What is 'not music' to you?

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Some people believe that if we simply sit still in silence within a performance space, ears open and listen to every sound around us that may occur is music, or even worse - serious Art.

I really love how serious you are about how negative this is.

[North Star]

I really love how serious you are about how negative this is.

I see you have met James.  0:)

[Madiel]

Some people believe that if we simply sit still in silence within a performance space, ears open and listen to every sound around us that may occur is music, or even worse - serious Art.

Then some people have been conned into believing that stepping into a "performance space" is some magic portal that alters the way their ears are capable of functioning.

[Madiel]

Who has made this proposition?

It's much better to deal with propositions that have actually been made than to deal with propositions that are supposed to have been made but have not been. For one, dealing with faux propositions means leaving the realm of actual propostions to enter the highly suppositious (and highly suspicious) realm of the supposer, who has done this supposing why? And guessing about motivations, even if one's guesses are accurate, is a zero sum game. All the supposer has to do in that regard is deny.

Cage did make a proposition about sound. It is well known. It has even been referenced in this thread.

It is that sound is ubiquitous. Ubiquitous and inevitable. 4'33" is not a piece that denies sound. 4'33" is a piece that references its ubiquity, that consists entirely of the kinds of sounds that are usually avoided or ignored in a traditional piece of music. The concert trappings, hall, stage, instrument(s), performer(s), are all there to provide a frame for validating sounds that were not intended.

Composers have gone beyond that, now, just by the way, some of them. Some composers set up situations in which sounds will occur without any traditional concert trappings. That is, for some composers, the validation is complete, and we can now get on with using sounds--or not using them but still including them--any sounds regardless of source or of intent. There's a thing called "sound walk" which happens fairly often in many cities. There's an organization in Portland, where I used to live, that does several sound walks a year. New York, of course, is full of them. London, Milford, Paris, Warsaw. I found one in Barcelona, but it seems a bit on the hokey side. That or I am a bit on the snooty side. Either way is perilous....

Anyway, if there's anything in all that to be deprecated or criticized or perhaps even praised, then fine. At least the stuff I just mentioned is actual.

Then let me amend and expand ever so slightly. Sound is absent from Cage's COMPOSITION. And I say that for the same reason I've already given more than once: because nothing in his work plans and organises the sounds that are present.

Call him a theatre director. Call someone who creates a performance space an architect.

You yourself refer to sound being present regardless of source and intent, and that's my whole point. The whole process of composing or performing music, the only way that we can sensibly distinguish it from what we call "noise" or sound that isn't music, has to do with music being something where sources of sound are chosen and sound intentionally generated to be listened to. Coming along and claiming to have "validated" sounds that were not intended is not composition of music, it's deliberately not composing and then claiming credit for sounds that others created WITHOUT YOUR DIRECTION. Sounds that would have been created WITHOUT YOU THERE TO CLAIM CREDIT FOR THEM.

How anyone can get away with claiming a composing credit for sounds they did not determine in any way, I've no idea. Again, I've no problem with saying they created an environment, a performance space or whatever. But to say that they therefore created music is a category confusion and a mixup of our different senses.

[James]

Then some people have been conned into believing that stepping into a "performance space" is some magic portal that alters the way their ears are capable of functioning.

Can't imagine buying a ticket for that bullshit.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Can't imagine buying a ticket for that bullshit.

So lucky you don't have to, nor is anyone forcing you too, nor is anyone forcing shallow criticisms down your throat about things that you love.

[some guy]

Sound is absent from Cage's COMPOSITION. And I say that for the same reason I've already given more than once: because nothing in his work plans and organises the sounds that are present.

Well, that was easy.

Too easy. (I like a bit of a challenge.)

Anyway, since you have changed the topic from the presence of sound to planning and organizing sound, then I go back to the other thing I said, which is what listeners do.

A listener can "plan and organize" any old sounds at any old time. Cage opened that door, but now that it's open, anyone can do it, if they like. Listening, as Stravinsky had already pointed out, being active (with hearing denoting passivity).

[North Star]

Yeah, and is listening attentively to actual birdsong somehow not a musical experience, while listening to a Messiaen transcription of it is?

[Madiel]

Well, that was easy.

It was "easy" because you ignored the relational clause, even though I put one word of it in capital letters. So let me put all three words of the relational clause in capital letters for you.

Sound is absent FROM. CAGE'S. COMPOSITION.

You have to completely wreck rules of English grammar to ignore the importance of relational clauses, even though I find in my professional work that people do exactly that all the time and you've just done it right now to slice up a sentence as it suited you because you felt the word "from" was inconvenient. It indicated the LOCATION of the absence of sound and you just wanted to shout "AHA!" and declare that because I'd mentioned sound being present, it was present wherever it suited you.

Sound being absent from cage's composition is not the same thing as sound being absent from the concert hall, or from the street, or from my fridge, or from the central square of Barcelona. I'm not declaring sound to be absent from anywhere else in the universe apart from the one place we were discussing, the production of sound via instructions from a "musical" score.

-------------------------------------------------

EDIT: The entire freaking point of the sentence was to set up a contrast between where sound was absent and where it was present. If I'd written a sentence like

"There were no trees outside no.17, it didn't have any of the trees in the street"

then would you have really come along and highlighted it like this?

"There were no trees outside no.17, it didn't have any of the trees in the street"

Because that's pretty much what you've done.

[Florestan]

Yeah, and is listening attentively to actual birdsong somehow not a musical experience, while listening to a Messiaen transcription of it is?

Good question, to which I have no answer.

Akin to asking, is looking attentively at Mont Sainte Victoire not a pictural experience, while gazing at Cezanne´s paintings of it is?

[James]

Yeah, and is listening attentively to actual birdsong somehow not a musical experience, while listening to a Messiaen transcription of it is?

Well, in all fairness it is a bird song. And Messiaen does a lot more with the material than a bird does. The bird tune is just a starting point.

[James]

So lucky you don't have to, nor is anyone forcing you too, nor is anyone forcing shallow criticisms down your throat about things that you love.

Life is about choices. 0:)

[Klaze]

Sound is absent FROM. CAGE'S. COMPOSITION.

I have no horse in this race but find the discussion somewhat interesting
Thought: isnt sound absent from all compositions? Only when a composition is performed, there is sound.

Sound is absent from the composition Missa Solemnis, just as it is from the composition 4'33.
In contrast to the Missa Solemnis, the nature of the sounds we may hear during 4'33 are not planned, though if there was no performance of 4'33, we might not have heard them, so in that sense, our hearing of those sounds has been planned?

[Madiel]

I have no horse in this race but find the discussion somewhat interesting
Thought: isnt sound absent from all compositions? Only when a composition is performed, there is sound.

Sound is absent from the composition Missa Solemnis, just as it is from 4'33.
In contrast to the Missa Solemnis, the nature of the sounds we may hear during 4'33 are not planned, though if there was no performance of 4'33, we might not have heard them, so in that sense, our hearing of those sounds has been planned?

I understand what you're saying, and in fact I did consider whether it was worth struggling with a reformulation to deal with that issue.

Nevertheless I think the problem with 4'33" is still shown by that idea that "we might not have heard those sounds". My view is that we would still have heard them. This is at the heart of me saying that Cage did nothing to contribute to those sounds being made.

[some guy]

orfeo, you're giving a grammar lesson to an English teacher.

I know what you said. You that sound is absent from Cage's composition, and then you said that sound is present in Cage's composition. My bolding simply made it easier to see that, that's all the bolding did. I left all your words intact.

Anyway, if you really want to get into it, sound is not absent from Cage's composition. Cage's composition is arguably more clearly about the presence of sound than any other piece. Cage's piece, as far as the listener is concerned is all about sound and only about sound. (For other composers, it's about someting a little different from just that.)

Clearly what you want to be saying is that the piece called 4'33" does not designate on the paper that is its score any of the sound that will naturally and inevitably occur in the process of its performance.

OK, fine. The only thing the score designates is that the performer not make any of the sounds that will occur. If that's what you mean by 4'33" not having any sounds, then OK, I guess. I think that what you mean, however, is that because the composer has not designated the sounds, then none of the sounds that do occur can count, which I do have a bit of a problem with, because then the sounds in a cadenza (in a genuine, unwritten-out cadenza) aren't really sounds, either, because the composer did not designate them. And I'm going to guess that you would never argue that....

[Madiel]

orfeo, you're giving a grammar lesson to an English teacher.

I know what you said. You that sound is absent from Cage's composition, and then you said that sound is present in Cage's composition. My bolding simply made it easier to see that, that's all the bolding did. I left all your words intact.

Some guy, you're receiving a grammar lesson from a legislative drafter.

I said that sound is absent from Cage's composition, and then I said that sound is present in the concert hall.

I'm terribly sorry that I didn't spell out "in the concert hall" again for you, but then I thought I was dealing with adults who could read the entire conversation rather than lifting out a single sentence and treating it as if it just dropped from the sky.

[Madiel]

PS No-one else appears that interested in giving an answer to the original question. I take it that everyone else just assumes that if an "artist" comes along and labels something as "music" then everyone is supposed to nod and smile and show how they understand art by agreeing?

Is there no limit? Is the word infinitely flexible?

It's a serious question, because to me a word that simply can't be negated isn't much use. If there is no boundary to what is "music" - if there is no "not music" - then what exactly is the point of the label?

[James]

The threads opening question? I answered pages back.

You'll just have to live with the fact that some people think that sounds as they occur out there untouched is a creative art. There are whole cults out there that are into so-called "sound art", "performance art", field recordings, noise ..

I'm down with sounds as source material for a composition (similar to the use of folk tunes, bird songs, etc.) to be analyzed, used, developed and transformed in a more highly evolved and refined creation, as opposed to a rather thought-less or arbitrary one .. contemporary classical composers have been utilizing 'found sounds' for decades now. Pop music too.

[James]

I think that what you mean, however, is that because the composer has not designated the sounds, then none of the sounds that do occur can count, which I do have a bit of a problem with, because then the sounds in a cadenza (in a genuine, unwritten-out cadenza) aren't really sounds, either, because the composer did not designate them. And I'm going to guess that you would never argue that....

You mean the sections where the composer/performer would typically improvise some music  (not 'sounds') based on what came before and perhaps hint at what would come later. Also within a particular harmonic framework, tempo etc so musically it fits and makes sense. All the Greats were tremendous improvisers, hence the reason for those sections. Sure, sometimes those sections weren't set in stone and I guess a performer could opt to play nothing (take a Rest), but most of them could really play and would. Audiences came to see and hear them play too.

The Cage thing is like a long Rest, where Cage tells the performer to play nothing. it's the easiest gig in the world. Is this really creative, imaginative, inspiring etc. Is it necessary? To some like yourself, I suppose. But no chops, training, practice, development or ears are really required to get it off the ground and keep it going. You could literally sit a deaf person who's never touched an instrument before in front of a stop watch on stage and you're done. In fact, let's be serious .. you don't need a performer to be there at all. They aren't required.

[Madiel]

You mean the sections where the composer/performer would typically improvise some music  (not 'sounds') based on what came before and perhaps hint at what would come later. Also within a particular harmonic framework, tempo etc so musically it fits and makes sense. All the Greats were tremendous improvisers, hence the reason for those sections. Sure, sometimes those sections weren't set in stone and I guess a performer could opt to play nothing (take a Rest), but most of them could really play and would. Audiences came to see and hear them play too.

Exactly. And further to this, in cases where someone other than the composer of the concerto has come up with the cadenza, people acknowledge that fact. That the performer improvised it, or that someone else wrote it.

So yes, some guy, I'm perfectly happy to say that what happens within an unwritten cadenza isn't part of the composition. That doesn't mean it's not music.

Heck, just recently I've commented in the Holmboe thread that one of his numbered concertos is the only one without a cadenza written by Holmboe. I then told people who wrote the cadenza in each of the 2 recordings that I own.  How could I possibly do that, if Holmboe had already composed the cadenza?

The composition 4'33'' is not a composition of music because the composition contains no sound. Not because the concert hall doesn't contain any sound. If someone starts humming a melody, then music is occurring, but it's not Cage's composition.

Yes, sounds that are not designated do not count as part of the composition. Why? Because the alternative is saying something ridiculous like "oh yes, I love that cough in the 3rd movement". If you don't see the composition process as involving setting the sounds, setting the parameters, if you have no means of saying that music involves deciding what sounds to include, then you have no means of excluding the sounds that the composer didn't intend. That cough is part of Prokofiev's piano concerto. So is the ringing phone that an audience member forgot to turn off. The concept of "wrong notes" completely disappears.

Whatever sound might occur during a "performance" of 4'33'', Cage is not the author of it. He provided no parameters, no context. Unlike a cadenza, there is not even any music on either side which a skilled performer or composer would try to fit in with. There is no sound to quote, to paraphrase, to record, to copyright. The score, like all scores, is technically a literary work, but the distinction between a musical composition as a literary work and a cookbook is that the former provides you with instructions on how to create sounds.

4'33'' is putting a frame on a wall and claiming credit for whatever is on the wall because you stipulated the size of the frame.

It's like claiming that, because I chose the positioning of my camera when taking a photo, I can claim ownership of the objects that appear in the picture. That I created them.