We often mistakenly define and think of music as something that we'd pop into our CD player to listen to. Would I listen to Cartridge Music while I work? Probably not, but that doesn't mean Cage's stuff isn't music or musical. Just because it's not pleasant to listen to (of course this is objective) doesn't mean it isn't music.
If it has the ability to move you or creates some thought in your mind, or creates any sort of reaction--how effective it is--that's what music is about and what defines the quality of it.
the theory is everything phallus see?
-
- "The" Jazz
- 4614 posts since 18 Aug, 2004 from California, United States
Greg Schlaepfer
Orange Tree Samples
Ultra-realistic sample libraries for Kontakt
Orange Tree Samples
Ultra-realistic sample libraries for Kontakt
-
- KVRAF
- 1975 posts since 4 Feb, 2005
That's a valid perspective (and really, a school of thought) but I'm inclined to disagree.
To me, music is about the aesthetic effect that it has on the listener. If something about the music other than the MUSIC is the judge of it's worth I would criticise that.
Imagine appreciating a painting for the style of paints or brushes used... what matters (and it's not easy to describe) is not so much what brushes or paints were used, but rather the effect that that choice has on the painting.
What is relevant is not WHAT John Cage did, in and of itself. What is relevant is the music that what he did created. And that music was, in my critical opinion, boring as all hell.
So we might sit and ponder at his creative methods but the method doesn't matter, only the product that said method creates.
To me, music is about the aesthetic effect that it has on the listener. If something about the music other than the MUSIC is the judge of it's worth I would criticise that.
Imagine appreciating a painting for the style of paints or brushes used... what matters (and it's not easy to describe) is not so much what brushes or paints were used, but rather the effect that that choice has on the painting.
What is relevant is not WHAT John Cage did, in and of itself. What is relevant is the music that what he did created. And that music was, in my critical opinion, boring as all hell.
So we might sit and ponder at his creative methods but the method doesn't matter, only the product that said method creates.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111238 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
Toxikator wrote: the method doesn't matter
if that was true then we wouldnt have "music theory".
your argument folds in on itself around that point.
-
- KVRAF
- 1975 posts since 4 Feb, 2005
How do you figure?
Music theory is a means to an end.
what matters is the end, not the means. I don't care whether you make your song employing a knowledge of theory or not, it doesn't change the quality of the song itself.
Music theory is a means to an end.
what matters is the end, not the means. I don't care whether you make your song employing a knowledge of theory or not, it doesn't change the quality of the song itself.
-
- "The" Jazz
- 4614 posts since 18 Aug, 2004 from California, United States
Errr... how is that different than what I said?Toxikator wrote:That's a valid perspective (and really, a school of thought) but I'm inclined to disagree.
To me, music is about the aesthetic effect that it has on the listener. If something about the music other than the MUSIC is the judge of it's worth I would criticise that.
-
- KVRAF
- 1975 posts since 4 Feb, 2005
Well, what I THOUGHT you were saying was that Cage's music, though aesthetically unpleasant, could still be judged positively because it illicited a reaction from the listener (mostly cognitive, almost assuredly about process and statement).
My point was that your analysis of Cage's music should get to "aesthetically unpleasant" and then stop.
Music isn't about process or philosophy, music is about music.
John Cage had a monumental impact on the creative community due to his philosophy on music. But he still wrote shitty music. That was my point
My point was that your analysis of Cage's music should get to "aesthetically unpleasant" and then stop.
Music isn't about process or philosophy, music is about music.
John Cage had a monumental impact on the creative community due to his philosophy on music. But he still wrote shitty music. That was my point
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111238 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
er...
many people find cages MUSIC listenable and even enjoy it
how many cds have you sold? how many people have played your compositions around the world?
in fact what have you done ever?
many people find cages MUSIC listenable and even enjoy it
how many cds have you sold? how many people have played your compositions around the world?
in fact what have you done ever?
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111238 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
oh sorry, forgot to add the .
.-
- KVRAF
- 1975 posts since 4 Feb, 2005
lol.
Tell me ANYONE owns a copy of 4'33''. TBH I'm not familiar with any of Cage's more "conventional" work, but then again the subject in question was his experimental stuff.
the point was well-made that a bus is equally valid as a component of composition as a major triad, and realistically given the kind of music I write/listen to I'd say that's very true.
That said, from Cage I'd expect a song to be two farts and the sound of a bus going by the station, not a complex rhythm involving chopped-up bus sounds.
Tell me ANYONE owns a copy of 4'33''. TBH I'm not familiar with any of Cage's more "conventional" work, but then again the subject in question was his experimental stuff.
the point was well-made that a bus is equally valid as a component of composition as a major triad, and realistically given the kind of music I write/listen to I'd say that's very true.
That said, from Cage I'd expect a song to be two farts and the sound of a bus going by the station, not a complex rhythm involving chopped-up bus sounds.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111238 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
Toxikator wrote:lol.
Tell me ANYONE owns a copy of 4'33''. TBH I'm not familiar with any of Cage's more "conventional" work, but then again the subject in question was his experimental stuff.
so...
you know "one" of his pieces and put yourself forward as a critic of cage. do some research next time eh.
-
- KVRAF
- 1975 posts since 4 Feb, 2005
Well, I've heard a couple of his prepared piano pieces (I can't name them so it seems sort of out-of-place to bring them up) and they were just about as stupid, his percussion stuff did little for me, etc.
-
- KVRAF
- 5703 posts since 8 Dec, 2004 from The Twin Cities
Well with that amount of research under your belt, you could write an article in Rolling Stone....perhaps even Spin.Toxikator wrote:Well, I've heard a couple of his prepared piano pieces (I can't name them so it seems sort of out-of-place to bring them up) and they were just about as stupid, his percussion stuff did little for me, etc.
-
- KVRAF
- 1975 posts since 4 Feb, 2005
Yes, but do you LISTEN to it ever? Does anyone rock out to 4'33''?
actually, rachMiel contested the idea of 4'33'' and I agree with him; there IS silence, in the context of the song. If the song is silent (and 4'33'' was entirely "tacit") then external noise can't be counted as part of it... it is separate and distinct from the song.
actually, rachMiel contested the idea of 4'33'' and I agree with him; there IS silence, in the context of the song. If the song is silent (and 4'33'' was entirely "tacit") then external noise can't be counted as part of it... it is separate and distinct from the song.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111238 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
i had a listen to a few of the demos on your page, one of them (exposed) asks me to login.Toxikator wrote: some stuff...