Cage’s 34’46.776’’ for two pianists

[Sean]

This is a solo piano piece played as best a performer can simultaneous with another piece called 31'57.9864'', reaching over to play the strings direct every so often, with a few other sound effects- a dreamy twitter but its meaningless indeterminancy at least isn't unpleasant; some interesting pauses where the re-enty is impossible to predict, as with Solo, a comparable piece. The suffering hero on my disc is Steffen Schleiermacher, from his complete survey of Cage's piano music.

[The new erato]

Have you heard the two piano arrangement of 4'33'' ?

[alkan]

Have you heard the two piano arrangement of 4'33'' ?

The arrangement for two harpsichords is far superior, especially the version that is not played by Rubinstein and Arrau.

[imperfection]

I'll take a pass.

[some guy]

This is a solo piano piece

Indeed it is.

played as best a performer can

It is quite difficult.

simultaneous with another piece called 31'57.9864''

Well, it can be, but many pieces of Cage's can be played simultaneously.

...meaningless indeterminancy...

One thing Cage attempted to do, along with many other artists of the twentieth century, was get the listener/observer back to being a little more involved in the situation. For well over a hundred years, audiences had become accustomed to being spoon fed. All the responsibilities were on the shoulders of the composers and the performers with nothing to do for the listeners except have pleasant dreams and perhaps carp a bit if the composer's offering interfers with the dreaming. Contemporary artists ask for engagement from the audience, active, creative engagement. The silly comments about 4'33" which people never seem to tire of making show that there are still lots of people not up to the challenge. As soon as you're ready, erato, alkan, and imperfection, there's a whole new world of delight and charm just waiting for you!!

The suffering hero on my disc is Steffen Schleiermacher, from his complete survey of Cage's piano music.

Hahaha, I don't know about the suffering. I think great virtuosos like being challenged! Heroic, though! Sure. I'll buy that.

[Franco]

One thing Cage attempted to do, along with many other artists of the twentieth century, was get the listener/observer back to being a little more involved in the situation.

When I first heard about (I've never heard) 4'33" I was immediately pleased with the idea.  It was in perfect sync with my own aesthetic at the time (and still is to a great extent though not as deeply).  The idea, that how/what we think about/of as music is very narrow.

Sound, divorced from its context, can be music.

And I think Cage was getting at this in 4'33" (I don't know the work that serves as the OP topic) - i.e., the sound of the audience can become music if we listen to it just as intently as we would if the pianist were playing something called a piano composition.

[The new erato]

right, then we venture into ...anything & everything can be art territory. 

In the visual arts, that seems to have been a main theme since Marcel Duchamps and seems a stronger thread than ever currently.

[Franco]

I think there is a continuum whereby I can experience everything as somewhere on that scale in artistic values.  But, I am intrigued by the idea of not dividing the world into purposeful/planned vs. chance/random events.

Perceiving so-called random events as if they were planned by an artist (and vice versa), alters the way they effect me, and can provide an artistic experience.

Reading this forum I am struck by two kinds of music lovers: those who perceive music as a living breathing part of their reality and those who collect "music".  I find the endless discussion about old performances of old works almost perverse in its fetishizing the rating and hunting out of the obscure.

I'm the other kind.

[Franco]

I think the mystique of the artist is very overrated if not a complete sham, and definitely lean towards the idea that everyone is one or has the capability to express artistic thoughts.

I hate that art has become a product and is marketed like potato chips.

[Catison]

The difference between Cage and anyone else composing 4'33" is that Cage is a composer.  He studied with Schoenberg, no less.  Before 4'33" he had an oeuvre of music from which he built his reputation.  He was actually a quite capable composer, even beyond the conceptual pieces.  He was not lazy and produced many many pieces during his lifetime.  So when a composer, with a reputation, points to a piece of art and names it thus, it lends a certain level of justification to it that would be absent if you or I did the same thing.  Because then it would be intellectual laziness. 

Quite frankly, Cage earned himself the right to compose the "silent piece".  It fits squarely within his work and development as a composer.  It is his work, actually, not because of the musical content, but because it is a piece that has the power to move.  It makes you think.  It gets inside your head.  And ultimately, it is about beauty.  This is all the same as a Mahler symphony, yet Mahler creates a little world and draws you in.  Cage provides the opposite experience of bringing you to the outside world to experience its beauty.

Now, you may not like the piece.  You may think it is boring.  But that, like any other piece of art, has nothing to do with the accomplishment of the artist.

[Sean]

some guy, thanks for your comments, I know roughly the kind of arguments put forward for such music but I don't buy them at all to be honest- all you can do is listen, as with any music anywhere, and the rest is theoretical detritus.

James & Franco, sure thing. I like 4'33 though- there's a nice recording of the orch version on Youtube and a recording on CD is likewise much more interesting and moving than you'd expect. Gets to the soul of art and its offering to the gods. Cage also thought 4'33'' was his greatest work.

Catison, from my oblique notes-

Cage's 4'33'' is the number of degrees in seconds below zero of absolute zero or the total absence of heat and suspension of all activity- relating to the basic state of mind or pure consciousness without content, but from which all things emerge- this dynamic silence is the field of truth and knowledge hidden behind appearances. The impossibility of matter being cooled to this temperature also reflects truth residing below the mind's outward conceptual level, similar to matter not being able to reach the speed of light or energy: the avant-garde by contrast builds on existing intellectual complexity and techniques without necessarily connecting the mind with aesthetic meaning...

[Catison]

What a bunch of longwinded bs. Art is about deeds not wordy explanations or validations like you (and consequently chancers like Cage) provide in justifying lazy-thinking and junk that tries to pass it self off as being art. Presenting a blank or empty canvas (aural or otherwise) to people and then explaining why isn't art, it's nonsense and a cop-out. Art is about deeds, and producing quality results requires endless hours of hard work and cast-iron discipline. Something Cage never really had from the get go (ie.  claiming harmony is unimportant and having an "aversion" to it etc.) Consequently Schoenberg even wisely & knowingly warned him that without a firm grasp of harmony he'd encounter a huge wall, to which Cage (& his ego) said something to the effect that he'd be happy to bang his head against that wall - well, that's exactly what he did throughout his career & as a result most of his output is trivial.

And yet he is a great composer...

[listener]

If I decide not to listen to this piece, am I, in effect, creating a new edition by virtue of my choice of non-performance?

[some guy]

Art is about deeds, and producing quality results requires endless hours of hard work and cast-iron discipline.

It's a point of view. Though endless hours of hard work and cast-iron discipline are not enough, on their own, to guarantee anything. And while Cage obviously worked hard all his life and had plenty of discipline (though I can't be sure about its iron content), his work was not about producing quality results so much as it was about inviting (encouraging) the listener to become a more serious and disciplined part of the situation. And that's a point of view, too.

What a bunch of longwinded bs.

On this topic, I've never seen you do anything but present the same unsubstantiated assertions, over and over and over and over again. Yawn. Catison's well reasoned post may be something you disagree with. BS it's not. Unsubstantiated assertions on the other hand....

[Franco]

Art is about deeds

The hallmark of a work of art is that it forces the audience, the listener, the viewer, the reader, to challenge what they think they know. 

Cage has accomplished this with 4'33". 

[Catison]

Cage's 4'33'' is the number of degrees in seconds below zero of absolute zero or the total absence of heat and suspension of all activity

I have no idea what degree system you are using, but that isn't right at all.

[Franco]

Get a grip please. Art has always been about deeds, no need to substantiate that! And if Cage really wanted to engage music lovers to really listen (and be moved?) (as you "explain" to us was his goal) then he should've hit the wood-shed harder & longer and worked-on his harmony too! Let alone value it. (listening to an older & wiser (harmonic pioneer) like Arnie Schoenberg would've been a start!) He fails miserably at presenting anything of truly great meaty musical substance for the ear to dig into. A blank aural canvas anyone? The results speak for themselves - more often than not, it's trivial nonsense and lightweight in content, in and of itself. All you have to do is listen, simply that - no words or explanations are necessary. You fall into the same trap as your 'hero'.

You write as if 4'33" were the the only work by John Cage.  Apparently you are not aware that he has written many other works, in other styles, and is an accomplished composer exhibiting skill, training and having "hit the woodshed" plenty.  He also has been a pioneer in what has come to be called conceptual art, which is a major movement across all medium. 

I guess conceptual art is not your cup of tea, which is fine, but to extend this limitation of yours as a definitive explanation of John Cage's artistic relevance is somewhat of a stretch..

[CD]

Preemptive strike!

Yea... i've heard all that shit. Pfft whatever. His string quartet in 4 parts is okay... but nothing compared to the mastery of Frank Zappa IMO...

[CD]

Oh, guess I should add:

[Franco]

I've heard plenty Cage - probably more than most people here. He loved to talk and explain his reasoning (part of his game, part of the 'conceptual art' game) but the actual art itself never amounted to much, and shows a great lack of insight, depth, discipline & focus. He wasn't a great musician or composer. He never backed up his wordy indulgences with great work (which would have helped his cause). Instead - he presented mostly trivial nonsense with an explanation (weighing in heavy on this part). Again, art is about deeds, not words. You can't explain something is art. The art should speak for itself. Hence, there is no such thing as conceptual art. Only piss-poor chancers play that game anyhow, and it's never to be confused with the real substantial stuff.

This kind of dismissal only reflects on you.  No one has to like John Cage or any of the music and ideas he spawned, from Morton Feldman, Christian Wolff, Earle Brown to Karlheinz Stockhausen,  but to dismiss its legitimacy exposes an insularity and chauvinstic mentality that is detrimental to the appreciation of any work of art.