4' 33" (1952). John Cage /turns the public away from serious music/

While I also had little interest in Cage Against the Machine, it is still fascinating to encounter people who don't find 4' 33" as profound as I do:

The idea that Cage has done something audaciously novel is surely mythological. Indeed 4’ 33” is devoid of intellectual as well as artistic value. It is not hard to imagine an indolent music student who, having realised with horror the imminence of his composition deadline, conceives some silent concoction reinforced by a flimsy commentary explaining why his submission really does constitute music. But pure silence is not music; anyone possessed with minimal intuition is aware of this, and no amount of semantic sophism can make it otherwise. Yet 4’ 33” is also anti-musical in the more profound and damaging sense that it turns the public away from serious music into the alluring embrace of X Factor hooks which, for all their faults, are capable of providing some transient entertainment. 

This may depend on the definition of "serious music." Cage, through his writings *and* through his music, has turned me towards the artistic as well as the conceptual, more than most any other composer.

Comments

[Kevin]

From a bit that you did not quote: "By all means rage against the machine; but please, don’t use such blunt weapons as Cage’s hollow, lifeless hymn to academic self-indulgence."

Maybe we should rage against the machine whilst using the machine?

Thanks for the post. It's a shame that these sentiments need to be reiterated periodically. I'm very much appreciative.

[Matthew]

Thanks for posting the link and for treating my remarks respectfully. It is good that you find them fascinating even though they are contrary to your own views. I notice that you refer to Cage's writings. I must confess to not having read these; they might well be very interesting but I can offer no comment on them. By considering them together with his music though you draw a telling comparison. It seems to me that 4' 33" should be seen as an extension of the writings. It is a concept, an academic exercise, an illustration of a point of view. It is surely not intended to be music in its own right; and yet, by having it performed in concert halls and recorded so that it can appear in the charts, that is exactly how it is treated, and so it should expect to be judged as such. And as a piece of music it has no value at all and is incapable of producing any kind of pleasure for the listener, because it consists of nothing. Nonetheless I appreciate your quotation.