How do Davies and Levitin define music? How does Davies, on this basis, respond to the challenge of the Cage piece 4'33"? What do you think Levitin might say about it?
Both Davies and Levitin define music most simply as being “organized sound”. Davies argues that Cage’s piece 4’33” is not organized sound because the ambient noise is unpredictable, and contrary to the belief that the audience members are the performers, the audience is not included in the score, and therefore only the musicians playing the piece are the performers. Davies sees the piece not as a piece of music but as a piece of performance art because the real performance is in the statement that is made by the musicians on stage rather than the actual sound. I believe that Levitin would agree with Davies because he talks about the importance of the relationships between sounds in music, and that is something that Cage’s piece seems to lack, as well as any kind of organization whatsoever.
As Levitin illustrates, composer Edgard Varese's definition of music is "organized sound." Levitin goes on to say that, "the basic elements of any sound are loudness, pitch, contour, duration (or rhythm), tempo, timbre, spatial location, and reverberation... and these include meter, harmony, and melody."
Being that I didn't receive the Davies article, I still Googled him and his philosophy on music and art. (My reference: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/music/) Davies' basically says that since ambiance is created by the unintended, distracting noises (presumably that is Cage's intention, anyway), and that since Cage's three movements can't satisfy the definition of music, he can't bring himself to accept it as anything but a piece of art.
In my opinion, Davies is right on until he mentions the word, "art." I personally believe that the definitions of painting, sculpture, music, writing, photography and other forms of creative mediums are restrictive to a certain point. Occasionally one or more may cross the bounds into one another (e.g. opera, cinema, digital media), but art in itself is still restrictive. This is where I take the liberty of defining art as a "creative avenue or medium" or the result/composition of a creative avenue. Cage's piece defies the definition of both improvisational music and theatre (being that it is a “written”/planned piece), so if we want to argue that the piece is “performance art” we have to name the genre. Something tells me that Paul Taylor or Katherine Dunham would have good arguments against 4'33” being a dance piece or Martin Scorsese or Tennessee Williams being able to debunk 4'33” as a theatrical or cinematic composition. Not to mention that if good arguments were provided that 4'33” is any other form of art than music, Cage would likely disagree anyway. Thus we enter this dilemma of being unable to place this composition into any kind of genre of creativity.
This is where I argue the difference between art and eccentricity. To force a composition into a certain genre (which is what Cage is doing) is to question what defines that genre. To accept 4'33” as a musical composition, to permit eccentrics to categorize their compositions as whatever they choose, disregarding (or perhaps purposefully creating) the disorganization amongst that medium, means art, as a whole, is in danger. “Stairway to Heaven” is a musical piece whilst “The Shining” is a cinematic piece whilst “PVT Wars” is a theatrical piece (all pieces of art). 4'33” is simply an effort to stretch or redefine music therefore art as a whole; while “Phantom of the Opera”, “Mona Lisa”, and “Changes” by David Bowie are pieces of art, 4'33” is a piece of eccentricity. “Eccentricity is [the practice] of being different for the sake of being different...” (http://le-mec.deviantart.com/journal/11642322/?offset=20)
I'm not so sure Levitin would agree with my tangent, but I have every faith that considering his list of criterion for sound and music he agrees with Davies that Cage's piece is not musical.
Davies is terribly reliant on music being "organized sound", and loses sight of most musical value Cage's piece has. Though he directly states three listening tactics to approaching this piece, he disregards the latter explorative ideations as thoughts to follow in a different circumstance of listening. 4'33" to Davies is an art piece, not a piece of music. This tells me he has failed to acknowledge the fundamentals of dualism. This is a new context of music!
Davies and Levitin define music as being organized sound. Both Davies and Levitin believe that music stems from different instruments used in a harmonious manor to make music. Saying that, it is evident that ambient sound is not included in music to Davies or Levitan.
In Davies response to 4'33" Davies claimed 4'33" as a piece of theater. He states in Themes in The Philosophy of Music that "As an artwork 0'0" is a piece of theater, an example of performance art, not of music. I claim the same for 4'33""
I believe that Levitin would have very similar beliefs as Davies. Levitin in his book This Is Your Brain On Music took a very scientifically approach on what music was. Levitin discusses the fundamental building blocks of music and how when organized do the building blocks give rise to music. So this is why I feel as though he would have a similar response to 4'33" with Davies.
Both Davies and Levitin define music most simply as being “organized sound”. Davies argues that Cage’s piece 4’33” is not organized sound because the ambient noise is unpredictable, and contrary to the belief that the audience members are the performers, the audience is not included in the score, and therefore only the musicians playing the piece are the performers. Davies sees the piece not as a piece of music but as a piece of performance art because the real performance is in the statement that is made by the musicians on stage rather than the actual sound. I believe that Levitin would agree with Davies because he talks about the importance of the relationships between sounds in music, and that is something that Cage’s piece seems to lack, as well as any kind of organization whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteAs Levitin illustrates, composer Edgard Varese's definition of music is "organized sound." Levitin goes on to say that, "the basic elements of any sound are loudness, pitch, contour, duration (or rhythm), tempo, timbre, spatial location, and reverberation... and these include meter, harmony, and melody."
ReplyDeleteBeing that I didn't receive the Davies article, I still Googled him and his philosophy on music and art. (My reference: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/music/) Davies' basically says that since ambiance is created by the unintended, distracting noises (presumably that is Cage's intention, anyway), and that since Cage's three movements can't satisfy the definition of music, he can't bring himself to accept it as anything but a piece of art.
In my opinion, Davies is right on until he mentions the word, "art." I personally believe that the definitions of painting, sculpture, music, writing, photography and other forms of creative mediums are restrictive to a certain point. Occasionally one or more may cross the bounds into one another (e.g. opera, cinema, digital media), but art in itself is still restrictive. This is where I take the liberty of defining art as a "creative avenue or medium" or the result/composition of a creative avenue. Cage's piece defies the definition of both improvisational music and theatre (being that it is a “written”/planned piece), so if we want to argue that the piece is “performance art” we have to name the genre. Something tells me that Paul Taylor or Katherine Dunham would have good arguments against 4'33” being a dance piece or Martin Scorsese or Tennessee Williams being able to debunk 4'33” as a theatrical or cinematic composition. Not to mention that if good arguments were provided that 4'33” is any other form of art than music, Cage would likely disagree anyway. Thus we enter this dilemma of being unable to place this composition into any kind of genre of creativity.
This is where I argue the difference between art and eccentricity. To force a composition into a certain genre (which is what Cage is doing) is to question what defines that genre. To accept 4'33” as a musical composition, to permit eccentrics to categorize their compositions as whatever they choose, disregarding (or perhaps purposefully creating) the disorganization amongst that medium, means art, as a whole, is in danger. “Stairway to Heaven” is a musical piece whilst “The Shining” is a cinematic piece whilst “PVT Wars” is a theatrical piece (all pieces of art). 4'33” is simply an effort to stretch or redefine music therefore art as a whole; while “Phantom of the Opera”, “Mona Lisa”, and “Changes” by David Bowie are pieces of art, 4'33” is a piece of eccentricity. “Eccentricity is [the practice] of being different for the sake of being different...” (http://le-mec.deviantart.com/journal/11642322/?offset=20)
I'm not so sure Levitin would agree with my tangent, but I have every faith that considering his list of criterion for sound and music he agrees with Davies that Cage's piece is not musical.
Davies is terribly reliant on music being "organized sound", and loses sight of most musical value Cage's piece has. Though he directly states three listening tactics to approaching this piece, he disregards the latter explorative ideations as thoughts to follow in a different circumstance of listening. 4'33" to Davies is an art piece, not a piece of music. This tells me he has failed to acknowledge the fundamentals of dualism. This is a new context of music!
ReplyDeleteDavies and Levitin define music as being organized sound. Both Davies and Levitin believe that music stems from different instruments used in a harmonious manor to make music. Saying that, it is evident that ambient sound is not included in music to Davies or Levitan.
ReplyDeleteIn Davies response to 4'33" Davies claimed 4'33" as a piece of theater. He states in Themes in The Philosophy of Music that "As an artwork 0'0" is a piece of theater, an example of performance art, not of music. I claim the same for 4'33""
I believe that Levitin would have very similar beliefs as Davies. Levitin in his book This Is Your Brain On Music took a very scientifically approach on what music was. Levitin discusses the fundamental building blocks of music and how when organized do the building blocks give rise to music. So this is why I feel as though he would have a similar response to 4'33" with Davies.