John Cage

To me, the most significant question that 4:33 raised was whether it should be considered music, as we discussed in class. When thinking about this, I was confronted by the fact that I couldn’t really define music either. After some thinking, I think to me, music is about intention. If an individual intends to create music, then the product of their creation is most definitely music. Whether it is good or bad can be relative. Consequently, I think John Cage’s 4:33 is music, but I am doubtful as to whether it really is good music.

For me, this dilemma arises from a place of knowing that there is much to appreciate in this work, however there are also aspects that make me question whether the intention of the piece can always be achieved, and what this work might really evoke or represent in the context of an audience that is possibly paying to watch it with a set expectation of what it might entail. The article mentions that Cage “dwelled on the abstract and explored the relationship between music and silence.” While this piece is devoid of silence as it encourages the audience to recognise the “subtle, otherwise-overlooked background noise present in different locations” during the perpetual rests featured in the sheet music, I think when considering the impact that this can have on an audience it is important to understand how they might react. Drawing on my own and my classmates’ experiences viewing this piece in class, I think most of us were initially rather bewildered by what we had just witnessed. I think a lot of reflections on what the piece might mean conceptually came much later or after a second viewing as we were required to respond to it, when the strangeness, or rather unexpectedness of the work had worn off. I think most people tend to respond to confusing or frustrating situations similarly, with a reaction that leans more towards being emotional than intellectual, hence a question that comes up for me when considering how an audience might interpret 4:33 is does the emotion that this piece evoke overpower the more subtle messages that it has to convey? I have no doubt that 4:33 contains multitudes, although this depth must become apparent to the audience at some point for it to be a worthwhile endeavour. 

Moreover, while in theory, asking that viewers become more aware of “overlooked” sounds makes for quite a dynamic composition depending on the location and audience that is present, to presume that these sounds are truly “overlooked” to me seems a little offhand. From personal experience, I think most of us are aware of the sonic landscape that surrounds us, we just tend to tune out the sounds that we are accustomed to hearing. This doesn’t mean that we don’t recognise when these sounds change or halt and we are usually aware when a new one is introduced, we simply do not react to these mundane noises with the kind of vigour that we would display towards those that are presented to us as necessitating appreciation (like soundscapes or more musical sounds). For example, there is a water installation outside my window that runs everyday from 8 am to 8 pm. My mother and sister absolutely despise the sound of the constantly running water (and admittedly it can be a little loud), but inevitably the sound fades into the background for them and they are able to live with it. However, they are still at least subconsciously attuned to it which is evidenced by their collective expressions of irritation when it is turned on, and relief when it is turned off. To me this signifies that we don’t need to be forced to recognise these sounds, because we are always listening to them at least to some degree. Therefore in 4:33, even though “turning the attention from the performer to the audience” is an intriguing idea that I believe has several applications outside this piece, in context of an audience that is anticipating that something will be performed in a more literal sense, by presenting them with the bare minimum, and then expecting them to recognise that there is a meaning in doing so and then further extrapolate meaning from it seems like too much of a hefty task to accomplish in less than five minutes. Additionally, because of the awareness that I think people have towards the sounds around them, I feel like it is a little unnecessary to trap them in a seat that it would be awkward and even inappropriate for them to leave, and then further subjugate them to the same monotony that I’m sure they like to escape by listening to more “performative” music.

Overall, to return to the opinion I expressed in the introduction, I do not think Cage’s work really constitutes “good” music, as too much of the meaning to be gained from (not) listening to 4:33 must be extracted from it by the audience after contemplating what is essentially the nothingness it has left behind. 4:33 most definitely has powerful implications and poses multiple interesting concepts to contemplate further, and it is possible that my response to John Cage’s work could be a little presumptuous or uneducated and I am not giving the audience enough credit in saying that not many (including myself) would ponder the deeper implications of 4:33 in the moment, but I still think there is at least some merit in asking that such perspectives be considered.

Provided References:
About 4:33

Work from:
23rd Nov 2020 – Daily Vitamins Assignment
Time with Professor Mike Rader