It doesn’t fit your fairly conservative definition of music, but as I indicated, music history has moved on from the point you’re content to remain at. It’s fine to have tastes that lie in a particular area - we all have our preferences - but it’s silly to dismiss music that doesn’t fit our tastes as not being music. Any audience paying to hear 4’33" knows what they’re getting - an experience of unconventional music, but one which is in fact music.
I don’t see how this is remotely relevant to the question of whether or not it fits the definition of music.
Well, it’s what I meant, anyway. I don’t agree that art can only be expressed via a difficult-to-learn technique.
Let’s put it this way: environmental, ambient sounds neither produced nor specified by the composer do not constitute part of the piece being performed. The riots during the premiere performance of Stravinsky’s The Rite of Spring are of historical significance, but they do not constitute part of the piece.
This thread at the very least has helped me understand what I think of as being art, anyway.
Art, IMHO, requires the following:
[ol]
[li]conscious, aesthetic decisions on the part of the artist[/li][li]a degree of skill on the part of the artist such that the work cannot be duplicated trivially[/li][/ol]
That satisfies me, at least. In that way, environmental sounds that occur without the artist’s involvement are not part of the art. Now, creating a deliberate aural collage from environmental sounds, if skilfully done, is certainly art, however.
And the audience that gathered to watch the king parade in invisible clothes got an experience of looking at the king in invisible clothes… But the king was still naked.
This comment might be relevant to something, somewhere, but certainly not to the topic at hand - at least for anyone conversant with the history of contemporary music.
You do realise that, outside the bubble of academia, my position is actually mainstream and yours is radical, right?
One of my relatives holds a high position in academia in this field and is also an award-winning composer. (He taught me the piano, FWIW.) I’m curious as to what his opinion is–I should ask.
Outside the bubble of academia, Nickelback has sold many millions of albums. I won’t lose sleep over town-vs.-gown reverse snobbery in matters like this. Though I’ll point out that you don’t have much basis for assuming that your position is “actually mainstream”: I suspect the vast majority of listeners don’t hold strong opinions on questions like this one way or another.
I don’t think Nickelback produce particularly good music, but at least what they record bears some passing resemblance to music, good or bad. If 4’33" is music, then so is an apple.
Anyway, out of a sampling of four ordinary people aged 43-65, there was 100%, unequivocal, forceful agreement that 4’33" is not music. It’s a large, unbiased sample, I know, but still…
Well, I should probably specify that 4’33" itself isn’t music any more than the written score of Beethoven’s 9th is music. Performances of it, though, certainly are. When an apple starts performing, do let me know! 
And out of an even more scrupulous sampling of five ordinary people aged 24-26, there was 100%, unequivocal, forceful agreement that in performance, *4’3" is *music. Clearly the future is to the young!
If it really hurts you that bad to call it music, go ahead and call it theater. Same difference. Who cares? It’s interesting, and that speaks for itself.
Is literature art? I can duplicate that exactly, and it’s trivially easy.
Well, I can duplicate a Rembrandt trivially using mechanical techniques as well. But no aesthetic choices are being made in an exact duplication, so it fails my first criterion.
But the Rembrandt original fails as well, in that it can be easily duplicated by mechanical means. Your second point is either important for both or for neither.
I was talking about the piece as if it never existed or was not available for mechanical reproduction. So let me rephrase:
“a degree of skill on the part of the artist such that a comparable work cannot be produced trivially”
You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
Whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.
Tony Hendra - Deteriorata
CMC fnord!
Paul Valery said once: “The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us.”
I interpret this that 99% of art production is crap and most people never experience that 1%.
A couple of thoughts:
First, this whole situation with modern art reminds me of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, which is “about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that are invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent.”
Based on what I’ve seen elsewhere and also in this thread, the attitude of “if you don’t ‘get’ modern art you must be an idiot” is still alive and well.
Maybe one day people will realize that the emperor really is simply naked.
Second, I find the whole modern art situation rather sad, to be honest. That is, sad for the participants in it. Basically, everything that was to be done with classical/representational art has been done and with great skill by past masters. So, what’s a young artist, eager to demonstrate his skill and creativity to everyone, to do? Well, he can start doing something ‘outside the box’. Once that has been done, what’s the next aspiring artist to do? Push the envelope even further. And so, after a century of this, to get any notice at all as a creative young artist you need to pull stupid stunts like a woman giving birth in a museum. The only thing that I’m curious about is what’s the next generation going to do to top this?
I feel sorry for these folks. They have this tremendous energy and enthusiasm and creativity, and they are shackled by the fact that they were born too late and so they have to go to ridiculous lengths to out-do the works that were done before them.
Finally, no definition of art can be complete and all-encompassing, but I’ll offer one:
“Art is that which is aesthetically pleasing to a non-negligible percentage of the people living in the culture in which the piece was made”
I wish people wouldn’t make fun of my username. It’s so juvenile.
I have no problem with art. What people like or don’t like, what they want to hang on their wall or install in their foyer or use for their desktop wallpaper is their own cup of cold sick, and I don’t have any problem with the diversity.
What I don’t like is how any given piece of art is treated like it’s officially more important than any other; or that people should opportunistically try to make excessive amounts of money from it, especially if it’s not their own work, but even then; or that a pretentious, snobby, more-money-than-sense self-professed expert, can call what is clearly just a random pile of junk, that the artist knows full well is just a random pile of junk, a work of genius.
It makes me angry. It makes me disappointed in humanity. It makes me sad.
And this is all I shall contribute to this thread.
Here is an interesting piece on where of some of this is coming from:
There is a wonderful quote on this from Gian-Carlo Rota, who was an artist of the mathematical variety: