The longest piece ever (Organ2)

[MC Pee pants]

Yeah, I don't know, I guess I was just getting a little frustrated that you guys couldn't even except that some people deem it music or art. I know that it looked ridiculous to me the first time I read the thread, but I asked my dad (whose a music major) and he started going off about him for about five minutes. I thought that if I could see that there is some reason for the weird stuff he does you guys could see it too, but eh. Maybe this less emphatic post will help more than before, but I guess I really don't care whether or not you like him, he is dead.
BTW: I don't want to get into an argument about this, but the idea behind why he is a genius isn't that he can make a really long song, anyone (as you proved) can do that. It's his philosophy that sets him apart. But I will recognize your title as the composer of the longest song (now doesn't that give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside?).

 

[Liquid Shadow]

BTW: I don't want to get into an argument about this, but the idea behind why he is a genius isn't that he can make a really long song, anyone (as you proved) can do that. It's his philosophy that sets him apart. But I will recognize your title as the composer of the longest song (now doesn't that give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside?).

Zing. It's not having such a long song that matters, it's the reasoning behind it. You guys have only proven that you can take someone else's concept and run with it.

 

[ElPredicador]

Well, if you take any song in which all notes last 0.5 seconds (which is somewhat slow, by the way), lasts 1:25 and play that tune playing the shortest note lasting 6 months, then you got yourself an 84 year piece. Imagine if you play DWOT (which has notes far shorter than 0.5 seconds) at that rythm. Mr Cage's '4:33' already made me think of him as a creative guy (not everyone has the imagination to let all his audience loose 4 minutes and 33 seconds in a concert watching some guy watch his piano), but this is just plain stupid. This is the kind of people snobs like to hear. Why listen to 4 minutes of silence? Because it's creative. A 6 hundred year song is cool? Yeah, it's so creative. Call it music if you want, but it is still stupid. I think Cage must be watching us from above laughing at how people keep falling for his music (oops, I forgot I don't think it is music).

PD: I probably was too harsh, but anyways, I still think it's stupid.

 

[ElPredicador]

Zing. It's not having such a long song that matters, it's the reasoning behind it. You guys have only proven that you can take someone else's concept and run with it.

And what's the reasoning behind this super long song? Please enlighten me, I don't get it. Perhaps it was... to do the longest song ever and see some stupid peaople actually trying to play it??

 

[MC Pee pants]

well I gave some insight into why, even comparing to the other major school of musical thought in the 20th century, but accidentally hit the back button on my mouse (so many buttons!) so all I"m going to tell you is that he has written many books, the first being "silence", which should give you some insight about 4:33 but I'm not sure.

 

[Rose Immortal]

At risk of sounding rather stupid here, I think that 4:33 was a clever idea...but this NEW one is not.

4:33 is something that whether you find it stupid or not, it does make a point (which others have already described far better than me). The trouble with Organ2 is that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to take in the entire performance and get any point it might be making, nor to record or convey that point by any means because of the same problem. The only way to have any conception of that piece--and this goes for the composer himself!--would be to think of it in a greatly sped-up way.

Music is something that I think a listener should be able to internalize and react emotionally to, that makes a point in its entirety as a composition. This piece deliberately removes the opportunity to do that--all one would hear while sampling it would be a noise. Yes, it would be a noise that happens to be tuned to a musical note, but a sustained flat tone that unless you were VERY lucky MIGHT change to one other sustained flat tone, simply does not constitute music. Unless you happen to be a spirit, who REALLY wants to kill eternity on this thing. And by the time you're dead, I REALLY suspect you'd have better things to do with your afterlife.

 

[MC Pee pants]

Some good points, but I personally think that in the same way 4:33 makes a point organ2 makes a point. Maybe something like that music lasts longer than any one person to enjoy all of it? But it also is more music than the former in that there are actually notes that change, which is basically the definition of music. So although any musical point organ2 may try to make will be lost through the generations, the idea of music being longer than one life time is something every generation can share. Although there may be some other deeper meaning than that, but I don't have time to read all of his books right now (haha what a hypocrite I am)

 

[OfSinsAndShred]

Music is something that I think a listener should be able to internalize and react emotionally to, that makes a point in its entirety as a composition. This piece deliberately removes the opportunity to do that

Maybe, by deliberately removing that opportunity, it is making us have this argument so we can come upon the realization that music is MEANT to be reacted to - it kind of makes you realize it when you get a piece of music with which you CAN'T experience it in its entirety.

No, wait, it's just a stupid gimmick.
I don't see why everyone praises all the people who created a new school of thought, a new philosophy on music in the 20th century - the old philosophy... which could probably be summed up into "Make good music" is fine as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Liquid Shadow]

Who has praised him in this thread?

 

[Taliwakker]

It's not the length of your piece that matters....it's where it goes.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Some good points, but I personally think that in the same way 4:33 makes a point organ2 makes a point. Maybe something like that music lasts longer than any one person to enjoy all of it? But it also is more music than the former in that there are actually notes that change, which is basically the definition of music. So although any musical point organ2 may try to make will be lost through the generations, the idea of music being longer than one life time is something every generation can share. Although there may be some other deeper meaning than that, but I don't have time to read all of his books right now (haha what a hypocrite I am)

It's interesting to consider in a theoretical sense.

But what really gets me is the sheer expense that's going towards making this thing happen, and for something that can never truly be appreciated. I am just not sure this is a hypothetical that ever needed to be put into practice.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Some good points, but I personally think that in the same way 4:33 makes a point organ2 makes a point. Maybe something like that music lasts longer than any one person to enjoy all of it? But it also is more music than the former in that there are actually notes that change, which is basically the definition of music. So although any musical point organ2 may try to make will be lost through the generations, the idea of music being longer than one life time is something every generation can share. Although there may be some other deeper meaning than that, but I don't have time to read all of his books right now (haha what a hypocrite I am)

It's interesting to consider in a theoretical sense.

But what really gets me is the sheer expense that's going towards making this thing happen, and for something that can never truly be appreciated. I am just not sure this is a hypothetical that ever needed to be put into practice.