Compositions with purely (or largely) indefinite pitch

[James]

Indeed; in fact, I would go farther and suggest that just because a discussion ensues is not even necessarily an indicator that it is "heated". In disagreeing with sanantonio's comment that you quote here, I would ask as follows:

1. What is the difference between a truly revolutionary piece of music and a falsely revolutionary one and how is the difference between the two categories factually defined?

2. What is "revolutionary" about creating something that masquerades as a piece of composed music to be performed without actually being such? - the lack of effort in producing performable musical content seems to sit uncomfortably with the notion of being "revolutionary" which might reasonably be thought to presuppose an effort to have been made in that regard.

3. What did Cage "create with this work" that was "absolutely new in the history of music"?

4. What part in the history of music can be played by a piece that deliberately eschews performed music despite having been written for a performer?

Whilst anyone is of course entitled to have an opinion about 4'33" and such opinions might differ widely, as we have seen here, I'm more concerned in the present context with facts than with opinions, hence my questions above.

Uh oh - looks like you've developed quite a set of critical criteria there, something sanantonio generally avoids.

[jochanaan]

...Are you done yet with the assault on 4'33"?

Oh, let them assault.  I've been enjoying the links you put up.

Some people confuse their own likes and dislikes for Universal Truth.  And some just enjoy verbal bullying. I'd rather listen, and share when I've found something I like that I think others might like.

[Dax]

John White and Chris Hobbs composed pieces for a time c1972-3 for percussion duo: a systemic British take on minimalism. They can be heard at

http://experimentalmusic.co.uk/wp/archival-recordings/archival-recording-hobbs-white-duo/

[James]

I have a very simple concept: listen to music.  If you like it and enjoy describing it, go for it.  It is increasingly tedious to see your (and other's) comments about why 4'33" is not important, not good, not music, etc.

I've tried to bring this thread back to the topic by posting a series of works with purely (or largely) indefinite pitch.

Are you done yet with the assault on 4'33"?

You're just avoiding the conversation that has arose due to your grandiose pronouncement and are upset that you don't have a good come back for any of it. You have to at least admit, re: 4'33", that it's all hinged on extra-musical stuff though, cuz it ain't in the score.

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

[James]

I made several posts explaining why I think 4'33" is important.

It's all stuff you've read or heard people say about it though my friend. All extra-musical. It's not in the score at all.

[James]

Nothing is extra musical. 

Honestly, seriously .. ask yourself .. if one is to look at the score than how can all of these conclusions and connections be drawn?

They simply can't be drawn.

Everything you have been posting in it's defense is extra-musical stuff you've read or heard outside of that.

[Keep Going]

I have a very simple concept: listen to music.  If you like it and enjoy describing it, go for it.  It is increasingly tedious to see your (and other's) comments about why 4'33" is not important, not good, not music, etc.

In another thread you were labelling the music of Philip Glass and "his ilk" as "dreck", without any justification and simply for the sake of it.

That's tedious.

[James]

Cage's point was to challenge that very idea that music is only found in scores. Cage shattered the idea that music is only what is written down with notes and can be found in all kinds of places if only we choose to appreciate sounds around us.

See what I mean? This is clearly another example of the sort of thing I am talking about. You don't get this from looking at the score or attending a performance. You got it from outside of that - by reading, hearing others say etc. All extra-musical stuff.

[James]

No, I get it from my own mind.  That is how I think about music.  Cage's work resonates with me because I agree with his point of view.

So you are imagining these things, because Cage's point of view isn't determined by this score either. You would have to get that via extra-musical material outside of it, which is what you have done. It would be virtually impossible to get it thru merely looking at the score of 4'33" or attending a performance.

[James]

e.g., the audience is left with hearing the sounds around them.

Again, this is what extra-musical text/dialog tells us what it is supposed to be. How are we to know this? We don't, we are told, or we read that this is what it is supposed to be about.

[James]

For you it is "extra-musical".  For me and others, and there are many many others, Cage's 4'33" is a beautiful musical composition.  We know it because our musical imaginations embrace the idea of ambient sound as music.

It is extra-musical, everything you are telling us is beyond what is there and is purely based on material you've read or were told.

[James]

Nope.  I wasn't told anything or read anything. .

Ok, let's say you imagined all of this as you've said. It's still you reading into things for yourself, and is still extra-musical (imagined). It does not reside in the score itself. Let's not speak generally as you are. Let's focus on the thing, 4'33" itself. How is anyone to know all this stuff you are imagining by just simply looking at the score of 4'33", and-or attending a performance.

[James]

However, people who have attended a performance of 4'33" will have had no choice but to experience the ambient sounds for four and a half minutes while the pianist, or whatever instrumentalist, sits on stage with the score of the work open in front of him.

"...have had no choice but to..." ?

Again, this is your imagination assuming things. No one knows this is what it is supposed to be about.

It requires no work; no thought; no effort.  One need not look into the score, or know anything about the work or John Cage.  Part of the beauty of 4'33" was John Cage finding a way to force people to consider the sounds around them as the performance.  It would be very hard to get several hundred people to sit quietly experiencing the ambient sounds, otherwise, had Cage not structured the experience around a composition in which the performer does nothing but sit on stage for four and half minutes.

These are your assumptions based on your "imagination". The audience see a player sitting there, the player looks at a blank page essentially and times out 4 and a half minutes. That's all there is .. everything else you have indicted here is not known, communicated or expected. It's all within your imagination.

[James]

If your imagination cannot understand that in the absence of any sound coming from the stage, all that is left are the sounds coming from the audience (coughing, breathing, shifting in their seats, talking, eating, maybe), the concert hall (air conditioner, other ambient sounds) and sounds from outside the hall (traffic, weather, e.g. storm (which was the case during the first performance), sirens) - then you have a very limited imagination.

The point is there will not be absolute silence.

You're just not getting it. You are assuming that people sitting there with this brief inactivity, or even looking at the score will automatically jump to these "canned" conclusions you have? A lot of what you have been saying is just false. The problem here is that you are lacking a lot of clarity, reality and objectivity - it's greatly clouded by what you know about Cage already - even though you will not admit this.

[James]

The people sitting in the audience do not have to jump to any conclusions or know anything about John Cage (although by now everyone going to a performance of  4'33" would know something about the intention of the work).  All they have to do is listen.  It is you who are complicating it with arbitrary conditions.

No, they don't have to jump to your studied, read, or canned conclusions. Your imaginings. Nor will they perceive things or act in a manner as you assume, either. Again, nothing dictates them to, absolutely nothing, not the score, not the performance - extra-musical trappings, or not. And is there anything more arbitrary than having folks sit there for an arbitrary 4 and half minutes expecting them to buy into the extra-musical program you've been touting? I don't think so.

[ahinton]

American Masters John Cage : I Have Nothing to Say and I Am Saying It

https://www.youtube.com/v/EfP5OMCfiZs

But "who cares if you listen?" (as was once famously NOT said by Milton Babbitt)...

[James]

The obvious answer, no one.  Plenty of people do not listen to classical music, preferring pop, or rap, or rock, or jazz exclusively.  Plenty of classical music lovers never listen outside the period the prefer, e.g. late romantic Mahler, Bruckner, Wagner, while others don't venture far from Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.

If you draw the line at Cage, you are still drawing a line between yourself and a part of the world of music.

Your choice, which does not impact anyone but yourself.

I've explored Cage in depth and came away empty handed. He's just not heavy, next level stuff at all. And he's no fun either when compared to the best pop, jazz & rock music. Everyone would rather listen to a great 4 minute pop tune than 4 minutes of regular daily noises. Ditto his stuff lined up against the masters of classical music, which is a joke in comparison & insignificant. No one would travel or pay to see 4'33. I don't buy into notions he stole & imported from his heroes (Eastern Philosophy, German Dada, Duchamp), that anything is art, and the childlike fascination with sound itself is just silly and naive. I used to work in law enforcement, and there are laws around ambient noises which itself isn't really music btw, it's just sound or noise, stuff we are subjected to a lot, nothing special or artistic about it ... and an irritation.

[ahinton]

The obvious answer, no one.  Plenty of people do not listen to classical music, preferring pop, or rap, or rock, or jazz exclusively.  Plenty of classical music lovers never listen outside the period the prefer, e.g. late romantic Mahler, Bruckner, Wagner, while others don't venture far from Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.

"Classical music" is indeed a minority interest; the numbers of people around the world who listen regularly or even at all to Mahler, Bruckner and Wagner or Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven represent a very small minority of the entire population. However, I cited the unquotation from Babbitt precisely because it is something that he has been claimed to have said but didn't.

If you draw the line at Cage, you are still drawing a line between yourself and a part of the world of music

But I don't do that; the only lines that I draw are those that I have to draw when writing music. It doesn't matter what anyone listens to or how diverse their musical listening habits might be or become, there will always be exclusions even if for no better reason than sheer lack of listening time; that's not, however, an example of listeners to any kinds of music "drawing a line" between themselves and certain music, nor indeed can it be so.

Where I don't see things from a Cageian standpoint is in the genuine or feigned indiscriminacy of the sounds to which one might listen, as though any sounds are as worthy of listener attention as any other and will accordingly be expected to mean as much as one another to each listener, which simply doesn't admit of logic or work out in practice; if it did either, there would be no room for any kinds of value judgement or personal preferences.

[ahinton]

Right.  For you it is a feigned indiscrimancy.  For Cage it was really his living the Zen attitude.

How so, when I specifically wrote "genuine or feigned indiscriminacy"?!

I admit it is a minority approach, but one that I, and others, find appealing and how I have approached listening to music for most of my life.  Judging music is voluntary; I choose try to listen without judgment.  I don't always succeed.  The music of Phillip Glass for example.  But in his case I choose to not listen.

Indeed - and just as what you call "Cage...really living (his) Zen attitude"was fine for Cage and remains so for those who might share it but not for others, so the musics to which Cage and his like might choose to listen could be anything and everything but those to which others of different persuasion might choose/prefer to listen would more clearly delineate their personal preferences; the latter, however, is not in and of itself indicative of or predicated upon a wilful drawing of lines such as you appeared to imply earlier.

Yes, "judgement" and should not be the first intention when listening to any music (unless one is a professional music critic, perhaps and, even then, it's only a necessary part of the listening experience and what it's for). Not listening to Philip Glass does not strike me as a particularly difficult choice to make...

[James]

Most of the time I don't think about all of the extra-musical ideas surrounding the work, or which produced the work.

Everything you've written about 4'33" is contradictory to this statement. You're just too indoctrinated to have real objectivity.