4:33 - True Minimal, or the most absurd thing ever?

SimonPHC · Post by **SimonPHC** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:05 pm

funky shit wrote:explain 4:33 to me.
now

just take 4 minutes and 33 seconds to listen to silence and try to find musical coherence by focusing on truly listening. it all boils down to attention and focus.

NorthernMonkey · Post by **NorthernMonkey** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:07 pm

SimonPHC wrote:
funky shit wrote:explain 4:33 to me.
now
just take 4 minutes and 33 seconds to listen to silence and try to find musical coherence by focusing on truly listening. it all boils down to attention and focus.

I find 4 minutes and 34 seconds work best.

ethios4 · Post by **ethios4** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:15 pm

How about 9'11" in honor of the victims?

Enrique · Post by **Enrique** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:25 pm

Pseudo intellectual bullshit...

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:51 pm

Enrique wrote:Pseudo intellectual bullshit...

Say you're right, well, how many of your songs will be talked about 40 years from now? How many people will name you as an influence?

VERY successful and historical pseudo intellectual bullshit.

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:50 pm

stringtapper wrote:
nebulae wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4:33

What do you guys think? Is a piece of music consisting of silence really music?
Is this the first you've heard of it?

No, but this is the first time I wanted to know what all of you intellectuals giants thought of it.

NorthernMonkey · Post by **NorthernMonkey** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:05 am

Neb, can you post a link to the piece please, I think I should listen before casting judgement.

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:21 am

Ethios posted a youtube of it.

Or conversely, you can sit in a quiet dark room for 4 minutes and 33 seconds and it'll feel like the 128kb bootlegged mp3 version of the song.

stringtapper · Post by **stringtapper** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:39 am

nebulae wrote:
stringtapper wrote:
nebulae wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4:33

What do you guys think? Is a piece of music consisting of silence really music?
Is this the first you've heard of it?
No, but this is the first time I wanted to know what all of you intellectuals giants thought of it.

Well first off if I had to categorize it I wouldn't call it "minimal," I would call it "aleatoric," as it was a product of his exploration of chance in music. It doesn't get any more chancy than a blank slate with unknown sound sources so it's really the ultimate aleatoric piece.

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:12 am

stringtapper wrote:
nebulae wrote:
stringtapper wrote: Is this the first you've heard of it?
No, but this is the first time I wanted to know what all of you intellectuals giants thought of it.
Well first off if I had to categorize it I wouldn't call it "minimal," I would call it "aleatoric," as it was a product of his exploration of chance in music. It doesn't get any more chancy than a blank slate with unknown sound sources so it's really the ultimate aleatoric piece.

Like I said, intellectual fuckin giant. But to really sell it, you need to be sipping wine on one hand and have some stinky cheese in the other.

Enrique · Post by **Enrique** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:26 am

Machinesworking wrote:
Enrique wrote:Pseudo intellectual bullshit...
Say you're right, well, how many of your songs will be talked about 40 years from now? How many people will name you as an influence?

VERY successful and historical pseudo intellectual bullshit.

I don't need to listen to a hyped "recording" (I surely won't call it a composition and even less a song) to recognize and enjoy the beauty of silence, which isn't anyone's property. And if you say it's a song, why can't I criticize it without having to answer a question such as "how many of your songs will be talked about 40 years from now"? It's only logical to assume that you've never criticized an influential person...

stringtapper · Post by **stringtapper** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:31 am

nebulae wrote:
stringtapper wrote:
nebulae wrote: No, but this is the first time I wanted to know what all of you intellectuals giants thought of it.
Well first off if I had to categorize it I wouldn't call it "minimal," I would call it "aleatoric," as it was a product of his exploration of chance in music. It doesn't get any more chancy than a blank slate with unknown sound sources so it's really the ultimate aleatoric piece.
Like I said, intellectual fuckin giant. But to really sell it, you need to be sipping wine on one hand and have some stinky cheese in the other.

I'd rather have a nice IPA in one hand and some other stinky stuff in the other.

ubermnd · Post by **ubermnd** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:44 am

it is entirely a composition. you just didn't think of it first.

the whole western world makes music according to 12 tone equal tempered gregorian temperement, a system adopted around 300 years ago because musicians had no standrard that they could compose/perform under.

Thanks to that, most music is still based on 12 fucking notes. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Mentalist avant garde weirdos like cage are actually showing us how to understand the noise that surrounds us constantly that our ears have eveolved to filter out. minimal?

wrong question. vital to the advance of music art? unequivicably. x

nathannn · Post by **nathannn** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:53 am

i think its odd that its referred to as composition even though absolutely nothing at all was composed. if anything it could be considered blatant plagiarism of every artist before him who had gaps between tracks on there albums.

nathannn · Post by **nathannn** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:56 am

"we all know art is hard"

4:33 - True Minimal, or the most absurd thing ever?

Re: 4:33 - True Minimal, or the most absurd thing ever?

Re: 4:33 - True Minimal, or the most absurd thing ever?

Re: 4:33 - True Minimal, or the most absurd thing ever?

Re: 4:33 - True Minimal, or the most absurd thing ever?