Neapolitan

I took Frownie's post seriously at first too. And I was going to say something, but quickly learned it was Frownlandhumour. So I didn't reply.

__________________

Frownland

For the same reason that we didn't liquidate the term "painting" because of people like Pollock and Rauschenberg. It doesn't necessarily comply with convention, but that doesn't push it out of the range of an umbrella term.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

The Batlord

Pollock's art was at least still visual. It was everything that a painting was (so far as I know), sans the "normal" act of painting. 4'33, however, has no value other than as performance art.

What exactly makes 4'33 music rather than just art?

__________________

Machine

Is silence not a huge component of composition?

__________________
boost my ego

listen to me stroke my delay pedal

ever wanted to hear death grips songs... but they're acoustic? me neither.

grtwhtgrvty

I already explained this but I guess we're just arguing for the sake of it : /

Machine

I know you did, but it's happening either way so I thought I'd put my two sence in. Nothing on you man.

Also I guess if this is actually happening yeah we might as well go back to the thread of redundant arguments.

__________________
boost my ego

listen to me stroke my delay pedal

ever wanted to hear death grips songs... but they're acoustic? me neither.

The Batlord

And? The composition may as well not exist. If the players were staring at actual blank pieces of paper, the result would be the same, making the composition of 4'33 a completely pointless exercise, except as an intellectual statement.

How is that music as opposed to simply art about music?

Your arguments were just as circular, just more pretentious: "It's music because it's called music", and "It's music because it was composed".

__________________

Trollheart

Sure you did.
Ah crap! Now umbrellas are art???

Frown, it's the Family Sleeping Peacefully argument. You find art and music in such weird places that it's virtually impossible to know when you're not being serious. I mean, if anyone --- anyone --- else had said that about the painting I would have assumed it was a joke. You, not so much. If someone else said "I broke all the strings off my guitar and then played a solo. It was so avant-garde!" I would laugh with them. If you said it, I'd assume you were being serious. As I said, your pretentious nature precludes anything you say being too ludicrous to be actually serious, so I never know when you're joking.

Had I assumed the painting was a joke, and it turned out not to be, you'd be all up in my face about "how do I know what's art?" and so on. So I assumed you were in earnest. Absolutely no way to know, as several people here have already pointed out.

I don't really care: just stop telling me I can't detect humour or sarcasm when, when applied to you, this can be literally impossible at times.

Edit: also, does nobody else think that if someone were to come across this 4:33 on a video or DVD and played it, not being aware of its existence, that they might start fiddling with the volume on their telly thinking it was broken?

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Machine

Even if that was true (which it isn't as there is completely a point for the composition, but I digress) how would that discredit it as music. You just agreed with me that silence is part of musical composition.

__________________
boost my ego

listen to me stroke my delay pedal

ever wanted to hear death grips songs... but they're acoustic? me neither.

grtwhtgrvty

Oh I wasn't criticizing you I was criticizing him.

In other news I'm trying to make dance music entirely out of white noise from a TV right now