You know, I’ve given some thought to the subject, and the best definition of art that I’ve come up with is that it’s anything can’t be reproduced without losing some essential part of itself. You can see a print of the Mona Lisa in an art book, and it’s not quite the same as seeing the real thing. Descriptions of modern art, and performance art, aren’t the same as the art itself. I’ve seen things that were gorgeous, or thought-provoking, or whatever, but that just sounded silly when I tried to describe them.
It might still suck, but I think most art deserves at least a chance to be experienced on its own terms.
I would say that it’s not so much music as capitalized Performance Art. It’s about listening to the ambient sounds of the hall and the people in it; swapping the traditional dichotomy between performer and audience; demonstrating that organic, accidental noises are just as musically valid as deliberate, prepared ones; blah blah blah. It’s the musical equivalent of a signed urinal, though I don’t think Cage intended for it to be; rather, I think he genuinely intended for it to be a statement about how listening to the audience and the ambient sounds of the performance hall makes a statement about art or something.
Eh, its kind of fun. If someone tried the same bit, for say, four hours I’d find iteye-rolling. But for four minutes its mildly amusing without getting annoying. And its not like it actually gets performed that much.
That was Cage’s whole point: that “silence” is an abstraction. There’s no such thing as silence anywhere on Earth; anywhere you go, there will be ambient sound. He got the idea for the piece after going into the anechoic chamber at Harvard.
So even though you started this pit thread to denounce 4’33" as bullshittyshit bullshit, you’ve actually nailed what it’s really about. Good work!
I sometime get the feeling that there’s some type of subversive humor going on and everybody’s missing the point. Not that I’d ever buy a copy or watch a performance of it.
Then it isn’t here either. There’s the ambient sound of yawns and people clearing their throats and shuffling in their seats and playing with their fingers to alleviate the boredom.
If I had bought a ticket, not knowing this was going to happen, the crowd would hear my cry of ‘LETS TEAR THIS PLACE APART!!!’
I’m with the OP. Fuck Cage and his pretentious nonsense. Fuck all the yahoos who sat their in their seats. All the musicians there should have been embarrassed.
BTW, if you are not going to play an instrument, why hold it?
Not the same thing. I was actually in that church, and while I would hesitate to describe what I witnessed as music, the atmosphere was really special. It’s a great installation and performance art at the same time. Plus, entry is free, so nobody can feel cheated. I find the whole thing interesting on a philosophical level - if we as a society can agree to uphold this for 600 more years (and hope to not have the church destroyed by some war) we must not be having many problems. To me, that’s an uplifting thought.
Yeah, but it’s not like there’s ever a concert that only has 4’33’’ on the program and nothing else- though, from the posts in this Thread one would think that is what we’re discussing.
It’s one piece included in a concert that includes plenty of other pieces. It’s an evening of music, music, music, o.k. let’s all just sit for four and a half minutes, music, music, music. It’s an experience that will differ based on the program that it is included in.
I’ve been to plenty of concerts that I have for the most part enjoyed but there’s been one or two songs that had me thinking “Yeah, if they skipped that song and replaced it with nothing for the equivilent duration, the concert would have actually been improved.”
The guy’s been dead for 22 years, and 4’33" was composed 62 years ago, so the sputtering rage on display in this thread seems a bit tardy.
And I don’t understand all this chest-beating “If I had bought a ticket…” bluster. Has anyone here actually paid money to attend a performance of 4’33"? I’ve attended plenty of concerts of experimental and avant-garde music, and almost all of them were (a) free and (b) attended exclusively by music nerds who knew exactly what they’d be getting. The idea that someone is getting rich selling 4’33" tickets to unsuspecting rubes is absurd.
My brother’s a professional clarinetist; among other gigs he’s the founder of a chamber music group. They try to play more modern pieces as well as the classic repertoire. I’m not myself a huge fan of either genre but I make an effort to attend some gigs by way of showing support. At one such, they played 4’33.
It was an interesting experience. The critical thing was that they treated it as a performance. It is, as noted, in 3 movements. At the beginning of each movement, they addressed, for want of a better word, their instruments: sitting up straight, with clarinet to mouth, violin under chin, bow on cello strings etc. Between movements, they rested their instruments and relaxed. The audience, surprisingly, responded to these cues in the way audiences do - e.g. all the coughing and seat rustling between movements that you’d normally expect, and very little while the musicians played.
Reactions were varied. The violinist got the giggles. So did some but not all of the audience. I found the process of concentrating on the ambient sound (because I thought I might as well play along) difficult to sustain - it was as much as anything an exercise in concentration span.
The really notable effect was that I paid much more attention to the subsequent pieces; my thoughts had been focused on the fact that I was here for a performance, that it was happening in a very particular set of circumstances and that the music I was hearing was very much intentional, artificial (in the best way) and unrepeatable: a collusion between composer, musicians, audience and the specific time and place.
I wouldn’t queue up to hear it again, but it offered plenty to think about.
As an abstract piece of performance art…fine…whatever. I don’t think it makes a particularly interesting or powerful point but as it hadn’t been done before then there is always value and validity in the “shock of the new”.
But to repeat it seems rather empty, Whatever the point was has been made. I think now it stands as something of “musical” Rorschach test. People’s reaction to it is the only interesting thing about it.
The sane person’s response to it is a shrug, a slight eye-roll and a resumption of their life.
Frothing attacks or pants-wetting praise gives you fair notice not to sit next to said person on the bus.
So, you agree there’s something interesting about it?
Stanislaus gave a pretty detailed description of his reaction to it. He seems to fall pretty distantly between your two allowed for options. So . . . don’t sit next to Stanislaus on the bus, or do sit next to Stanislaus on the bus? I mean, he’s not frothing or pants-wetting, but since he experienced more than a shrug and a slight eye-roll he clearly can’t be sane either.
Zakly. Look, RobotArm, you win the prize for reading comprehension. I know there were only three movements used for this performance. However there is the infamous " lost movement ", during which time the Concertmistress silently flatulates at exactly 3:51.
I personally know of two different people at Curtis who wrote their master’s thesis on this moment, known in musical circles as the " Confuttate Methanaeum ".
