# How large a file is a 128 kbps MP3 of John Cage's 4'33"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 22, 2004, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631 "2004-06-22T14:45:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/21 "2004-06-23T05:49:28Z")
I’ve been fortunate enough to hear this piece many times, by a wide variety of performers. Why, just last night, as I was getting ready for bed, the entire London Philharmonic Orchestra didn’t come to Bozeman and didn’t make a single sound. Three days before that, nary a peep was heard here from the original cast of Broadway’s _Cats_. And a month ago, all four of the Beetles didn’t get together, and played nary a note. **wolf\_meister** , I don’t see why Mr. Cage’s passing should be any obstacle. Why, he performs his masterpiece on a regular basis, every day! ---
**Author:** ![Eurograff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Eurograff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eurograff)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/22 "2004-06-23T06:01:03Z")
Interesting how much smaller the OGG file is than MP3, guess that demonstrates well how efficient it is. Anyway, both of those formats lose information. Anyone want to try compressing silence with [lossless audio codec](http://sourceforge.net/projects/flac) ? ---
**Author:** ![jovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@jovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jovan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/23 "2004-06-23T07:41:15Z")
> [@tadc](#): > > So please clarify- do these (any) sounds actually appear on the recording, or are they contributed by the listening environment? Both. 3’44" is whatever happens to be sounding at the time. The recordings contain whatever sounds happened to chance upon the microphone when they were made. The piece is whatever you experience in the time you listen. Incidently John Cage loathed recordings; he didn’t even own a stereo system. He saw value in them as historical documents but _never_ as a substitute for live performance. Records lead us to think that a musical piece is something fixed, whereas in fact, it’s an experience that’s different everytime. Even if the bits on a CD are exactly the same and they’re being played back on exactly the same hardware, the experience changes because the sonic environment, and more importantly, the listener changes with each listening. What he meant to do with 4’33" is say: okay, this time let’s pay attention to what really matters: ourselves and the world around us. The length, 4’33" had nothing to do with absolute zero, as a matter of fact, it would be completely wrong to think it’s a piece made of “nothing”. Quote the man himself: > [@](#): > > I think perhaps my own best piece, at least the one I like the most, is the silent piece. It has three movements and in all of the movements there are no (intentional) sounds. I wanted my work to be free of my own likes and dislikes, because I think music should be free of the feelings and ideas of the composer. I have felt and hoped to have led other people to feel that the sounds of their environment constitute a music which is more interesting than the music which they would hear if they went into a concert hall.45 > > They (the audience) missed the point. There’s no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence (in 4’33"), because they didn’t know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began pattering the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out. It’s not clear where the length came from but it was, at least in part, the result of chance operations, probably using tarot cards. Those who are curious can [read more about it here](http://music.research.home.att.net/4min33se.htm#Composition). ---
**Author:** ![hammos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ba8739/32.png) [@hammos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hammos1)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/24 "2004-06-23T14:27:40Z")
BBC Radio 4 in the UK broadcast a performance of 4’ 33’’ this January. The BBC have an emergency system that cuts in whenever a long period of silence is broadcast (to prevent “dead air”). This system had to be disabled to allow the broadcast to take place. You can read the listeners’ rave responses [here](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3401901.stm) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/25 "2004-06-23T22:55:15Z")
> [@wolf\_meister](#): > > I have yet to hear this composition performed live. Oh sure, you can settle for lesser performers (there are “cover versions” by the London Philharmonic, The New York Symphony, The Harmonica Rascals, etc.) Still, I had always wanted to hear this conducted by the maestro himself. Sadly, Mr Cage passed away in 1992 so I’ll have to settle for lesser attempts at this complex work. It seems to me that being dead wouldn’t present an _insurmountable_ impediment to performing the piece. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/26 "2004-06-24T17:56:27Z")
There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. ---
**Author:** ![Moe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moe/32/2972_2.png) [@Moe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moe)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/27 "2004-06-24T19:41:41Z")
> [@jovan](#): > > It’s not clear where the length came from but it was, at least in part, the result of chance operations, probably using tarot cards. Those who are curious can [read more about it here](http://music.research.home.att.net/4min33se.htm#Composition). I saw a great documentary on Cage called _I have nothing to say and I’m saying it_ featuring many interviews with the composer himself. In reference to the length of 4’33", IIRC he said something to the effect of “…actually, I simply composed a series of silences which happened to add up to 4’33”. (Here’s [one](http://lance.missouri.edu/record=b1375714&searchscope=6) library’s catalogue listing of it. You probably won’t find it anyplace but a library) He is a fascinating figure of 20th century music and his influence cannot be overstated, but I must admit he does come off a bit flaky at times in the film. ---
**Author:** ![SlickRoenick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@SlickRoenick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlickRoenick)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/28 "2004-06-25T11:20:32Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > 4:33 is 273 seconds. At 128 kilobits per second, you’re looking at 4,472,832 bytes, which is roughly 4.25 megabytes. > > Constant rate encoding is constant. Doesn’t matter what you’re encoding. > > Now, if you were to run that through a variable rate encoder, it would probably be a bit smaller. Just wondering, how did you get 4,472,832? ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/29 "2004-06-25T13:10:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Three days before that, nary a peep was heard here from the original cast of Broadway’s _Cats_. Thank Og for that! ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/30 "2004-06-25T14:26:01Z")
> [@SlickRoenick](#): > > > [@ultrafilter](#): > > > > 4:33 is 273 seconds. At 128 kilobits per second, you’re looking at 4,472,832 bytes, which is roughly 4.25 megabytes. > > Constant rate encoding is constant. Doesn’t matter what you’re encoding. > > Now, if you were to run that through a variable rate encoder, it would probably be a bit smaller. > > Just wondering, how did you get 4,472,832? (273 s) \* (128 Kibit/s) \* (1024 bit/Kibit) / (8 bit/B) = 4,472,832 B. You probably forgot to convert bits to bytes. ---
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/31 "2004-06-25T17:42:41Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > (273 s) \* (128 Kibit/s) \* (1024 bit/Kibit) / (8 bit/B) = 4,472,832 B. > > You probably forgot to convert bits to bytes. Or possibly forgot that computer prefixes deal with base 2 rather than base 10. So kilo = 2^10 rather than 10^3. Which is why hard drive salesman are basically always lying to you when they tell you the number of gigabytes a hard disk has. They take the number of bytes and divide by 10^9 rather than 2^30. When you get to large amounts, the difference between the two divisors becomes significant. On topic, though, I want to hear an orchestra play LaMonte Young’s _Composition 1960 No. 7_ someday. Sure it was written for a piano, but imagine how much better it would sound with a whole orchestra. ---
**Author:** ![Ghanima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Ghanima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ghanima)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/32 "2004-06-25T17:49:27Z")
To be honest, I think Britney Spears’ endition would just end up sounding vacuous. ---
**Author:** ![Ghanima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Ghanima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ghanima)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/33 "2004-06-25T17:51:30Z")
_ahem_ **r** endition… ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2004, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/34 "2004-06-27T15:46:28Z")
I have participated in a choral performance of 4’33’’. I have also used the piece in beginning music classes. I think it harks back to what Karlheinz Stockhausen said about how the music should match the performance space. I don’t see the point in listening to a recording of 4’33". It’s meant to be performed, in that what you do is get people into a place where they expect sound, set up a situation where they concentrate on listening for sound, and lo and behold, even if you don’t provide them with any yourself, sound is still there, and when you actually listen for it, it’s as complex and rich as any composition. In college, I attended (might even have been in, it was at least 15 years ago) a concert with one of the big “Third Stream” music guys from New England Conservatory. He was playing a jazz number with a small combo. They reached a part of the piece where, alternately, the ensemble would play a couple of bars, then the he would solo on piano for a couple of bars. The first two times through the alternation, he played your typical, modern, angular sort of riff. The third time, he played nothing at all. Yet all of us in attendance found that we each had our own angular jazz riff in our heads. There was spontaneous applause from the entire audience. ---
**Author:** ![Help\_Me\_Please](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/bc8723/32.png) [@Help\_Me\_Please](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Help_Me_Please)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/35 "2004-06-27T23:26:01Z")
Taken from the BBC reviews about this… > [@](#): > > I’ve seen this performed live by a full orchestra and it worked really well live, particularly because the orchestra really got into the swing of things and hammed it up big time. 4’33" is essentially a joke, and should be enjoyed as such, but it is interesting to sit in a concert hall watching an orchestra not play anything. In our case the conductor (a flamboyant type) stood with his baton as though he was about to start cueing instruments at any moment, and the various musicians were all poised to play whenever required. The whole thing was far less silent than you might expect - aside from ambient noise and people coughing and so on, there was the rustle of the orchestra turning over pages and so on. > DV, Dublin, Ireland This seems about the only way i could ever “listen” to this, only because i would find it amazingly amusing. I spend most of my time recording and producing music, nothing big or special, but it pays the bills. To this to be considered music kinda pains me. Music? not by my standards, art? yeah, but Marcel Duchamp kinda art… for artsy types who think that its totally revolutionary just my .02 ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2004, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/36 "2004-06-27T23:54:05Z")
**Help\_me\_please** - rather than going by a rather naff commentary of a performance, you can replicate one yourself. Just sit down, where you’d normally listen to music, and listen. For nearly five minutes. (But don’t time it.) ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2004, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/37 "2004-06-28T00:45:14Z")
The piece (as described via Interrobang!?) is not 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence in an anechoic chamber, or a recording with the mike input dead ended, it’s an open air concert piece in front of an audience and contains a lot of low level ambient background sounds a (which is sort of the point). If a mike was capable of picking these sounds up in a recording is it really going to be _that_ much more compressible than music or conversation? ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2004, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/38 "2004-06-28T06:36:01Z")
Yes, because it’s got far less dynamic range. Any sounds you do hear will most likely to be of a low, steady rumble with very little of the high frequencies. ---
**Author:** ![jovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@jovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jovan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2004, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/39 "2004-06-28T06:54:39Z")
First, that’s not an issue with mp3, as has been mentioned before it’s constant rate encoding. Second, IME doing field recording, “background noise” covers the audible spectrum pretty evenly. You wouldn’t get a low rumble unless something was making one (motor, etc.) or if the wind was blowing in your mic. Since most of what happens to get recorded in such a situation will tend to have complex spectra - “noises”, hiss, background rumour, your recording is likely to be _less_ compressible than, say, a guitar piece. The low dynamic range will only offset the amount of information to an extent. ---
**Author:** ![heresiarch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@heresiarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heresiarch)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2004, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631/40 "2004-06-28T10:51:39Z")
> [@jovan](#): > > Both. 3’44" is whatever happens to be sounding at the time. 3’44"? Is that the radio version? 😉 Slightly on-topic: I recorded a variety of cicada sounds when brood x invaded - individual bugs and large groups. The individual calls sounded OK after being converted to MP3, but the group call sounded terrible. A nice humming drone was turned into plain old noise. It surprised me, because it seemed to me that the drone had a tonal quality to it and I don’t understand why the MP3 conversion program discarded that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-file-is-a-128-kbps-mp3-of-john-cages-433/251631.md?page=3)