Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Members Recordings - Pianist Corner Cage: 4'33

It's funny you say that specifically. At one point I really disliked Cage (all I knew about him was this piece), for the same reason I disliked artists who put up a white canvas and call it art: Not that "it's not clever", but that it's *too* clever. There's no real work behind it: instead of an honest creation forged from honest materials, we get an abstract, clever idea. Not impressed: anyone can do that.

(Anyway, that's how I used to think. Since hearing more of Cage's works, I have revised my opinion.)

-Jason

Actually, I was clarifying your definition of blank audio. It has nothing to do with my file.

Yes.

Including, look at what kind of discussion it leads to, such as right here.

And it's not true that it doesn't take skill (or whatever we should call it) to 'perform' 4'33. It takes some understanding (however little, maybe) and I think there are a lot of people who might go on stage and wouldn't be able to 'bring it off,' in any of the ways that it might be 'brought off.'
But then again, those are probably people who wouldn't care to.

And IMO it is "clever" -- or some such. But I can easily see why some people would think it isn't.

If it had nothing to do with your file, we wouldn't be talking about it, because the only reference to blank audio was to the blank audio in your file. If you know a better term for it, let us know. I'm not an audio engineer and I would imagine there probably is a standard term for "empty" time in a digital audio file, but I don't know what it is.

Obviously it was brought up in the context of my file, but it would be circular logic to have a definition of blank audio based on my file.

Nonetheless, here is what I would like to know: let us assume, for the sake of argument (I'm not saying it was, but I'm also not saying it wasn't) that the particular recording of 4'33" which I have uploaded was recorded in an absolutely silent room with one observer watching from behind a glass door, making absolutely no sound herself. In summary, there is no sound. At all.

Does it count as a legitimate performance?

As far as I know, it isn't possible to make a recording such as you describe, with no sound at all, so the question doesn't make real life sense to me.

But speaking in the abstract, if there was a pianist or other instrumentalist actually performing it, I can't see why it would not be a legitimate performance, regardless of recorded results. A recording wouldn't really have any bearing on whether the performance is legitimate; a performance doesn't require recording for validation.

It wasn't supposed to. That's why I wrote "for the sake of argument."


Interesting; here: you seem to be discrediting any possibility (or legitimacy) of even our hypothetical performance, solely from the recording.

But, as you nonetheless admitted, a performance of 4'33" having one observer and producing no sound whatsoever is legitimate - just as legitimate, in fact, as an analogous performance of a piece that produced sound. Why, then, should this recording of silence be any different? In fact, let's say that you moved your ear (which you might have placed against the speaker while listening to my recorded performance, however hypothetical it may be) to the glass door from which the observer was listening: the end result would be exactly the same. Except, of course, your mind would be set at rest seeing a real live performer sitting at the bench doing absolutely nothing, rather than trying to figure out whether or not some clown on the piano forums actually recorded 4'33".

"Much ado about nothing".....

Post of the year!

I'd rather listen to 4'33" than a lot of other pieces or music that take up the same amount of time or more.

Um, your edit didn't quite achieve the desired result - "the end result would be except the same".

Since the hypothetical performance didn't occur, I am having trouble understanding the point of trying to draw yet more attenuated hypothetical ideas from it. But, just going along as a thought experiment - I don't think the end result would be the same. If I am separated from the performer by a barrier, that alters the situation for me as a listener to such a degree that I wouldn't say that I was in fact listening to a performance of the piece.

What an awesome thread.

Yeah... Arguing over nothing.

(Hehe, what a pun!)

And all the people were afraid to tell the emperor that he was naked.

I have no doubt Hat is LHAO.

.....and that's the 2nd greatest post of the year

As a professional in the field of philosophy I actually find it in bad taste that some seem to think this topic is 'nothing' or in some way uninteresting.

This is the kind of question philosophers of art write about.

I doubt any of you appreciate hearing that your chosen field is a waste of time.

For those who are interested in studying this kind of question more formally, a good discussion of the question of what constitutes an object of art is contained in Richard Wollheim's book: Art and Its Objects.

That's not the same question as what a performance is, but one could imagine similar considerations, and a similar analytic method to what he uses there.

I agree completely with your post, except that I wouldn't put it as strongly. I don't think their view is in bad taste.....just narrow-minded.

Although actually I'm not sure which they would feel is worse.

Purely out of curiosity, may i ask what your profession in the field of philosophy is?

Bad taste? A little disrespectful perhaps....but not bad taste.