of swans to the vivid colours of a bee or a ladybird.
(An example and a digression: one which many people never fully pay attention to is the sky itself - when you’re in a place you can see from horizon to horizon and the sky is clear, just look at it. Observe it. Keep doing so until you’re satisfied that you’ve seen it in a way that there’s nothing left to see. Then come back and tell me how long it took you. Obviously don’t do this while driving )
I’m risking becoming evidence for the case that says “OK, but I can listen to what’s around me at any time, what’s Cage done that makes a difference? I was listening to 4’33" long before I knew of it.” When were you choosing to listen to what was around you? What mood were you in? I suspect you were choosing moments because a sound had already taken your attention (birds in the park), or when there would be a predominately predictable pallette of sounds (sitting on a beach listening to the waves). Or when there was a variety of related sensory factors (plenty of people sit and just listen to the sound of a train when they’re on it - but that’s related to often-soporific motions). 4’33" uses the concert situation to ensure that there are no other elements but sound, and also allows sounds which are maybe drowned out or overlooked in any other situation to be listened to. Chronos - the usual starting point for familiarity with Cage’s music is the Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano. (Certainly another piece that has to be sat and listened to, not played in the background )
Yes, communicating many profound things simply takes skill. But Cage didn’t communicate anything in 4’33"; that’s my entire point. The passing truck driver or the fidgety person in the seat next to you might have communicated something, but they’re not Cage. All Cage did was say “I’m communicating”, when he wasn’t.
Even thought Id need a site for anything regarding 4’33" where cage blatantly says “im communicating”…
come on man.
I mean, Sure he did, he communicated the idea that “silence” doesn’t exist and a the awareness that natural occurring sounds are a beautiful thing. as well as a number of other points that have been brought up in this thread all ready.
Are you just clinging to any arguement now, since the hack one didn’t fly? I will not let you slander this man just because you do not that the knowledge or resources to make a fair arguement about him.
What does a Bach fugue communicate? (I do hope we’re not going to have to summarise several centuries of aesthetics and philosophy on the abstract nature of music, because summarising Cage was enough effort already.)
)
)