Talk:4′33″

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

I think this page needs an .ogg sample! Grue 17:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

stick it in then geezer! I look forward to your interpretation, mind you don't get sued... quercus robur 18:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Changed date of visit to anechoic chamber

Page 13 of Cage's book Silence (viewable on google scholar books) states the date as 1951 not the late 1940's, so I have changed this accordingly.

I'd like a cite on the suspicion that the engineer's comments are false. I've been in an anechoic chamber (at IRCAM) and everyone in with me certainly heard the two different pitched sounds Cage describes. I've never heard this statement doubted before. --Myke Cuthbert 16:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's his explanation of the sources of the sounds, not the sounds themselves, that are in doubt. You have to admit that the idea of hearing your own nervous system sounds slightly ludicrous. Nyvhek 07:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tarot cards

An anon editor added the info that Cage chose the length of this piece by using tarot cards. Is this really correct? I had thought he used the I Ching (which he certainly used for chance operations elsewhere), but I don't seem to have anything to hand which states this explicitly. Can the editor (or anybody) give a source which states he used tarot cards? --Camembert 12:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was suspicious of this as well.

Atlant 12:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, he didn't use tarot cards per se, he used a deck of unmarked cards I believe but I can't remember where I read this! There is however an apparently very thorough essay available online which i have read and used in an essay of my own on the subject, it seems fairly credible but as it is with web publications the site looks more colourful than Saturday morning tv! The essay mentions tarot cards and provides the formations the cards were arranged in, i think the I Ching was also used, but it's been a while since i've read the essay. I hope this helps! http://wc.pima.edu/~lsolomon/4min33se.htm

John Stokes 20:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I heard recently (on BBC Radio 4) that the reason he made it 4 mins and 33 secs, i.e. 273 seconds, was something to do with absolute zero, −273.14 °C. Sounds a bit improbable to me. Can anyone confirm or deny?

Incidentally the wc.pima.edu link about seems to have rotted.

Flapdragon 16:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References

Wasn't there a John Lennon song called "Utopian National Anthem" that consisted of a specified length of time of the record's silent lead-out? --Kalthare 02:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rauschenberg reference

Why did we remove the reference to Rauschenberg? Is it not true? It sounded pretty convincing but I don't know if there's any evidence for or against it. Chuck 22:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newcomer so I can't say why any piece was removed but I do have credible evidence from a citable source that Rauschenberg's white paintings were a prompt for Cage to finally produce his silent piece; 'Actually what pushed me into it was not guts but the example of Robert Rauschenberg. His white paintings... when I saw those, I said 'Oh yes, I must; otherwise I'm lagging, otherwise music is lagging' this is from "Erik Satie: A Conversation," in Contact no. 25 (autumn 1982): page 22 by John Cage, Roger Shattuck and Alan Gillmor. (I found the quote in Noise, Water Meat by Douglas Kahn; an invaluable Sound Art resource).

John Stokes 11:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed by an anonymous editor without explanation. I reverted the removal. Someone may want to work the quote above into the article. Algae 11:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant made a version of this

The last track on the Covenant album "United States of Mind" is called "You can make your own music"... it's 4 min and 33 seconds of silence... I guess that's some kind of cover on this one ;)

Instrumentation

I thougt it was composed for any instrument or combination of instruments, wasn't it? This is my information from the picture of the original score: Original score pictures

Silent bits on records

Seems that every album with a silent bit on it, whether its a whole track or some other kind of interval, is being added to the 'cultural refernces' section. In some cases this is valid, eg, Crass who actualy acknowledged that 4.33 was an influence on their song "Bomb", or Mike batt, who co-credited Cage and got sued by Cage's estate for his troubles. However many of the other inclusions seem tenuous to say the least... This article is after all about the piece 4.33, not records with silent bits on them where maybe these belong? Maybe this article needs to be pruned accordingly? quercus robur 19:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same thought had occurred to me. We need a savage pruning, with citations for those which remain. Mark ^{your words} 19:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of them shouldn't be there at all. The Korn one, for example, is a one minute silence in remembrance of someone who died, I think (I know there's more info on the relevent wiki page, but I can't be bothered looking right now.)Satan's Rubber Duck 03:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence, in other forms

I added a "See also" reference to 18½ minute gap. I understand that this article became a repository for random acts of silence, but at least the reference is to a whole article, as opposed to a fleeting reference. Under the same criteria, intentionally blank page has a see-also link to this article; shouldn't there be a reciprocal link? —Twigboy 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've pruned all the random silences now. Henry ^Flower 09:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I was making a case that the "see also" reference wasn't prune-worthy, seeing as there was another article. Thoughts? —Twigboy 18:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to start a List of silences then you're welcome to, but don't do it here. There's no other connection between the two. Henry ^Flower 18:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not connected, but related. Two "works" of silence that actually have ambient sound and are known by their length. But, I see your edit history tends not to favor "trivial" connections on other articles. If it had not been linked on intentionally blank page (blank-but-not-blank vs. silent-but-not silent = related), I never would have found this article. IMO, I think that's too strict a criteria to follow —Twigboy 21:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit

What an absolute farce. What is the world coming to? I like the quote from Batt: "Mine is a much better silent piece. I have been able to say in one minute what Cage could only say in four minutes and 33 seconds." I myself should go one better, be really radical and make a 12-second piece. That'll show the world, hahaha! Rogerthat ^Talk 11:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editions

Is the introdutory paragraph the best place to mention the two publications- Hinrishs/Peters (in the illustration) and the through -notated version in Score?

Search Error

On the first page of the index 0 (zero) search it still marks this page as:

0'00"

I'm not sure if this is an alternative name that has not been edited, but it doesn't look as though it is supposed to be there, seeing as the article is currently entitled:

4'33"

Just thought I'd point that out ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiikid (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Emperor's New Cloths?

Emperor's New Clothes anyone? This article ought to be rewritten to present the piece in question as what it is - either an elaborate practical joke on the part of Cage, or else a satire. Surely there can be nothing serious about a piece of music that consists of four minutes of timed silence. It is a highly amusing joke, but a joke nonetheless. "Music is the space between the notes," said Debussy. This is true, but 4'33" is another thing altogether; there must at least be notes for there to be a space between them.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.101.129.108 (talk • contribs).

As always, you are welcome to add such material provided it is verifiable and not original research. Grover cleveland 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you realise what this means?

Don't you realise what this means? Every person anywhere on the entire Earth is required to make some noise at least every 4 minutes 33 seconds! Otherwise they will produce an unlicensed, and therefore illegal, pirate reproduction of this music! JIP | Talk 20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this's true only for public performances. In privacy, everyone can be as quiet as one wants to.Punainen Nörtti

True, and to further refute this, it would mean that being silent for exactly 4 minutes 33 seconds could be a copyright infringement, but being silent for less or more would be a derived work. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't copyright a blank page and likewise you can't copyright dead-air. However, a video of a paticular group or person sitting there doing nothing would be copyrightable since it's more then just the lack of noise. (think about it... wouldn't these people be in violation of the copyrights of blank tape makers?:) ) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz version?

Uhhh, what is the difference between a normal edition and a jazz version of this piece? :-) Seriously, is the mention of a jazz version to be a joke or something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.249.188.85 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, the entire piece is a joke, as the article states. A jazz version (or any other for that matter) is merely running riffs (so to speak) on the joke. 59.101.238.34 05:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varying length versions

Does every rendition of this piece have to be exactly 4 minutes 33 seconds long? What if the performer feels like playing it faster or slower? (Incidentally shouldn't the article's reference to it being performed "on the piano" be "off the piano"?) I recently did an Excite.com search for John Cage's music and found versions with lengths of 4'27" and (on wikipedia, no less) 5'06". Rodparkes 06:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracks on recordings may be longer than the time it takes to perform the piece, being bookended by the moment before and after the piece is played. Hyacinth 05:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, and that could explain the 5'06", but what about the 4'27"? Maybe that's the abridged version for children? Rodparkes 06:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some missing info

There are a couple of pieces of information missing from this article. First, wasn't somebody successfully sued for copyight infringement relating to 4'33 about 5 years ago? I remember it was covered by the AP. Second, under cultural references there was a recording called "The Best of Marcel Marceau" released in the 1960s that is totally silent. I actually have this on a compilation CD of bizarre recordings. 68.146.8.46 01:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodhound Gang

I don't think the Bloodhound Gang reference was as much of a reference as it was a stab at New Jersey. The "Ten Coolest Things" are the seconds of silence (nothing), so the first coolest thing is nothing, the second being nothing, with one thing being told every second. I was bold and removed this from the article. --Piroteknix 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I pruned the list a little to exclude items that had no obvious reference to the piece, instead of just songs with silence as tracks. --Piroteknix 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what?

so wait... this is nothing... and it's famous? i am going to make a movie, of just a black screen, and see how it sells, :D

Too late, Derek Jarman beat you to it with a blue screen in "Blue". Rodparkes 06:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation?

How is the name of this piece pronounced? Four minutes and thirty-three seconds? Four minutes, thirty-three seconds? Or simply Four thirty-three? --Piroteknix 21:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]