I am struck by how obnoxious proponents of contemporary music can be
when dealing with the "infidels" who don't sufficiently (and, usually,
seriously) appreciate or "understand" the music.  That tone helps
perpetuate several negative stereotypes of contemporary music, and
arguments tend to degenerate into hair-splitting worthy of the most
fervent religious zealots.

[log in to unmask] wrote:

>>and how many times does one hear 4'33"? honestly.  I have yet to hear
>>the whole peice performed.  I heard a bit in my Music Appreciation class.
>>anyhow.  I feel the the whole idea is to be natural.

David Runyion sarcastically responded:

>First of all, this is silly!  How could you have heard a bit in Music
>Appreciation??? Was it a recording of the work? Ha ha that would be a good
>way to fill up a disc, just turn on the machine for 4'33"...but seriously,
>did someone do the abridged version of 4'33"?? 2'16.5"?  ...

I am puzzled at David's comments in response to "[log in to unmask]".  Cage's
piece (4'33') has been recorded, so it is both possible for it to be played
in class and possible for "a bit" of a particular recording to be played.

David's discussion of an "abridged version" of the piece is also puzzling.
There is a lot of confusion about 4'33", and it might be helpful to clear
it up.  First, 4'33" is not Cage's original name for the piece.  The name
was intended to vary with the performance, and the name was supposed to
be the duration for that particular performance.  For example, if an oboe
player "performed" the work with the intention that it would last 2'10",
then that would be the title, according to Cage's instructions.  The piece
is written for any instrument and any combination of isntruments.  The
piece is in three movements, with the only instruction in the score for
each movement being "tacet" (silent).  You typically encounter a "tacet"
instruction in instrumental parts where a particular instrumentalist is
supposed to play nothing for the entire duration of a movement.  Thus,
Cage's instrument to the performer or performers is that there are three
movements during which they are supposed to play absolutely nothing; and it
is entirely up to the peformer(s) as to how long they will play nothing.

The reason why the piece is commonly referred to as 4'33" (I have also seen
it referred to as "tacet") is that was the duration for the total timing of
the three movements when David Tudor (pianist) gave the first performance
(I believe) in 1952.  Tudor demarcated the three movements by opening and
closing the keyboard lid (to begin and end each movement), and, if memory
serves me correctly, he used a stop watch to time each movement.

In light of the instruction Cage gives, David is incorrect in even
contemplating an "abridged" version of the piece.  You can't abridge
something that has no pre-determined length.  Of course, you could, as a
music teacher, play a portion of a recording, in which case the class would
hear silence (or something approaching it) for a certain period of time.

Wes Crone wrote:

>>Well, not to sound sarcastic but, I have hear 4'33" every 4 minutes and 33
>>seconds that I'm walking to class or walking out to my car in the parking
>>lot or what have you.  I even can hear 4'33" while I'm heading to the lobby
>>for some Reese's.  ...

and David Runyion again sarcastically responded:

>Well, you do sound sarcastic, Wes, don't try to deny everything you say
>before you say it.  Good progress on the ellipses, BTW.  The problem here
>is you miss the entire point of the work, which is ok, but you shouldn't be
>sarcastic about abstract ideas you don't understand because it makes you
>look silly.  The point is, you *don't* hear 4'33" on your way to the snack
>bar, you hear the chaos of the noise of the day, unorganized, and you don't
>really listen to it, in fact we reject it, who wants to listen to cars and
>televisions and people farting in the lobby of the theater, but when it is
>the silence of the concert hall, when it is organized as a concert piece
>of music, when John Cage tells you to *listen* to the sound of "silence"
>then you really hear the "music" that naturally occurs in silence.  The
>important distinction to me is the fact that it is in the concert hall
>during a presentation of music that we hear this piece.   ...

David professes to know the "whole point" of the piece.  I *think*, from
reading what Cage has said about it (and I don't think Cage is very clear),
that the "point" is that there is never total silence and there is what
Cage liberally defines as "music" everywhere, including in non-structured
(i.e., non-composed) sounds that we encounter in every day life (and
probably that there is "music" in the "rests" of conventional music).  The
fact that we don't ordinarily listen to that "music" is not, in my mind,
the point of the piece, as David suggests; instead, it is the justification
for performing 4'33" in the concert hall as opposed to telling people to go
forth and listen to the music all around us (but the latter would sound too
touchy-feely, and it would avoid the condescending attitude permeating much
of avant-garde music that the audience is ignorant and needs to be
"taught," "educated," and even (especially?) "shocked").

4'33" is more an act of music philosophy than a composition (at least in a
conventional sense).  I don't care about definitional issues such as "what
is music," and I will assume for the sake of argument that this is "music."
My point is that Cage cared more and more about what I will call "concept
pieces" where the importance was more in the extra-musical message that was
being communicated in the composition itself.  In that sense, I agree with
Wes.  Once you understand Cage's "point" (and you don't necessarily need
Cage to get the point) then you can hear what Cage defines as "music"
everywhere.  Cage's point certainly didn't have to be communicated through
a formal composition--it could have been just as easily communicated
non-musically through a philosophical discussion (with much greater
clarity); although an argument can be made that the formal composition
makes the point more dramatically and memorably.  David's statement, that
when "Cage tells you to *listen* to the sound of "silence" then you really
hear the "music" that naturally occurs in silence" is gibberish.  What you
hear in ambient concert-hall noise during rests sure the hell is not even
remotely an illustration of the "music that naturally occurs in silence."
In that setting, you can't hear the sounds of your nervous system (as Cage
heard in an otherwise silent anechoic chamber), and you can't hear sounds
that occur "naturally" in a more conventional sense.

At best from a performance of 4'33", Cage makes the points that you
should reconsider your preconception about the nature of "silence," and
that people should listen to the "music" in completely non-musical (from
a conventional sense) settings.  I suspect Cage would have considered it a
success if, after a performance of 4'33", people would have started, during
but especially after the performance, to listen to the "music" that is all
around them, and if they would have substantially broadened their concept
of "music." On those levels, Cage didn't make a point that hadn't been made
decades earlier by Duchamp, with his "ready-mades."

Drew M. Capuder
Fairmont, West Virginia USA
[log in to unmask]