Talk:4′33″/Archive 1

Are you Serious?
Are you guys fucking kidding? You have actually written an article about a piece of so-called music that is in fact nothing more than 4 1/2 minutes of silence? It seems clear that people have become a little too tolerant. Accepting everything merely for the fact that 'it is' is not a valid approach to existence. By virtue of this not being a real piece of music and not meritting any praise in any aspect whatsoever this article should be removed from wikipedia. The only redeeming factor for this article is the Uncyclopedia article on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.116.226 (talk • contribs)


 * Must have been one hell of a job, translating it from the piano to various other instruments. Surely we could have a couple more paragraphs on that?  Gene Nygaard 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for disagreeing, but 4' 33" is an extremely crucial part of John Cage's philosophy. Since Cage is indisputably one of the most important and creative composers of the last century, his music must be respected. This piece is not a joke, and was considered by Cage to be the supreme embodiment of all that he was a composer. --Wolf m corcoran 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In the real world, Cage is not that big a frog in a really small puddle. Fenneck (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Wolf m corcoran, just because you don't see the importance in it, it's still important to the people that regard it as an important work of art, as this is a large group of people and you're a puny little individual you should take this opportunity to realize you don't hold the universal truth about anything, also, if it's obvious it has received praise, how can you say it doesn't merit any, being so important in the world of art and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Mushi (talk • contribs) 05:25, 26 October, 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose all individuals are more or less puny, and so far I haven't met anyone who holds the universal truth, not even here on Wikipedia. I did not say Cage's music is without merit, or that you have no right to enjoy and admire it. What I did say is that in the world as a whole, the group of people who view Cage's music as "important" is far from large; that of all the people who love music, and of all the working musicians who create the music those people love, only a very small percentage know or care anything about Cage; and that even within the small corner of the musical world where Cage resides, it is not at all indisputable that he is "one of the most important . . . composers of the last century", even though there are people who believe he is, Fenneck (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll make my view of this clear. No one actually considers it a work of art - some just like to joke about it being so. At the very least, there should be a Criticism section that includes denounciations of the piece for what it is.BigglesTh9 (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sample
I think this page needs an .ogg sample!  Grue  17:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * stick it in then geezer! I look forward to your interpretation, mind you don't get sued... quercus robur 18:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changed date of visit to anechoic chamber
Page 13 of Cage's book Silence (viewable on google scholar books) states the date as 1951 not the late 1940's, so I have changed this accordingly.


 * I'd like a cite on the suspicion that the engineer's comments are false. I've been in an anechoic chamber (at IRCAM) and everyone in with me certainly heard the two different pitched sounds Cage describes.  I've never heard this statement doubted before.  --Myke Cuthbert 16:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's his explanation of the sources of the sounds, not the sounds themselves, that are in doubt. You have to admit that the idea of hearing your own nervous system sounds slightly ludicrous. Nyvhek 07:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tarot cards
An anon editor added the info that Cage chose the length of this piece by using tarot cards. Is this really correct? I had thought he used the I Ching (which he certainly used for chance operations elsewhere), but I don't seem to have anything to hand which states this explicitly. Can the editor (or anybody) give a source which states he used tarot cards? --Camembert 12:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was suspicious of this as well.


 * Atlant 12:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, he didn't use tarot cards per se, he used a deck of unmarked cards I believe but I can't remember where I read this! There is however an apparently very thorough essay available online which i have read and used in an essay of my own on the subject, it seems fairly credible but as it is with web publications the site looks more colourful than Saturday morning tv! The essay mentions tarot cards and provides the formations the cards were arranged in, i think the I Ching was also used, but it's been a while since i've read the essay. I hope this helps! http://wc.pima.edu/~lsolomon/4min33se.htm

John Stokes 20:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I heard recently (on BBC Radio 4) that the reason he made it 4 mins and 33 secs, i.e. 273 seconds, was something to do with absolute zero, −273.14 °C. Sounds a bit improbable to me. Can anyone confirm or deny?
 * Incidentally the wc.pima.edu link about seems to have rotted.
 * Flapdragon 16:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Not true, but even if it were so, the units we use to measure temperature and the units we use to measure time are essentially arbitrary so converting one to the other would have only the shallowest kind of non-musical significance. Fenneck (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cultural References
Wasn't there a John Lennon song called "Utopian National Anthem" that consisted of a specified length of time of the record's silent lead-out? --Kalthare 02:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Rauschenberg reference
Why did we remove the reference to Rauschenberg? Is it not true? It sounded pretty convincing but I don't know if there's any evidence for or against it. Chuck 22:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer so I can't say why any piece was removed but I do have credible evidence from a citable source that Rauschenberg's white paintings were a prompt for Cage to finally produce his silent piece; 'Actually what pushed me into it was not guts but the example of Robert Rauschenberg. His white paintings... when I saw those, I said 'Oh yes, I must; otherwise I'm lagging, otherwise music is lagging' this is from "Erik Satie: A Conversation," in Contact no. 25 (autumn 1982): page 22 by John Cage, Roger Shattuck and Alan Gillmor. (I found the quote in Noise, Water Meat by Douglas Kahn; an invaluable Sound Art resource).

John Stokes 11:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It was removed by an anonymous editor without explanation. I reverted the removal. Someone may want to work the quote above into the article. Algae 11:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Covenant made a version of this
The last track on the Covenant album "United States of Mind" is called "You can make your own music"... it's 4 min and 33 seconds of silence... I guess that's some kind of cover on this one ;)

Instrumentation
I thougt it was composed for any instrument or combination of instruments, wasn't it? This is my information from the picture of the original score: Original score pictures

Silent bits on records
Seems that every album with a silent bit on it, whether its a whole track or some other kind of interval, is being added to the 'cultural refernces' section. In some cases this is valid, eg, Crass who actualy acknowledged that 4.33 was an influence on their song "Bomb", or Mike batt, who co-credited Cage and got sued by Cage's estate for his troubles. However many of the other inclusions seem tenuous to say the least... This article is after all about the piece 4.33, not records with silent bits on them where maybe these belong? Maybe this article needs to be pruned accordingly? quercus robur 19:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The same thought had occurred to me. We need a savage pruning, with citations for those which remain. Markyour words 19:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, some of them shouldn't be there at all. The Korn one, for example, is a one minute silence in remembrance of someone who died, I think (I know there's more info on the relevent wiki page, but I can't be bothered looking right now.)Satan&#39;s Rubber Duck 03:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Silence, in other forms
I added a "See also" reference to 18½ minute gap. I understand that this article became a repository for random acts of silence, but at least the reference is to a whole article, as opposed to a fleeting reference. Under the same criteria, intentionally blank page has a see-also link to this article; shouldn't there be a reciprocal link? &mdash;Twigboy 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've pruned all the random silences now. HenryFlower 09:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I was making a case that the "see also" reference wasn't prune-worthy, seeing as there was another article. Thoughts? &mdash;Twigboy 18:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to start a List of silences then you're welcome to, but don't do it here. There's no other connection between the two. HenryFlower 18:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not connected, but related. Two "works" of silence that actually have ambient sound and are known by their length. But, I see your edit history tends not to favor "trivial" connections on other articles. If it had not been linked on intentionally blank page (blank-but-not-blank vs. silent-but-not silent = related), I never would have found this article. IMO, I think that's too strict a criteria to follow &mdash;Twigboy 21:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuit
What an absolute farce. What is the world coming to? I like the quote from Batt: "Mine is a much better silent piece. I have been able to say in one minute what Cage could only say in four minutes and 33 seconds." I myself should go one better, be really radical and make a 12-second piece. That'll show the world, hahaha!  R o  gerthat  Talk  11:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, absolutely. I can't believe this lawsuit would actually stand in any courts, honestly.  How can you copyright what is literally nothing?  Cage was full of himself, IMO, sorry if any readers are fans of his, but as a musician I have no respect for 4'33".  It's not a composition, it's just nothing.  It's like religion classes in high school, you write a load of bullshit that sounds as though it has some sort of relation to the topic at hand and you get a good mark.  In this case, Cage wrote what can hardly be called a composition as it does not contain any notes, and gave a nice sounding description of it to make it sound as though it had some "artistic" value. Sandwiches99 06:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

editions
Is the introdutory paragraph the best place to mention the two publications- Hinrishs/Peters (in the illustration) and the through -notated version in Score?

Search Error
On the first page of the index 0 (zero) search it still marks this page as:

0'00"

I'm not sure if this is an alternative name that has not been edited, but it doesn't look as though it is supposed to be there, seeing as the article is currently entitled:

4'33"

Just thought I'd point that out ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiikid (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Emperor's New Cloths?
Emperor's New Clothes anyone? This article ought to be rewritten to present the piece in question as what it is - either an elaborate practical joke on the part of Cage, or else a satire. Surely there can be nothing serious about a piece of music that consists of four minutes of timed silence. It is a highly amusing joke, but a joke nonetheless. "Music is the space between the notes," said Debussy. This is true, but 4'33" is another thing altogether; there must at least be notes for there to be a space between them.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.101.129.108 (talk • contribs).


 * As always, you are welcome to add such material provided it is verifiable and not original research. Grover cleveland 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you realise what this means?
Don't you realise what this means? Every person anywhere on the entire Earth is required to make some noise at least every 4 minutes 33 seconds! Otherwise they will produce an unlicensed, and therefore illegal, pirate reproduction of this music! J I P | Talk 20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not just any sound. We must play a note on the piano ... don't tell anyone, but I've been playing 4'33" almost continuously for such a long time now, I've forgotten when I began. The reason is, that it's the easiest piece for me to play, seeing as I don't own a piano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.99.140 (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this's true only for public performances. In privacy, everyone can be as quiet as one wants to.Punainen Nörtti


 * True, and to further refute this, it would mean that being silent for exactly 4 minutes 33 seconds could be a copyright infringement, but being silent for less or more would be a derived work. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't copyright a blank page and likewise you can't copyright dead-air. However, a video of a paticular group or person sitting there doing nothing would be copyrightable since it's more then just the lack of noise. (think about it... wouldn't these people be in violation of the copyrights of blank tape makers?:) ) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell the lawyers, but some time ago I produced an unauthorized piano roll of 4'33"- at the time my player piano was inoperative but it has recently been restored. The piece plays well, even though my piano is a half tone flat (Cage might have enjoyed that)Saxophobia (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why I fart every 4 mins and 32 seconds. Avoids any potential nastiness in the court room. Seriously... I've worked with and have worked under composers like this chap, and have experienced, whilst on the stage myself, people who follow this sort of self styled "creativity". ' absolute egotistical, controversial just for the sake of it, nutters the lot of them. And after a performance of this type of crap, I don’t hang around. It's a scary bunch of individuals, with scary ideas. Thankfully though, they are prepared to pay handsomely for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.20.129 (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder why I fart every 4 mins and 32 seconds. 24.36.191.143 (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I recall a discussion from my college days as to whether 4'33", viewed as musical theater, could be seen as some kind of non plus ultra of non-music, or whether it was possible to take non-performance any farther. One suggestion was to place the title 0'0" in the concert program but just go on to the next piece without doing anything at all. A second idea was NOT to place the title 0'0" in the concert program and not do anything at all. A third suggestion was to put 0'0" on the poster but not have the CONCERT at all. The last idea was not to put up a poster and not have a concert, but the professor brushed that idea aside because it had been done to death. Fenneck (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Jazz version?
Uhhh, what is the difference between a normal edition and a jazz version of this piece? :-) Seriously, is the mention of a jazz version to be a joke or something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.249.188.85 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
 * No, the entire piece is a joke, as the article states. A jazz version (or any other for that matter) is merely running riffs (so to speak) on the joke. 59.101.238.34 05:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Varying length versions
Does every rendition of this piece have to be exactly 4 minutes 33 seconds long? What if the performer feels like playing it faster or slower? (Incidentally shouldn't the article's reference to it being performed "on the piano" be "off the piano"?) I recently did an Excite.com search for John Cage's music and found versions with lengths of 4'27" and (on wikipedia, no less) 5'06". Rodparkes 06:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Tracks on recordings may be longer than the time it takes to perform the piece, being bookended by the moment before and after the piece is played. Hyacinth 05:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * True, and that could explain the 5'06", but what about the 4'27"? Maybe that's the abridged version for children?  Rodparkes 06:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the pianist left out the repeats. 24.36.191.143 (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Some missing info
There are a couple of pieces of information missing from this article. First, wasn't somebody successfully sued for copyight infringement relating to 4'33 about 5 years ago? I remember it was covered by the AP. Second, under cultural references there was a recording called "The Best of Marcel Marceau" released in the 1960s that is totally silent. I actually have this on a compilation CD of bizarre recordings. 68.146.8.46 01:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bloodhound Gang
I don't think the Bloodhound Gang reference was as much of a reference as it was a stab at New Jersey. The "Ten Coolest Things" are the seconds of silence (nothing), so the first coolest thing is nothing, the second being nothing, with one thing being told every second. I was bold and removed this from the article. --Piroteknix 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, I pruned the list a little to exclude items that had no obvious reference to the piece, instead of just songs with silence as tracks. --Piroteknix 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

what?
so wait... this is nothing... and it's famous? i am going to make a movie, of just a black screen, and see how it sells, :D


 * Too late, Derek Jarman beat you to it with a blue screen in "Blue". Rodparkes 06:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Wouldn't that get him into a lawsuit with Microsoft? wPatriot 17:20, 14 Febuary 2009 (UTC)

Pronounciation?
How is the name of this piece pronounced? Four minutes and thirty-three seconds? Four minutes, thirty-three seconds? Or simply Four thirty-three? --Piroteknix 21:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd pronounce it Four Thirty-Three. &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 15:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, just hum a few seconds of it and everybody will know what it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC) :->

I don't call it anything. Fenneck (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Requesting a move to 4'33" because one, it's unnecessary Unicode, and two, I don't know any keyboards which produce those characters (i.e. you can't type it out). &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 15:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Reasonable on both grounds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The prime (′) and double prime (″) symbols are correct. The quotation marks (single and double) are incorrect. The redirect works just fine. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Source? &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 22:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly concur, per naming conventions. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Question Is the name officially 4′33″ (the present name, rather than 4'33")? Does anyone know? If the name isn't literally and actually the title with the acute symbol, then I say move it. Otherwise, leave it where it is. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the John Cage writes in Unicode, so I'm guessing 4'33" is good. Most of the external links use 4'33", but one or two say 4′33″. &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this help? Robotforaday 11:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, though I don't think that's irrefutably accurate. The first image there, however, which appears to be hand-written, shows the ' and " leaning only slightly. So, unless anyone else has objections... &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 23:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to move. There are thousands of article titles in Wikipedia that use Unicode characters in the title. That’s why we have redirects. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see (part of) a list of these thousands. &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 23:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Regards, &#9679;DanMS • Talk 01:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For your perusing pleasure, here are a few articles with Unicode characters in the title. Depending on your browser, they may not all be displayed properly:


 * The problem with this kind of thing is that people often want to use the way a name is stylized in a logo, a movie poster, an album cover, a book cover, etc., as an official name. See the lengthy debate over the name of the movie Sicko. In that case, the movie poster stylized the name of the movie in a script displayed as SiCKO. But that is just a style for a poster or a label. Another example is the German shipbuilding firm Blohm & Voss. The company's logo shows the name as Blohm+Voss, so some well-meaning Wikipedians titled the article in that way. But a stylized logo does not determine the name of the company. If you take that kind of thing literally, then Microsoft would always have to be written in italics, and Ford [Motor Company] would always have to be written in a fancy cursive script. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 03:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

''As DanMS points out, the presence of Unicode and/or untypable characters is not in itself a problem if there are obvious typable redirects in place. Regardless of the angle of slope of the marks in Cage's handwriting, I think it's fairly clear that he is referring to minutes and seconds, for which the symbols are primes, and not quote marks. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved.'' --Stemonitis 15:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory information
There are these two possibly contradictory statements: "Cage wrote in 'A Composer's Confessions' (1948) that he had the desire to 'compose a piece of uninterrupted silence and sell it to the Muzak Co. It will be 4 [and a half] minutes long — these being the standard lengths of 'canned' music [...]" and "Cage chose the length of the famous premiere performance by chance methods using I Ching models." The first is cited, the second is not. Unless the length of the first performance was not four minutes and 33 seconds, these contradict each other. Benandorsqueaks 02:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead
I strongly object to the following bits in the lead: If noone objects, I'll rewrite the lead. Jashiin 10:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "It consists of just over four and a half minutes of silence" - it does not. The piece consists of the sounds of the environment that the listeners hear while the piece is performed. This was the whole point. I can cite any number of references (Kostelanetz' "Conversing with Cage", p. 69-70, for instance), and I think most people who like Cage know this.
 * "which thus may appear, especially for simpler minds, to be some sort of contradiction." - this is just an insult and as such has no place in any encyclopedia (let alone in the very first paragraph of the article!)

I don't believe this being an insult, it's just an observation of a matter of facts and also meant as such... Especially pointing to the controversity in discussions, which could be enlightened however by your first remarks.

Simpler minds do exist and it should be allowed to take notice of that fact! No insult intended.

If you insist, you could write however, unexperienced or uneducated or the like... The paradoxe of this statement should be emphasized however, which was the intention for that addendum...

Furtheron, the wording "It consists of just over four and a half minutes of silence" should be left untouched by itself although complemented by your explanations and M/B thus getting a preamble like "In ordinary perception, it consists..."

Playing with that commonplace cognition of such pieces of art, in music or painting or literature, is one of their inherent issues, so to speak "its own value"! 84.161.200.86 14:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. But the issue is that it doesn't matter whether "simpler minds" exist or not - we can't use this kind of tone in an encyclopedia. See WP:NPOV and WP:TONE. Your solution to the problem ("listeners who are not so experienced") is, unfortunately, unacceptable as well: who says they are inexperienced, and how does inexperience relate to the perception of a particular piece? What I was suggesting is explaining what the piece was in Cage's own words, and mentioning that Cage's explanation is contrary to the popular notion that its four minutes of "silence" - without labelling anyone anything.
 * Also, please don't make edits to the section while its content is still being discussed here. Its usually a good idea to wait a little bit until other contributors to the article show up and offer their opinions. Jashiin 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jashiin, the leading statement, while better than the one that called the piece a "joke," is pretentious, insulting, and poorly written. It should be replaced with an objective summation of the work's characteristics and aims, not a lead full of condescension and misinformation. "Simpler minds"???? --Wolf m corcoran 17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I suggest waiting a couple of days more until other contributors offer their opinions on the matter (if they do), then editing, because naturally the article is controversial and any changes that are unprepared-for may result in an edit war, or something. Jashiin 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I replaced that apparently offending "simpler minds" formulation... 84.161.200.86 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear 84.161.200.86: Your revision of the lead has merely amplified the condescension of the previous version. It has already been determined that any reference to "simpler minds" or "not so experienced listeners" is contrary to WP policies on tone and should not be used. This needs to be re-written. Any suggestions for a better lead? --Wolf m corcoran 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I rewrote the lead. Things that may cause objections: Comments, suggestions, etc. are welcome. Jashiin 09:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why I removed the link to Experimental music: that article states that Cage coined the term in 1955, whereas 4'33" was composed in 1952, and this will confuse people.
 * Why I removed the description of the length of the piece, and how it can be performed, details of the first performance, etc.: because the lead should be a concise summary of the very basic things about the subject of the article, see WP:LEAD. The rest belongs to other sections.
 * Why I removed the reference to the interglacial.com website : because a website such as this is not a trusted, solid source, especially unsuitable for the lead section.

Thanks, Jashiin, this is great. I think an empirical lead is best for an article like this... lets the reader form his/her own opinion of the piece. --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The recent "citation needed" template addition
I'm not sure what to do about this edit. Of course, I could simply list books and encyclopedias that either refer to 4'33" as a musical composition or include it in the list of Cage's musical works, but is this really necessary? Technically, it consists of sounds, it has a written score, and it is to be performed.. --Jashiin (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously this is a piece that would engender that kind of thing. Don't think we need to worry about it though - as Jashiin said there's certainly no shortage of published material referring to the piece as music. Even still (due to the nature of the beast), it's probably POV no matter what you call it. I would say 'music' is the generally accepted term of reference. BTW, thanks for your great work, as always, Jashiin --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, but not why overblown existentialist types think...
I care not for how many quotes one can get from Cage describing what he meant the thing to be. Sometimes these so called "Arteests" do things such as print a totally blank book, create 100% mono-color (usually white) paintings, photos, prints, etc., cover some famous landmark with a garden variety tarp, or create music that is not meant to be actually performed. The brilliance of these things is that they have managed to con the idiotic public that they have done something great, when in fact they have done nothing. Nothing (or something that anyone can do such as covering things in tarps) is nothing. It is existential garbage to think that a white painting is art due to the shadows cast upon it or that music that is not performed is in fact made up of the random coughs and farts from the audience. Anyone here recall the story of the Emperor's New Clothes? It is a con, pure and simple. "I did nothing now worship it!!! Talk about!!!”  Brilliant!

It reminds me of a Mad Magazine one-panel comic in which a patron and an artist are looking at a weird sculpture that the artist created. The patron says that the thing represents the futility of the modern age while at the same time celebrating the awesome progress of the ages. The artist agrees and adds some BS of his own. In reality the patron is thinking that the sculpture looks like a deformed chicken, is otherwise meaningless, but feels compelled to speak of it in grandiose terms in an effort to show that she is learned and snooty. The artist is thinking "Gosh I had no idea the thing represented all that stuff! I was just trying to create a deformed chicken."

On youtube there is a video of some famous orchestra performing the thing on TV as part of a larger concert. The announcers claim that 4'33" was the piece that the audience has been looking forward to. At the end the audience claps and raves like they just saw Michael Jackson drop his baby off a balcony but the conductor caught and saved it.  I would have thought that the typical orchestra music fan would not be so easily duped.  I assume there were probably some in attendance who were thinking "WTF?!", but they are not that apparent in the film.  What does it say about orchestral music when the piece that the audience was most looking forward to was 4'33" of silence?

It is similar to when people laugh at Dennis Miller when he makes a weird vauge reference to something maybe 1 person in the crowd (if that) would recognize. He has said nothing, yet they laugh. These things give people the ability to think "Well *I* get it. Why don't you?  Can't you see the complex layers and all that?  Obviously you are ignorant to the true qualities of art."

Laughable.

Now I don't mean to say that art must be complex to be real art. Art can be very simple. I just feel there is a distinction between simple art and alleged art that in reality is nothing at all.

Rev Sysyphus (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He simply wanted to show that noise is music too. Thats it, thats all. Its a very simple thing; I have absolutely no idea why people have so much trouble with it. (Then again, I guess these same people have trouble with Velvet Underground's "European Son", or Vangelis' experimental albums, or Stereolab, and to them all that is also a con. Do you have a problem with Velvet Underground's more experimental side, too?)


 * I've never read a single philosophy book in my life, I never attended any art classes, courses, or anything; I'm not even a fan of "contemporary art" (whatever that is), yet I grasped the concept immediately after I heard about it; and I've moved on. Its just a manifesto. Cage has a ton of pieces - beautiful, serene, melodic ones like In A Landscape, mysterious, weird and innovative like Sonatas and Interludes, meditative works such as the number pieces, hell, the man even wrote funny stories in essays like Indeterminacy. Why people attach so much importance to 4'33", why it is included in so many concerts and so many people applaud and talk about its "depth" (as I said, the idea is very simple), etc. - I have no idea. Neither do I understand why people like you want to explain to me that I am an overeducated, arrogant idiot just because I don't think Cage was trying to fool everyone. Jashiin (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Because he was. And was apparantly successful. Needless to say it is MHO and hardly some commandment that you or anyone should subscribe to. Just food fer thought. Rev Sysyphus (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The day you open up and drop the pop melody from your head, you will see that melodic is no the only way to have music. Look up Sunn O))), Boris' ambient works, Earth (band)'s older stuff, and Merzbow while you're checking out the stuff he mentioned above. If you think random noise is easy, try to do it. It's hard as crap to make something sound like they can do. -Violask81976 01:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"It's hard as crap to make something sound like they can do." Jesus Tapdancing Christ, Merzbow or those others are at least making noise. Plus, I don't think there are douchebags engaging in circle-jerks about how deep and meaningful these drones are. 4'33" is not music, it's not a composition, it's goddamn nothing. This so-called piece consists of an orchestra doing fuck-all. The only sounds heard are unrelated to the piece.

To a lot of people, this sounds like either a scam, or a practical joke. And the fact how people try to ascribe meaning to it, and are apparently thrilled whenever it is "performed", makes me fucking sick. Assimilateur (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Findings about the -273°C mystery! Read this!
This is from user Flapdragon 3 years ago: I heard recently (on BBC Radio 4) that the reason he made it 4 mins and 33 secs, i.e. 273 seconds, was something to do with absolute zero, −273.14 °C. Well, I got the answer from Cage right here! http://www.zeit.de/online/2006/18/gespraech_schnebel_cage?page=3 (German). Mr. Schnebel and Cage knew each other personally: ''"Wissen Sie, bei Cage gibt es immer Überraschungen. Sein berühmtes Stück 4'33', in dem viereinhalb Minuten lang nichts geschieht: Es besteht aus drei Sätzen, zu 33 Sekunden, 2 Minuten 40 und 1 Minute 20 - wenn man die Sekunden zusammenzählt, sind es 273. Das ist in der Physik der absolute Nullpunkt. Minus 273 Grad, da hört jede Bewegung auf." - "Ist das ein Zufall?" "Ich habe Cage einmal darauf angesprochen; er als Amerikaner wusste das gar nicht, die messen ja in Fahrenheit. Er war ganz begeistert: 'It's wonderful!'"'' Translation: "Well, you know, with Cage, there are surprises everywhere. Just take his most famous piece, 4'33, with no action for roughly 4 and a half minutes: It consists of three movements, 33, 2'40 and 1'20 ; if you count everything together, you get 273 (in seconds) as the result. This is absolute zero in physics. Minus 273 degrees Celsius, which brings any move to a halt." "So, is this coincidence then?" "See, I've once made an attempt to ask Cage about the matter; and since as an American, he uses the unit Fahrenheit for thermic degrees instead, he was enthusiastic and exclaimed: 'It's wonderful!'" ... This should make things clear now. :) -andy 78.51.82.135 (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this important bit of information! I'll add this to the article when I finally get around cleaning it up, hopefully soon. Unless someone else wants to add it now. Jashiin (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Confused
At the end of the 'Recordings' section, is says that the silence was computer-generated. What does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.197.121 (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It presumably means that no analog processing was used, i.e. no microphones; a computer was used to generate a silent sound file directly.
 * That being said, I doubt that entry's notability given that neither of its wikilinks resolve to articles. Robort (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Blank
Surely this article should be 4 1/2 pages of &lt;br /&gt; tags?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.192.131 (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a forum
Can I just remind people that the purpose of this page is to provide a place for people to discuss ways to improve the article. It is not a general discussion forum - I'm sure we all have opinions about whether it 4'33" is "art", whether it was intended as a joke, etc. etc. etc., but this isn't the place for it Dom Kaos (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)