Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Organ playing 639-year-long piece changes chord

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: Organ playing 639-year-long piece changes chord

#41

Post by eslaught »

koolba wrote: post #8

> His most famous piece, 4'33", is designed to be played by any combination of instruments - but musicians are instructed not to play them. This is even better played back from a digital recording. You need those gold audio cables to truly appreciate the silence.

I thought the point was that they would intentionally seed the audience with one or a couple of people who would storm out in (apparent) anger (if none of the actual audience members got to it first), and thus the music is the experience of the audience reaction to the piece.

Re: Organ playing 639-year-long piece changes chord

#43

Post by dls2016 »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #35
omoikane wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

John Cage's 4'33" is probably one of the best jokes in music. I personally learned about 4'33" in a music class, where it was performed live -- basically it was 4'33" of ambient noise, but there was a lot of tension if you didn't know what to expect. During the final exam for the class, the professor would play some recording and we were supposed to identify the music, and all of us would start writing "John Cage's 4…

Is there a test of originality for copyright? I wouldn’t call myself vehemently anti copyright but when the idea of “let’s just not play and the ambient sound of the orchestra sitting there is music instead” is the basis for the copyright it does make me question the validity of it. When someone who has done XYZ drug of choice and can come up with that idea in their drug addled state of mind as a pretty good first pa…

I think "transformative use" is the term you're looking for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use

Re: Organ playing 639-year-long piece changes chord

#45

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

dls2016 wrote: post #43
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a test of originality for copyright? I wouldn’t call myself vehemently anti copyright but when the idea of “let’s just not play and the ambient sound of the orchestra sitting there is music instead” is the basis for the copyright it does make me question the validity of it. When someone who has done XYZ drug of choice and can come up with that idea in their drug addled state of mind as a pretty good first pa…

I think "transformative use" is the term you're looking for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use

This is a good one, but I think my point is that the original doesn’t stand up to copyright in the first place - so transformative use wouldn’t apply if that was the case

Re: Organ playing 639-year-long piece changes chord

#46

Post by mminer237 »

inimino wrote: post #24
simpaticoder wrote: post #7

One quip: this piece is not "as slow as possible". One could write a piece of "music" that is one note to be played at the heat death of the universe, or a piece that is silence forever. It's fun to play with the definition of "music" like John Cage did his whole career, but the title of his piece is technically incorrect, the worst kind of incorrect.

You're misinterpreting it. It's not a descriptive title at all. It's a tempo indication and like all such is meant as an instruction to the player, also being a play on "as fast as possible" which is a perfectly legitimate tempo marking. Referring to a piece of music by its tempo marking is common.

One can play infinitely more slow than he can fast though.

Re: Organ playing 639-year-long piece changes chord

#47

Post by Taek »

hilbert42 wrote: post #39
spencerflem wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its fun! Why are people so excited about eclipses or cicadas? I don't think everyone is being performative or doing it for attention (what attention)

Total eclipses have no equal—on earth anyway. I've had the great privilege of having seen three over the course of my lifetime. They're not normal experiences, they're something else again.

Some might say the same about hearing a chord change in a 600 year composition

Re: Organ playing 639-year-long piece changes chord

#49

Post by dustyleary »

noman-land wrote: post #40
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not something which will ever be pleasant to listen to, and thus is missing the entire point of music. All for some weird novelty thing.

Not all music is pleasant, nor should it be.

I would still argue that this is not music.

It's definitely Art, in that it is making a statement, provoking a response, etc. But, it's just a nearly continuous sound, except for the pitch change every few years.

It's a Sound, but it's not Music.

If you were to argue that it is Music, I would ask, "Which part of the piece is your favorite? Why do you prefer it to the other parts?" Trying to answer these questions with a straight face becomes difficult.

If this is Music, then is it possible to make an art installation which has making Sound as its primary focus, and have it not be Music?

Re: Organ playing 639-year-long piece changes chord

#50

Post by TaylorAlexander »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #32
skullfrog wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how is it nonsensical?

Because it's not something which will ever be pleasant to listen to, and thus is missing the entire point of music. All for some weird novelty thing.

A friend of mine was a music major and listened to some very experimental music that was not particularly pleasant to listen to.

You really can't ever say what "the point" of art is. The point of art is that every piece has its own point, or none at all.

Post reply on HN