If I may have 4 Minutes and 33 Seconds of your time...

[fundrazor]

Confucius, he say: "Don't give up the day job."

Just a couple of short points:

1. "Elephant turds" was a direct reference to as Tate Modern exhibit and therefore hardly "silly".
2. If the audiences were "packed", why did you say in an earlier reply that there were only "dozens"?
3. There is nothing inherently wrong with an audience of composers and critics, but if that remains the sum total of the audience then my argument is that the art is merely circulating like the cruddy water in a central heating system. It might start out as potable, but soon descends to the level of a creator of hot air - which is something SG might recognise.

If you are going to plug your magazine, SG. at least tell us where we can buy one! I, for one, would be riveted. I would alos, however, be reminded of the notes exchanged between George Bernard Shaw and Winston Churchill. GBS sent two tickets for the opening of his new play to WSC saying "bring a friend - if you have one". Churchill replied that he could not make that particular night but would appreciate tickets for another performance ... "if there is one".

[Thorolf]

Originally Posted by fundrazor

"Elephant turds" was a direct reference to as Tate Modern exhibit and therefore hardly "silly".

I know I should shut up, but I can’t contain myself!

This exchange says to me: When you talk about elephant turds/lack of skills/hot air, it is silly name-calling, but when I talk about 4'33", Duchamp’s pissoire and other “performances”, it is art… :tongue:



Regards

[some guy]

Settle down, you two!

Fundrazor, I quit my day job over two years ago. And I was not plugging my magazine. (It consists entirely of the musical equivalent of elephant turds, I'm sure you'd think, so ya ain't missin' much, I'm guessin'.)

Thorolf, I don't think my position has ever been so unfairly misrepresented, though that may just mean that I don't get out enough. (I wonder if there's such a thing as fair misrepresentation...)

Now, how about a nice chat about music?

[fundrazor]

I do wish you'd stop thinking we are losing our tempers. I am as serene as a cellist sleeping through the bass line of the Messiah.

Strange, nevertheless, that you appear to prefer your music challenging but your conversation bland ...

[chckn8r]

Now I'm awake ... did anyone happen to bring popcorn to this match?

[some guy]

Well, I find it intriguing that you keep thinking I'm thinking you're losing your tempers. But when your side of things consists of drawing false conclusions (that I prefer my conversations bland), of misdirected sarcasm (I never intended my remark about your silliness to be a lucid argument) and misdirected sympathy (why sympathy for someone enjoyin' hisself?), then I either get to spend all my time correcting you (which is a trifle jejune) or I ignore you. You and Thorolf both seem only interested in making sure that everyone knows that new music is bad and that everyone who likes it is wrong. Doesn't seem to give much scope for any kind of conversation, bland or not.

Though the squabbling does seem to have caught Chckn8r's attention. Be a pity to have to waste all that fresh popcorn. And here I was thinkin' that a quiet exchange of sarcasms would simply bore the other distinguished members...

[chckn8r]

Originally Posted by some guy

... or I ignore you.

Personally, I think this would be a wise course of action...

Originally Posted by some guy

You and Thorolf both seem only interested in making sure that everyone knows that new music is bad and that everyone who likes it is wrong. Doesn't seem to give much scope for any kind of conversation, bland or not.

No, I don't think they're doing that at all - rather expressing their personal opinions. Transferring those opinions as the opinion of the "silent majority" is your own inference.

If anything, this thread has highlighted the obvious (besides being very long): Interpretation of and finding meaning in music is a highly personal experience and never should be assumed to be similar in two people. If one does not choose to immediately share your view on what music is to you, then I'd leave it at that and move on. Perhaps what you've said will elicit some sort of discovery on another's part, or perhaps it won't - no big deal.

Although, at the risk of seeming to take sides, I'd have to agree that the "silly" remark did come off as flippant and condescending.

Now, I'll go back to snoozing...

[sax_appeal]

It might seem completely irrelevant by now, but, the experience of listening to 4.33 is four minutes and thirty-three seconds of silence. On the other hand it was not composed this way. John Cage decided to write an Aleatoric piece in which all the individual notes were silences.

I'm new.. and don't really know how to quote, so:

chckn8r said:
"Interpretation of and finding meaning in music is a highly personal experience and never should be assumed to be similar in two people. If one does not choose to immediately share your view on what music is to you, then I'd leave it at that and move on. Perhaps what you've said will elicit some sort of discovery on another's part, or perhaps it won't - no big deal."

This reminded me of a recent experience at the Conservatorium in Adelaide. The head of performance (and woodwind) took all the woodwind students to the art gallery to look at art (and for inspiration, I assume). One of my favourite works in the gallery is square sheet of canvas painted black with a red border on three sides. The head of performance looked at it briefly and walked straight past commenting on the 'obvious lack of skill' that went into its construction.

If she had spent some time with this painting as I do, she may have seen that skill (or even virtuosity, which is valued quite highly at the conservatorium) is not the point in all art; and she may have even discovered what the painting was communicating.

[some guy]

Not to worry, sax_appeal. The topics of these threads are timeless.

Couple of points, though about your observations about the Cage piece. This piece came out of Cage's discovery that there was no such thing as silence, or perhaps more precisely, that silence did not mean "lack of sound." Hence 4'33", which illustrates that silence is lack of intention; that is, none of the sounds one hears in that piece were intended by Cage.

There are no notes in the piece, only the instruction "Tacet."

And "aleatoric" is a term designating a largely European attempt to integrate intention and non-intention, that is, to keep control over larger things in a piece while occasionally giving some freedom over small things. Cage's aesthetic, and that of the whole experimental tradition, largely in the U.S. and England, is better referred to as "indeterminate," and it's not so much about control as it is about acceptance, being open to the world and to experience.

As for skill, I couldn't agree more. Skill is very nice and admirable, but it's not the be all and end all of art. (Though if the paint had been sloppily applied, the effect of that particular piece might have been much diminished!)

[sax_appeal]

Originally Posted by some guy

There are no notes in the piece, only the instruction "Tacet."

On more recent editions of the work this is true, but earlier editions do consist of rests of varying time values.