Where can I download an MP3 of 4:33 by John Cage?
Howard Brazee
It would be funny if someone put a downloadable MP3 of John Cage's
4:33. I wonder what the legal aspects would be.
I have a song of Steven Brust's called the Visit which can give people
pause.
About half way through the piece, the song ends, and it is silent for
a little over a minute before an instrumental starts using a doumbek,
a riq, and a tar Ð ending with a female vocal again saying Òbye-byeÓ.
Kirk McElhearn
> It would be funny if someone put a downloadable MP3 of John Cage's
> 4:33. I wonder what the legal aspects would be.
here
Kirk
--
Read my blog, Kirkville
http://www.mcelhearn.com
fullyc...@gmail.com
> It would be funny if someone put a downloadable MP3 of John Cage's
> 4:33. I wonder what the legal aspects would be.
Actually, believe it or not, I have a free download of it at my site:
Happy Listening,
~M.
Lora Crighton
> It would be funny if someone put a downloadable MP3 of John Cage's
> 4:33. I wonder what the legal aspects would be.
>
>
Steven Bornfeld
Thanks for this. Compared to some I know, I think I have a relatively
expansive interpretation of intellectual property--but this is ridiculous!
Steve
Howard Brazee
wrote:
Thanks! (How do I download it?)
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
fullyc...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:10 -0800 (PST), fullycompo...@gmail.com
Sorry - It's stream only.
Adam Funk
> It would be funny if someone put a downloadable MP3 of John Cage's
> 4:33. I wonder what the legal aspects would be.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2276621.stm
Musician Mike Batt had paid a six-figure sum to settle a bizarre
dispute over who owns copyright to a silent musical work.
Batt, who had a number of hits in the 70s with UK children's
characters The Wombles, was accused of plagiarism by the publishers
of the late US composer John Cage, after placing a silent track on
his latest album, Classical Graffiti which was credited to himself
and Cage.
...
Batt has now agreed to pay an undisclosed six-figure sum to the
John Cage Trust by way of an out-of-court settlement.
(September 2002)
--
Unix is a user-friendly operating system. It's just very choosy about
its friends.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> Thanks! (How do I download it?)
>>
>> --
>> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
>> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
>> to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
>>
>> - James Madison
>
>Sorry - It's stream only.
Well, it shouldn't be too hard to find a performer of the required
quality to create my own.
Brendan R. Wehrung
>
> Actually, believe it or not, I have a free download of it at my site:
>
> http://michaelvincent.ca/
>
> Happy Listening,
> ~M.
>
>
>
>
How long is the track with applause?
Brendan
Adam Funk
> Well, it shouldn't be too hard to find a performer of the required
> quality to create my own.
Hmm, what does that say about the quality of the composition?
--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]
fullyc...@gmail.com
It says the relationship between effort and composition is irrelevant.
Brendan R. Wehrung
> On 2009-03-02, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>> Well, it shouldn't be too hard to find a performer of the required
>> quality to create my own.
>
> Hmm, what does that say about the quality of the composition?
>
Wasn't the whole point the quality of the performance?
Brendan
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
I thought the performance was the quality of the point.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Alex Piontek
wrote:
>
>It would be funny if someone put a downloadable MP3 of John Cage's
>4:33. I wonder what the legal aspects would be.
>
Try some of these ones:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=john+cage+4%2733&aq=0&oq=John+Cage+
Howard Brazee
truth, I don't hear the difference.
Adam Funk
> On Mar 2, 4:37 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-03-02, Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>> > Well, it shouldn't be too hard to find a performer of the required
>> > quality to create my own.
>>
>> Hmm, what does that say about the quality of the composition?
> It says the relationship between effort and composition is irrelevant.
I'm not convinced. ;-)
--
In Karhide king and kyorremy have a good deal of control over what
people do, but very little over what they hear, and none over what
they say. Here, the government can check not only act but thought.
Surely no men should have such power over others. (LeGuin 1969)
fullyc...@gmail.com
> >> Hmm, what does that say about the quality of the composition?
> > It says the relationship between effort and composition is irrelevant.
>
> I'm not convinced. ;-)
So according to your opinion, you would think a composer has to put in
a lot of effort for it to be considered good music? Why, and how
exactly does more effort create better music? Also what constitutes
better music?
Adam Funk
I was talking about the effort and skill required to *perform* 4'33",
and I think they do reflect the skill and quality of composition
(zero).
(If I put "The Wit of George W Bush" on the cover of a blank book, am
I making a joke or am I entitled to call myself a great author?)
--
And remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb
through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a
sucker you are. [Rufus T. Firefly]
fullyc...@gmail.com
> > a lot of effort for it to be considered good music? Why, and how
> > exactly does more effort create better music? Also what constitutes
> > better music?
>
> I was talking about the effort and skill required to *perform* 4'33",
> and I think they do reflect the skill and quality of composition
> (zero).
>
> (If I put "The Wit of George W Bush" on the cover of a blank book, am
> I making a joke or am I entitled to call myself a great author?)
I think your comments are valid and I understand your perspective.
However the problem with your argument is that you are using "skill"
and "quality" synonymously to evaluate a composition/perfromence
worth. Also your analogy does not taking into account the historical
lineage and the significance of the idea of silence in contemporary
music composition. It is apples and oranges.
As a professional composer and doctoral student, I am trained to write
and perform both complex and simple music, but this variance of
"effort" involved certainly does not define the value of the works
themselves. The difficulty of a work should only be of concern to
musicians and not the listener. You don't walk through a new house
and note how difficult everything was to build do you? This would be
such a shallow perception, similar to only liking a bottle of wine
because you know it is worth a thousand dollars.
I don't think anyone should care how hard it is to write or perform a
piece of music - music is not a sport- it is about ideas, and 4'33" is
a very important idea; a statement about the absence of sound as
music.
You can read more about the work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3
As a side note, I always find it curious when people get so angry with
works that they feel are not "skillful" (drip painters Jean-Paul
Riopelle or Jackson Pollock come to mind). Why get so angry? Perhaps
this social construct has more to do with the myth of the suffering
artist, toiling masterfully on the "craft" of their work. I suspect
this cliche is a remnant from the 19th century romantic era.
Adam Funk
>> I was talking about the effort and skill required to *perform* 4'33",
>> and I think they do reflect the skill and quality of composition
>> (zero).
Oops, I left out "in this case" (but to be fair to myself, I would
probably apply the idea to some others).
>> (If I put "The Wit of George W Bush" on the cover of a blank book, am
>> I making a joke or am I entitled to call myself a great author?)
>
> I think your comments are valid and I understand your perspective.
Thanks. (Your approach and arguments on this are adept and not the
"snooty" postmodern stuff often deployed in this area. I appreciate
your interesting discussion.)
> However the problem with your argument is that you are using "skill"
> and "quality" synonymously to evaluate a composition/perfromence
> worth. Also your analogy does not taking into account the historical
> lineage and the significance of the idea of silence in contemporary
> music composition. It is apples and oranges.
>
> As a professional composer and doctoral student, I am trained to write
> and perform both complex and simple music, but this variance of
> "effort" involved certainly does not define the value of the works
> themselves.
That's a good point especially since some "indisputably good"
composers such as J S Bach and Chopin wrote exercises for pupils.
> The difficulty of a work should only be of concern to musicians and
> not the listener. You don't walk through a new house and note how
> difficult everything was to build do you?
Well, a house is "useful" but art isn't, so a house is evaluated ---
among other things --- principally for its functionality.
> This would be such a shallow perception, similar to only liking a
> bottle of wine because you know it is worth a thousand dollars.
Damien Hirst?
> I don't think anyone should care how hard it is to write or perform a
> piece of music - music is not a sport- it is about ideas, and 4'33" is
> a very important idea; a statement about the absence of sound as
> music.
Supposedly! It's been a while since I read Tom Wolfe's "The Painted
Word" --- maybe we should all read it again.
> You can read more about the work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3
>
> As a side note, I always find it curious when people get so angry with
> works that they feel are not "skillful" (drip painters Jean-Paul
> Riopelle or Jackson Pollock come to mind). Why get so angry? Perhaps
> this social construct has more to do with the myth of the suffering
> artist, toiling masterfully on the "craft" of their work. I suspect
> this cliche is a remnant from the 19th century romantic era.
I think the main reason is summarized as "I could throw paint around
like that ... where's the skill?" (At least naïve literature and art
involve making the effort to put structured marks on paper and
canvas.)
Coincidentally, an article in The Guardian on Saturday mentioned
Pollock:
In 1995, I talked with Philip Rylands, then the deputy director of
the Guggenheim Collection in Venice, about Jackson Pollock. It
didn't matter that I was unpersuaded by Pollock's painting, he
calmly explained, because his place in art history was assured by,
among other things, his anecdotal value. You might call this the
Vasari effect. Which is another way of saying we like gossip,
recently dignified as life writing. Do we read Diogenes Laërtius's
Lives of the Philosophers for a measured exposition of these
ancient thinkers' tenets? I think not. We read them, as we read
Aubrey's Brief Lives, for the scandal, the fresh scurrilities,
Robert Lowell's "everlasting dross", dirt with the bloom still
unblemished. Think of the fart that inadvertently escaped Edward de
Vere, the Earl of Oxford, as he bowed low to Elizabeth I – a fart
recorded by Aubrey, who also noted the monarch's response when de
Vere returned to court after seven years of self-imposed exile. "My
Lord, I had forgott the Fart."
I guess Pollock is best known for two things: flinging paint (in a
manner that the "man on the street" could do and urinating in a
fireplace.
--
I could show them the ansible, but it didn't make a very convincing
Alien Artifact, being so incomprehensible as to fit in with hoax as
well as with reality. (LeGuin 1969)
grammatim
Have you ever been to a retrospective of his paintings? MoMA had one
shortly before it closed for its rebuilding. It was overwhelmingly
spectacular.
(And the Guggenheim simultaneously had a show of his student work,
proving that he certainly could paint flowers and landscapes and such
when he had to.)
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
> So according to your opinion, you would think a composer has to put in
> a lot of effort for it to be considered good music? Why, and how
> exactly does more effort create better music?
More structure, better design.
> Also what constitutes
> better music?
Beethoven, Brahms
Doug McDonald
fullyc...@gmail.com
wrote:
> fullycompo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So according to your opinion, you would think a composer has to put in
> > a lot of effort for it to be considered good music? Why, and how
> > exactly does more effort create better music?
>
> More structure, better design.
This is a common argument of the modernist perspective, which hails
form and structure above all else. However, both good and bad music
have structure and design. "better design" (in an artistic context)
is a subjective statement, and therefore not a strong argument for
what constituted "good" music. Furthermore, "Better design" can't be
established objectively; art music is ephemeral, and there are no
universals when it comes to structure, otherwise the the music of
Beethoven and Brahms would not be so extraordinary. We can certainly
analyze music, and discover exactly how composers used form and
structure for formulate their musical ideas, however, but this does
not tell us what makes it "good" or "bad".
> > Also what constitutes
> > better music?
>
> Beethoven, Brahms
A matter of taste, cultural and generational perspective. Both VERY
good composers, but they certainly wrote their fair share of good and
bad music respectively.
Adam Funk
True! But he chose to become famous as I described above.
Kirk McElhearn
> As a side note, I always find it curious when people get so angry with
> works that they feel are not "skillful" (drip painters Jean-Paul
> Riopelle or Jackson Pollock come to mind). Why get so angry? Perhaps
> this social construct has more to do with the myth of the suffering
> artist, toiling masterfully on the "craft" of their work. I suspect
> this cliche is a remnant from the 19th century romantic era.
No, it's because that kind of art is a scam. Only those with the
emporer's clothes consider it to be art...
Kirk McElhearn
>> As a side note, I always find it curious when people get so angry with
>> works that they feel are not "skillful" (drip painters Jean-Paul
>> Riopelle or Jackson Pollock come to mind). Why get so angry? Perhaps
>> this social construct has more to do with the myth of the suffering
>> artist, toiling masterfully on the "craft" of their work. I suspect
>> this cliche is a remnant from the 19th century romantic era.
>
> I think the main reason is summarized as "I could throw paint around
> like that ... where's the skill?" (At least naïve literature and art
> involve making the effort to put structured marks on paper and
> canvas.)
To come back to this thread, I met with John Cage once, back in 1985. I
was interviewing him for a French journal about the I Ching that I was
involved in. I observed his compositional technique. He had a score,
and he asked his assistant for a number (I don't know what kind of a
computer he had generating random numbers; it was in another room).
Cage then plotted the number. Lots of inspiration there...
To be fair, however, he was one of the kindest people I have ever met...
Silverfin
> I don't think anyone should care how hard it is to write or perform a
> piece of music - music is not a sport- it is about ideas, and 4'33" is
> a very important idea; a statement about the absence of sound as
> music.
>
Is there ever any such thing as a complete absence of sound? I would
say that was one of, if not The main point.
Incidentally, I performed 4'33" in concert last year. The conductor
said it was the first UK public performance of the piece by symphony
orchestra - although I don't know if this was actually the case. The
performance was quite light on coughing, which was nice, but heavy on
creaky chairs, with some pleasant birdsong and a passing ambulance at
around 3 mins in. None of the audience spoke or left the hall.
Many years ago when I was at university I had a tape I made, with a
collection of different recordings of the piece. Unfortunately I don't
still have it.
Silverfin
Howard Brazee
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macuser.html
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=310007237&s=143441
I downloaded the song, it has nice cover art - but it's too short!!!
Adam Funk
> I just found the following released by iTunes today (April 1st):
>
> http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macuser.html
>
>
> http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=310007237&s=143441
>
> I downloaded the song, it has nice cover art - but it's too short!!!
Well, according to the composer's "score", it can have any length, but
you're supposed to adjust the title accordingly. It's all part of the
big joke.
--
Taken on the whole however this is a fine disc and a good example of
the current pop scene attempting to break out of its vulgarisms and
sometimes downright obscene derivative hogwash.
(Julian Stone-Mason B.A., 1972)
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=310007237&s=143441
>>
>> I downloaded the song, it has nice cover art - but it's too short!!!
>
>Well, according to the composer's "score", it can have any length, but
>you're supposed to adjust the title accordingly. It's all part of the
>big joke.
Today they have some full price versions of that work. I suspect
they might be the proper length, but I did not spend the 99 cents to
find out.
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:53:22 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=310007237&s=143441
>>>
>>> I downloaded the song, it has nice cover art - but it's too short!!!
>> Well, according to the composer's "score", it can have any length, but
>> you're supposed to adjust the title accordingly. It's all part of the
>> big joke.
>
> Today they have some full price versions of that work. I suspect
> they might be the proper length, but I did not spend the 99 cents to
> find out.
>
There are many versions on YouTube.
Doug McDonald
Howard Brazee
ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>
>There are many versions on YouTube.
Sure. But I don't listen to YouTube videos with my iPod.
Adam Funk
> On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 11:42:20 -0500, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
> ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>
>>
>>There are many versions on YouTube.
>
> Sure. But I don't listen to YouTube videos with my iPod.
Just turn the volume down to 0.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
Doug McDonald
>> Sure. But I don't listen to YouTube videos with my iPod.
>
Why not? I do all the time. Audio quality varies of course,
from passable to absolutely abysmal. Remember to try &fmt=18
Doug McDonald
Silverfin
> On 2009-04-01, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> > I just found the following released by iTunes today (April 1st):
>
> >http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macuser.html
>
>
> > I downloaded the song, it has nice cover art - but it's too short!!!
>
> Well, according to the composer's "score", it can have any length, but
> you're supposed to adjust the title accordingly. It's all part of the
> big joke.
>
> --
> Taken on the whole however this is a fine disc and a good example of
> the current pop scene attempting to break out of its vulgarisms and
> sometimes downright obscene derivative hogwash.
> (Julian Stone-Mason B.A., 1972)
Any length? But then the 273 would lose its significance.
Silverfin
Michael Bednarek
<silve...@googlemail.com> wrote in rec.music.classical:
Chill out, there is no significance or ratio, it's all chance. :-)
Back to the subject: I'm pretty sure that the RIAA/ASCAP/MCPS/GEMA/…
would take a pretty dim view of illegally downloading 4'33" — it's
protected by copyright which gets enforced (by Peters Edition); in fact,
you can't even perform it yourself without consent; search for "4'33"
copyright cage batt".
--
Michael Bednarek http://mbednarek.com/ "POST NO BILLS"
Brendan R. Wehrung
Would I bs sued for performing 4'34"? That would be plagerism, of course,
but no violation of copyright as long as the stage directions were not
copied directly. It would be a great leap for jurisprudence because even
a deaf judge 9and there are plenty of those) could preside.
Brendan
Silverfin
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:38:00 -0700 (PDT), Silverfin
>
>
>
> >On Apr 2, 8:53 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-04-01, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> >> > I just found the following released by iTunes today (April 1st):
>
> >> >http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macuser.html
>
> >> >http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=310007...
>
> >> > I downloaded the song, it has nice cover art - but it's too short!!!
>
> >> Well, according to the composer's "score", it can have any length, but
> >> you're supposed to adjust the title accordingly. It's all part of the
> >> big joke.
>
> >> --
> >> Taken on the whole however this is a fine disc and a good example of
> >> the current pop scene attempting to break out of its vulgarisms and
> >> sometimes downright obscene derivative hogwash.
> >> (Julian Stone-Mason B.A., 1972)
>
> >Any length? But then the 273 would lose its significance.
>
> >Silverfin
>
> Chill out, there is no significance or ratio, it's all chance. :-)
>
Chill out indeed! :-)
Silverfin