John Cage’s 4′33″ Is Not Music
One of the most talked about music “compositions” of all time is John Cage’s 4′33″. People discuss its effects on modern composers and what it means for music going forward, but all of this discussion is irrelevant because 4′33″ is not music.
For those who do not know, the piece in question is performed by having a pianist walk out on stage, open the piano lid, and sit there for four minutes and thirty three seconds, occasionally turning pages of sheet music. John Cage “wrote” it in 1952 and it has been constantly dissected ever since by everyone from curious bystanders to music professors in universities.
However, let us lay this analysis to rest here: four and a half minutes of silence is not music, its silence. Yes, silence can be and is a part of music, but a part of something is not the whole, just as a single ingredient of a dish does not make the dish.
Analyzing 4′33″ as music and talking about its effects on music, or anything related to music, is ridiculous. It would best be described as performance art or some type of terrible theater, but thats really pretty meaningless. In fact, there is no meaning that can be attached to someone sitting in front of a piano, not in the context John Cage created it at least.
Now, I “get” it. Don’t worry about that. I get that its supposed to make the natural sound of the audience and the auditorium into the music, but thats not what music is. Music is not the natural sound of everyday life, its something completely different. Going to a concert to hear everyday natural sound defeats the purpose and is a complete waste of everyone’s time.
You listen to music to experience emotional power and inspiration, not to be bored by pretentious nonsense like a pianist doing nothing. John Cage made some nice music in the first half of his career, but then he stopped being a composer and started trying to be a postmodernist philosopher. I don’t even know what he was trying to be after that, but it wasn’t something of any use to anybody.
To hear music professors talk about this piece with their classes in any tone other than mockery is both hilarious and sad. Young musicians and composers are being taught to take this destruction of art seriously, and this is something that has to be taught, for any normal person’s reaction would be to dismiss it and spend their time on something worthwhile.
For all of you out there who still care about music, don’t support these modern movements that seek to make something out of nothing, stick to the real substance and ignore those who say otherwise. Ridiculous fads come and go in the art world, but in the end, after the wind changes, only the work with real weight will remain.
by Admin ~ January 25th, 2010. Musicology.
January 29th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
i disagree with you quite a lot
1. a single ingredient of a dish does make a dish. for example carrots. sometimes there is only one ingredient and that’s all you need
2. i think it makes a great amount of sense to talk about its effect on music because it had a huge effect on music. it tore down barriers and made people think about music in new and different ways, just like “fountain” by marcel duchamp tore down barriers in visual art
3. cage’s point was that everyday sounds can be observed like music and the result is something interesting and enjoyable. whether or not you call it ‘music,’ to observe life in that way is beautiful, i think, and it seems like it was part of cage’s life philosophy based in zen buddhism. to bring people to a concert hall to do it brings more attention to the idea and encourages people to actually try it
4. you suggest that the only work that “will remain” in art is the work with “substance,” but i think it’s more accurate to say that the work that pushes boundaries is what most often remains. all the most famous writers, painters, and musicians are people who “destroyed” the contemporary notions of art in order to come up with something new
January 31st, 2010 at 6:01 pm
carrots are not a dish. they are just carrots. a dish is something made from ingredients. thats an essential aspect of what you would call a dish or recipe of food.
its only effects on music were to convince people to abandon music and make useless sounds. and the fountain by Duchamp didn’t tear down barriers as much as it made a mockery of recent art trends.
everyones gets Cage’s point. the point of this article was to make sure people stop calling it music, cause it is not.
works like 4′33 will stir up interest in the short run, but over time 4′33 and Duchamp’s fountain will be forgotten foot notes of a bad period in art, while people will still be listening to Beethoven.
February 18th, 2010 at 1:05 am
Your article only demonstrates your narrow-mindedness. Have you ever listened to a chorus of birdsongs in the early morning near a wood or forest? If you have, I doubt that you would call it noise.
February 20th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
yes, I may call birdsongs music in a way, but I will not call an audience sitting still the same, or the noise in the city. Perhaps you are the one being narrow minded, implying that all natural noise is music. That kind of wholesale generalization is the mark of truly lazy thought that I would only expect from a 4′33 fan.
February 24th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
to consider all sounds in the same way that one considers music seems very broad-minded to me, not narrow-minded..
why are birdsongs ‘music’ and not city sounds? that seems like a distinction based on the old, unfounded romantic idea that ‘natural/rural = beautiful’ & ‘urban = ugly.’
and who cares whether carrots are a ‘dish’? they are great to eat. same thing with 4′33″. who cares whether it is ‘music’ or something else? it provides the audience with a valuable experience either way
i make very visually oriented poems that some people say are ‘not poetry.’ they say that, instead, they are visual art. my first answer is that i think they are poetry. my second answer is who really cares what kind of art it is? it is some kind of experience to have, probably enjoyable, maybe thought-provoking
February 25th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
You’re right. I would not REALLY consider birdsongs to be music, though they can be musical, which is different. It has nothing to do with nature versus the city.
I don’t consider 4′33 valuable in any way, as I’ve said. It does nothing but waste time.
and distinctions are important. Your visually oriented “poems” sound like they are poetical, but not poetry, as people have told you. I think these distinctions are important. We need to be accurate and precise with language in order to express and understand ideas with maximum ability.
April 8th, 2010 at 6:45 am
What is music then? Is self expression, or something more than that? Intuition, logic? A composition using chord structures and harmonies that “sound right” because music theory tells use what is pleasing to the ear and what is not? Sure we can use concrete forms in our lives, but what is music then? A science, or an art form? To dig even deeper, if it is art (which I believe it is), what is “art”? John Cage was asking us to think, to listen to something that we are hearing everyday, but we move too fast with our life to listen. That is his self expression of what his composition is. If you can’t close your eyes and understand that music is all around us, and that some people ARE emotionally moved and inspired by natural sound, then I can see your point. But this all depends on your definition of music. Which I can slightly see in the middle of the article, but I cannot clearly see it defined. People can view this as music or not. Personally, I think this all depends on your definition of music. I think we can both be right.
April 11th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00319116?query_type=word&queryword=musical&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=2&search_id=Shn7-xUokfB-6319&hilite=00319116
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00305575?query_type=word&queryword=music&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=Shn7-MvB35K-6325&hilite=00305575
you’re really saying that it’s not “musical” in the slightest?
each sound has a distinct tone, duration, rhythm, and timbre.
and if this “composition” (arbitrary as it is…but then, aren’t all artistic conventions arbitrary?) can be qualified as “musical”, than a performance of this “musical” thing makes it music.
April 14th, 2010 at 12:33 am
no, we cannot “both be right” with opposing views. thats ridiculous.
and no, a performance of something musical does not necessarily mean a performance of music. Poetry is musical, but when performing it we cannot call it music. A performance of MUSIC is a performance of music.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:09 am
R. JOE–How do you expect people to listen to your opinion when you cant even listen to other peoples opinion? Each individual views things and hears things much differently than another person. Isnt it safe to say that each individual thinks differently as well? You dont have to agree with everything that people say, but actually take some time to think about it, dont just shoot it down like an idot. Who knows, maybe someone will say something that will change how you look at things
May 10th, 2010 at 8:54 am
4′33” ~
“For thought is a bird of space, that in a cage of words may spread and preen its wings but cannot fly.” ~ Kahlil Gibran
It is a masterpiece.
May 10th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Excuse you, i AM thinking about these things, and i expect people to accept my opinion based on logic and nothing else, as i do to their opinions. no one in this discussion has shown a lot of logic, including you, thus i shoot them down.