David Stewart:

>Well, Ian.  I hoped we were of exactly the same mind, but, although I have
>never subjected myself to the horrors of this 4'33" thing, I would still
>declare that it is music, simply because someone has put it together i.e.
>purposive human organisation (by your own definition).

But Cage hasn't organised any sound in this piece.  He may have had a
purpose in not doing so (to provoke the audience to react in certain ways
that we have discussed already), but that purpose is not achieved through
organised sound but by the absence of it in a context where it would
conventionally be expected.  So it doesn't fit my "definition" - you can't
organise something that isn't there, either purposefully or not.  There are
sounds during any performance of 4'33", but they are not structured by the
composer or by the "performer".

>As anyone reading this thread will have guessed, my definition is one
>of simplicity.  If sounds are arranged deliberately to be experienced
>for their sonic value, then they constitute music.

And in 4'33", no sounds are arranged deliberately. The audience may choose
to experience whatever sounds do happen "for their sonic value", but they
do not constitute music because they have not been "put together by
purposive human organisation".

Ian Crisp
[log in to unmask]
Reaching the stage where he's beginning to wonder if he really cares any
more . . .