pc issue of the day pt. 4:33 isn't music
 

it's performance art

i say music should be recognizable/enjoyable in audio format only

which 4:33 isn't

if you found a tape with a recording of that on it with no context given, you wouldn't know whether it was a song or just some audio footage from a surveillance system

where as if you found a tape with some avant garde bs on it... even some frownland tier avant garde tomfoolery... you would probably be able to recognize it as an attempt at music just from the audio alone

at the end of the day art is meant to convey some sort of emotional message... and we break it down into categories based mostly on the way in which that message is presented

the only way we contextualize 4:33 is by the fact that we sit there watching the orchestra not play music

that's the only way the message gets transmitted that what is happening even qualifies as art

thus no visual = no 4:33

thus 4:33 is performance art not music

frownland lied to all of you

now where's my trophy?

#trump2016

I think the real issue here is capitalization.

Not this again. Yeah its music.

It probably is music. It's just not music worth wasting your time with.

Agreed.

Ja, this is a very old and tired argument. So how about we talk about some of John Cage's other works? Did you guys know that Cage was also a painter? This is his most infamous and controversial painting, titled 12"x18". Personally, I find it genius because most paintings force their audiences to focus on the painting itself, while beauty does not only exist in the frames of a canvas. By removing the focus from the artist's ego and accentuating the wall behind the painting and the negative space in between the viewer and the piece, Cage successfully pointed out that there is more to art than what we conventionally recognize. My favourite part about the painting is that it is different in every location; no two viewings will be the same. Some will be amazing, some will be boring. Brilliant piece of art imo, and if you don't want to call it art, you're plain wrong.

http://i.imgur.com/txYCKMa.jpg

^all I see is a blank canvas? Is that the painting?

it's a polar bear in a snow storm

Well whatever it is, its not art. I don't see how that can be considered art.

Art is whatever the artist says it is. That is inarguable imo. Whether or not it's good is another situation entirely.

So I can put a simple frame on my wall and call it art? Not a chance.

Yes. Whether or not you look stupid in the process doesn't affect the status as art.

More to the point, did you know he did a brief stint with NWOBHM-turned-AOR rockers The Tygers of Pan Tang? They were so impressed that they named their fourth album in his honour...
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/prese...?cb=1418214634

Why not?

Why would it?

Because its stupid.

This is the kind of pretentious nonsense that annoys me about art. Art is what the artist says it is? So if I take a dump on a canvas and then say it represents the urban alienation of inner city tenement dwellers, that's art, is it? Jesus preserve me. :rolleyes: Be honest Frown: you only think this is art cos Cage did it. Anyone else and you'd be the same as most of us, thinking it was a blank canvas.

Also, as for 4:33, I always wondered (well, since I found out this "masterpiece" existed, about a few months ago) what happens if someone coughs, farts or talks during the performance? Does that then change it? How can silence be art? Bloody hipsters. :rolleyes:

And again:
:rolleyes:

I don't think there are too many people who consider it a masterpiece.

http://media.giphy.com/media/a54WLlAZzJGfe/giphy.gif

Though if somebody had come out with that piece I wouldn't refuse to call it art. That's far more pretentious than any piece you might find yourself scoffing at.

Well that's kinda that point, the sounds around the performers create the music.

I wouldn't, but it's certainly music.

So now you're telling me that painting is a joke? As Batty in his guise of Droltab the Repugnant said in YorkeDaddy's journal, do you even listen to yourself sometimes? :rolleyes:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...PqnjeJ53d8PwrQ

When an effective satire detection extension meets a web browser near you, I highly recommend looking into that.

Just put a link to the other thread here, where it's been discussed to death.
Every possible argument and counteragument was used there.
JWB is basically a troll by now, so of course he made a thread about that.
But why are you other members still seriously arguing about that? Aren't you tired of that topic?

I had my post in my back pocket for a while, waiting for the opportunity to rise.

Thanks JWB.

#trump2016

That's cool then I guess.

Please don't.

I think it's better than jacking off a dead horse in a separate thread. At least those who weren't in on the discussion can see all of their points either supported by me or crushed by my superior knowledge without having the embarrassment of putting them out there first.

I mean I guess, but I have a disdain for that thread after the countless pages of circular arguments that happened after all normal disscussion left the table. It might be my most popular thread but I disown it.

Frownland, as Ki says you're the biggest hipster going, so god knows what you would consider art, or music. There is nothing in your post to indicate that is a joke. Anyone else, yes. You, no. I would quite easily believe a man who can listen to four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence and call it music could look at a blank canvas, a mirror or a broken tile and call it art. Your reputation both precedes you and undoes you.

Oh, and once again, I wasn't the only one who took it seriously so your joke fell totally flat. Price of being pretentious.

Frownland sonned.

:rolleyes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deprecation

Learn to humour.

It was still an awesome thread with some great discussions.
Not your fault it got hijacked by chulas.
(Which sounds like a cool name for an album for some reason)

Album cover idea: photograph of several Jimmy Page clones wielding box-cutters.

It was actually really fun for long time and then we had the naysayers come in and ruin the fun. Oh well.

Awesome. Do it!

To argue this on a meta level:
I'd postulate two basic approaches to art, taken from the two basic approaches in linguistics, precriptive and descriptive.
If you approach art in the prescriptive way, you have a basic set of rules by which you measure and analyze art. By the adherence of the work to those rules you judge how good it is and whether it's art at all.
If you approach it in the descriptive way, you try to analyze it in itself and in accordance to why the artist made it and in what way it might resonate with the audience and with oneself especially. The question whether it is art or isn't, isn't even really posed.
In accordance with being a descriptivist I won't say that any of those two ways is right or wrong, but I think the descriptivist has the potential for having more fun with art.

This has nothing to do with me learning how to appreciate humour (it's not a verb, by the way, except in the sense of "to humour someone"): this has to do with people not knowing when you're serious because you expostulate and espouse such out-there ideas in your music and your philosophy. When Batty makes a joke, I get it. When Ki makes one, I (usually) get it. When Plankton makes a joke I get it. When you make a joke, I have no idea whether or not you're serious. If I had never heard of 4:33 I would have been prepared to have taken that as being one of your jokes.

The fact that I would post something like that is part of the joke in itself. It's a drier form of humour.

As I've said many times before, if you have to ask yourself if I'm joking, I probably am. Taking me seriously is a rookie mistake.

Expected to wander into this thread to see a hilarious ****storm

Was not disappointed