This item is in today's NY Times (web site) and I was wondering what you thought about this type of thing?





Also, I was wondering what any of you thought about his piece entitled 4'33" (which consists of a musician, often a pianist but this is not a requisite, sitting [at the piano] in 'silence' for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. I put quotes around silence because, in fact, the music consists of all the noise that goes on in those 4 min. 33 secs.

Personally, I find this sort of thing hard to take. Sometimes I feel almost insulted by it because as hard as one might try to argue that 'noises' are music I don't think they are. Isn't he just pulling a fast one on everyone and getting an audience of suckers?

What's your opinion?

Bernard:

This sort of thing - for us "traditionalists" - is about as hard to take seriously as those works of "modern" art(?) that, for example, consist of a black dot on a white canvas, called (something like) "Composition 23 in black and white," which hang in up-scale galleries, are admired by all the cognoscenti and which are eventually sold for $10,000.00 to some bargain hunter, thrilled to get such a wonderful work for next to nothing!

It is[/b] difficult to take something like this seriously.

Regards,

I guess the "art"/"music" is in the reaction to this sort of thing.

I remember a story that kind of relates to this: The late John Lennon & Yoko were to 'perform" at a particular function, and avante garde as they were (Yoko anyway), they sent full-size cutouts of themselves to fulfill the commitment... As payment, the promoter sent them a picture of the check ..

Mat D.