Where do YOU draw the line?
by cgallopo
In our latest class discussion, we touched upon the likes of John Cage and Alison Knowles, two performers whose performances blur the lines between music, performance art, and something completely different. With performances ranging from the absurd “Shoes of your choice” from Alison Knowles, in which the performer puts his or her shoes on a music stand and then speaks about them for an undetermined amount of time, to John Cage’s “4’33””, in which the performer lifts the lid of the piano and then sits in silence for four minutes and thirty-three seconds.
Now, before this goes any further, let me preface this post by saying two things: first of all, I’m a huge fan of John Cage – I was introduced to his compositions in a music class my freshman year and have had an affinity and an appreciation for him ever since. Second, I do intend to open up a class-wide discussion on what we consider music, or performance art, or simply a lady talking about her shoes. I am genuinely curious about the class’s opinion, because I do not consider the aforementioned compositions (and others like them) to be music.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines music as “the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity”. Although I am certainly not opposed to learning about performance artists pushing the limits of expression, I’m not sure that “Shoes of your choice” in any way fits the definition of music. In a class titled 1000 Years of Musical Listening, I am asking the open question of “where does this fit?” Clearly it lies somewhere along the music spectrum, or it would not have been introduced in class; I am curious as to how others delineate their respective spectrums, and whether or not they include Alison Knowles and John Cage.
The music class that I referred to in the second paragraph was MUSC-016 The Technologies of Listening. In this class, we explored the idea of sound, the reproduction of sound, and silence; it was John Cage’s fascination with absolute silence that intrigued me the most. He went so far as to visit an anechoic chamber at Harvard to experience the quietest place on earth. While Cage compositions are fascinating, my music spectrum is such that these pieces lay beyond it’s boundaries.
The Thousand-Year Ears 
There’s some legitimacy in considering 4’33” to be music. However, I cannot consider it a composition by John Cage. That loosens the definition of “composition” to the point that someone involved with our class (the TA? the students? all of us?) composed an 80-minute piece by quietly working on our midterm exams.
I’m more compelled to categorize the compositions of Knowles and Cage more broadly as art rather than specifying them as music. I appreciate these acts and am very fond of the idea of fluxus. I think it’s amazing how such ordinary things like shoes can be made to create art. However, I don’t think I would refer to it necessarily as music. Of course, there is a fine line.
I totally agree with you. I would classify this work as art, or a thought experiment, rather than music. Just as cgallopo mentioned, it all ties back to the definition of music. Music is how we define it. If we classify music as an ordered set of sounds/tones, I really don’t think fluxus music is really music. However, if we think of music as merely a form of expression, then perhaps fluxus is a type of music..who knows
I don’t think that one can put a strict definition around what “music” is. I truly believe that music is up to the interpretation of the composer and/or listener. Since music can have different meanings/serve different purposes to everyone, I believe that music is a personal experience that one must define for oneself. For example, we learned about composers who stuck to rigid rules and traditional notation in their compositions, but we also learned about composers (like Cage) who completely deviated from anything rigid or traditional. The one common theme that I have noticed in all of these composers is that they believed that whatever they composed is some form of “music”, and I believe them too.
Cage music should be more as art than as music, because it is honestly very difficult to listen to. However, if you understand the piece and all of its complexity, then Cage’s compositions are really interesting. In my opinion, music should be defined as pleasing to hear. Certainly there are a lot of composers who are in the gray area.
These examples are more art, an expression of ones creative skills, than they are of music. Music should be pleasing to listen to, and honestly, if there is no sound (as in Cage’s piece) or no musical tones (as in Knowles piece) they should not be considered music. As someone previously stated, there are a lot of these types of composers whose compositions can be categorized as art and not music.
I agree with Erin’s comment in that music has no clear cut definition. It seems obvious that music certainly has aural qualities to it but what formation of notes constitutes music is up to the composer himself. Different people enjoy different kinds of music and so to say one type or genre of music is more “musical” than another is to accept a pompous position in that one’s musical taste is definitively better than another’s. To me, that’s completely absurd. Even though I might not enjoy the music of let’s say Cage, I can still respect both the composer and his work. In the same way, I expect other people to respect my favorite composers (Chamillionaire, The Killers, Mat Kearney) and their works.
I love the way these artists continue to push the limits. It is amazing to see what people can create and how this challenges us to think about our conventional definition of music.
I don’t think it is possible to give a clear-cut definition of what music is. However, I do think it is possible to state what music is NOT. And honestly, I think 4’33” to be the perfect example of what music isn’t. It is possible to be surrounded by silence all the time. Fisher Fine Arts Library “composed” 4’33” before John Cage did as it existed before Cage did…
Since there seems to be somewhat of a focus on John Cage’s 4’33”, I’d like to leave a brief comment on that. Yes, it may be questionable as to whether not creating sounds-per-say can be considered music. However, I’d like to “defend” our good ole’ friend Cage with the following three thoughts:
1. You would consider a 3-minute solo violin piece music, right? How about playing three notes on the piano? Singing “La la la” in three different notes? Beating the drums three times? If rap is consider music, what about just simply speaking “La la la” out loud? The sound you make with your footsteps in a particular rhythm? The sound you make with your footsteps in no particular rhythm? If you’ve answered yes to all the above, then why not silence? Where is the line that distinguishes music from what’s not considered music?
2. Then you may argue that music requires audible sound. But what if the absence of heat is nonetheless a quality which can be described in terms of heat? What if the absence of light is nonetheless a quality which can be described in terms of light? What about absence of fear? Absence of vice? A city with no man can still be described in terms of population; it’s population is zero. Then can’t the absence of sound be considered a type of sound?
3. If none of the arguments appealed to you, how about this? I claim that there is a clear difference between silence and the acknowledgment / appreciation of silence. Yes, silence, and even absolute silence, has existed long before John Cage was born. However, it was John Cage’s 4’33” that acknowledged/appreciated it. Perhaps this is a difference between invention (the majority’s perception of “music”) and discovery. Then, must music only be an invention? Or can it also be a discovery?
Obviously, John Cage is a prime example of someone who lies on the grey line. However, in terms of his 4’33” that is being discussed, I think the three points I have made are valid point to consider about.
For your second point, I’m not sure I agree with anything statement you made. Yes in science we describe darkness in terms of light, but that is not what Cage is doing. What Cage is doing is pointing to darkness and claiming “darkness is a light, too. The color is darkness. It is just as pretty as the other light frequences.” You can describe darkness in terms of the absence of light, but it is not light. Same thing with silence. You can describe it as the absence of sound, but you can’t claim that it is sound. That just defies science and definition…
It is true there is a fine line between what is considered music and what is not considered music. I think we have all established that this is true. The bigger issue here is determining where this line lies. While I can agree that yes, the sound your footsteps make could be considered music, there is a difference between footsteps and total silence. In my opinion, music can be anything. However music must involve sound and listening to be considered real music. If there are no sounds at all then nothing registers in the ear drum. Though I agree it is a fine line, silence does not fall within the realm of music.
In my opinion, there cannot be a line separating art from music when music in an art-form. The line must then lie between musical styles or forms or compositions and our understanding of music. Any particular piece of music that strays from our traditional definition of music, as such, is already labeled as “different.” Something in it makes us doubt its musicality.
I agree with you. Artists will always try to do something new and explore possibility of new forms, but I think sometimes they just go too far and their “art” can no longer be regarded as art anymore.
What we have been studying throughout this semester has been the evolution of music over the past 1000 years — while John Cage and the Fluxus movement may not be “music”, they both still fit into Music 030, as the ideas are conceptually derived from musical movements, by which I mean the breakdown of musical forms and tonality.