But they're not notorious   The bricks are.  Tracey Emin's bed is.  And no serious discussion is possible about any of this stuff, because positions have become so polarised by the scandalised rhetoric on both sides

What's that supposed to prove, A? Gesualdo would have failed a harmony exam with his sixth book of madrigals.

I was stumped once when trying to explain the need for a 'substantial' piece in a PhD portfolio to a student. 'So, Webern would have failed, then?' 


Not necessarily a higher education degree though. Given an appropriate contextual commentary. Like Silence, for example. 

If it really were "nothing", as you say, it wouldn't have generated so much discussion, would it?
Then of course they would have been plagiarising Cage and not producing their own work at all, so they'd deserve to fail!

Mmm...perhaps he would if he had been examined by the Associated Board! However, I don't think his writing was that much outside the aesthetics of 1611. Ever since the days of Vicentino (born 100 years earlier in 1511) revivals of the ancient Greek chromatic genus had been developed in many ways, and it was not that uncommon to 'modulate' between diatonic and chromatic genera even before 1611.

Baz

A, what really seems to bother you is the lack of visible 'hard work' or skill that's gone into 4'33" as you see it. Unfortunately, neither hard work nor even a skilled composer can guarantee a significant work of art. Conversely, irritating as it may be, sometimes the opposite is true: a significant work of art is produced with apparently little or no hard work on the part of the artist.

Hard work can't even always guarantee success in exams, if you've no skill or talent or aptitude. But I'd suggest that GCSEs and A-levels are about measuring skill or talent. That's the difference between something which passes an exam and something which comes to be regarded as a significant work of art: just think of all those Prix de Rome-winning pieces of music ...

Baz: I wanted to reply to your post this morning but didn't have time.Just for the record, I didn't think you were being hostile at all. I just thought you were wrong about its aims and structure! (And I did acknowledge that it might simply be a case of me thinking you were wrong, and you thinking I was wrong ... But I saw no harm in trying to convince you of my position (and also was pleased of the chance to clarify some of my own thoughts in the process).)

I agree that that in itself could be an interesting and novel exploration ... but it doesn't accord at all with my own impression of what 4'33" is about.

So, far from thinking you were being hostile to Cage, I think you may have been too willing to see his piece as an interesting and non-charlatanesque (is that a word?) example of something which is just not quite what he had in mind.

I must INSTANTLY refer you to Member Grew's definition of 'criteria'! (See Glossary thread.) You will remember that a 'criteria' is a kind of communal 'weeping centre' where special serviettes are dispensed.