I have something to say and I'm saying it

It's time for us to have a frank chat about an incredibly divisive piece of music. John Cage's infamous 4'33". I haven't timed this well seeing as last year was the Cage centenary, when avant-garde aficionados could not avoid being encaged by the man, not even the BBC Proms could escape. But I have to get this stuff off my chest because it seems like every couple of months someone will offhandedly mention the work and I take it upon myself to defend it from the giggles of workmates or the sneers of friends. Plus writing all this stuff here means I can just point their noses at this blog rather than blustering about, probably half-drunk, trying to remember all of my key arguments.

So let's begin. This is in no way an academic or well-researched argument. I'm aiming at a "middle class dinner party" level of rhetoric as this is the environment where I imagine the sneers to be at strongest.

In case you weren't aware 4'33", composed in 1952, is John Cage's "silent" piece for any instrument or group of instruments. And that's how its always described, with the silent air-quoted to buggery. But not without reason because the first thing I have to make clear when trying to introduce people to this work is that true silence is very hard to come by. Cage himself tried and failed and through this failure 4'33" was born. Cage visited the anechoic chamber at Harvard University in search of silence. Put simply an anechoic chamber is a room that is perfectly sound-proofed and allows no sound to bounce off its walls. Therefore such a place must be the closest on Earth to perfect silence. But Cage was surprised that he could still hear something. A high and a low frequency. The engineer told him those sounds were both his nervous system and his blood circulating. And people talk about dance music as being all about the body... The mechanics of our own bodies ensure that we can never experience true silence.

What this means for the music is that while on the surface we seem to be presented with a block of silent musicians in reality we are presented with an infinity of incidental sounds. In fact Cage sums it up perfectly when speaking after the 4'33" premiere:

"There’s no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn’t know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began pattering the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out."

With 4'33" and "audible" works such as Cage's experiments with altering the sound of the piano and pieces using non-musical instruments such as plants and torn paper Cage was proposing a whole new approach to listening. A deep and considered listening of the world and the inner, micro-qualities of all sounds. Cage's music was all about an opening up of music to embrace that which was always outside it.

It seems a simple prospect, just to listen with an attentive ear. But its a conceptual leap that I imagine my dinner party guests will struggle with. There is something unsettling about not knowing what you're supposed to be listening for when there are no obvious in-built musical signposts like a change to a minor key or a drum solo. Especially since this is the point where verbal or written communication of ideas completely breaks down. Maybe a personal example will do. While watching the performance of But what about the noise of crumpled paper... at last year's Cage event at the BBC Proms I had a small deep listening epiphany. On stage a performer picked up a flag and began to wave it. The wafting of the flag punctuated the hall and yet was so fragile... yep words really are failing me but nevertheless there was something about the raw sound that was just incredible. There is no trick it. I was just listening to someone waving a flag. And it was amazing.


This approach to both listening and composing has lead to so many exciting explorations of sound. From Chris Watson's nature recording to Scanner's controversial use of hacked phone conversations. Don't think popular music was safe though. The incorporation of non-musical sounds in music is commonplace today and the alchemical sound processing of modern electronic dance music producers owes a lot to this whole idea of deep listening.

I'm sure the next question on the lips of my wary acquaintances will be "But is it even music?". Well this blog is going to be long enough without trying to wade through this minefield so I'll just state my opinion. Anything organized by a human or human-created system is music. Therefore, I would say a recording of a rainforest would be music but standing in the rainforest and listening to it would not be music. 4'33" is thus music because it was structured by a human. The duration, choice of instruments and choice of material (silence, duh) were conscious decisions. Anyway that's my definition of music, it may not be yours but there's nothing to gain from arguing over semantics. A rose by any other name etcetera etcetera.

There are of course many more analyses and theories about 4'33" but they would probably overwhelm or serve to prove the point of my detractors. I'll quickly point out though Cage's connection to Zen Buddhism and I'm sure the yogic among you could discover some inner peace within the tranquility of Cage's silent meditation. Not for me though, I prefer to look it from the angle of Cage's interest in randomness. 4'33" can be a chaotic work (especially if you were to schedule it during The Last Night Of The Proms) completely open to the whims of an apathetic universe... Anyway, having so many interpretations and provoking so many debates and arguments must prove that this is an important work of 20th century art! And of course the opinion that it really means nothing is equally valid. Hell, this is basically backed by Cage himself in one of my favourite quotes of his:

"I have nothing to say / and I am saying it / and that is poetry"

I'd like to think this is a very punk quote but I don't have the skills to present Cage as a punk vanguard so let's just ignore that thought...

So my points have been presented, my references check out and everyone at the dinner table seems happy. I've cast a bit of light on what to most people was little more than academic tomfoolery. But then the contented air is broken when one person pipes up with, "Yeah but it's still quite pretentious isn't it." Argh, how I hate that word, so much so I think I'd like to dedicate a future post to the subject. Thankfully, since I'm sat at a computer and have time to gather my thoughts I can take my time to prepare a carefully worded counter-argument... That's bollocks! It's not pretentious at all. The piece asks less of the audience than practically the entire canon of classical music. All it requires is that the audience listens to the world around them. Just sit and listen. Nothing else. You don't need to know about sonata form, major and minor keys nor any of the awkwardness that still persists around movements and whether or not to clap in-between. (Yes, I know 4'33" is in 3 movements which is a bit ridiculous but the nature of the piece means this is hidden from most listeners). Despite everything I've said and the arguments presented, this piece does not lecture. Its apolitical. Its completely benign. So if it's become pretentious just to concentrate and listen then we might as well give up as a species and live as semi-sentient blobs plugged into the 24-hour Michael Bay channel.

Phew, rant over. There's one more snide comment that I expect someone to make. "If you like it so much than would you buy a recording?" ... "Would you see it performed live?" My answer would then be a, perhaps suprising, "No". Hypocritical? Well, not really. You see 4'33" is actually quite dull. Despite what I've said about the importance of the piece it somewhat detracts from the rest of Cage's work. Its so singular in all aspects of structure, texture, timbre, rhythm... I'd be one to say that silence is an under-used tool for creating extreme tension or calm in music but (har har) there's too much of here. Of course, what's around me is infinite in variation but if I was to listen to the piece I'd probably be in a concert hall or in my flat. Not very interesting soundworlds!

So in summary, is it necessary to know about any Cage's ideas to appreciate the music? Did you really need to read this blog? Sadly, yes and I admit that is a big barrier to any completely fresh listener. Our culture hasn't set us up to know we can listen to everything or why just listening (rather than just hearing something while paying attention to something else) is important. But learning about this stuff isn't hard in the Wiki-age and if you're interested in exploring new music you really should put in a bit of time. Like you would for anything you were passionate about. Just reading the Wikipedia article on 4'33" will show you more interesting ideas than I could touch on here. But if you're not interested that's perfectly fine. You don't have to pay it any attention. Its not going to harm you. Just don't be a dick at dinner parties. You don't have an excuse now.