I liked this a lot. I think the metronome was an excellent choice. The one thing I didn't like so much was the duck quack, which I think was slightly disruptive, and not really to good effect.
I am very interested in the two sorts of comments, broadly speaking, between those who are disturbed by the audience's laughter, and those who welcome it. Cage actually expressed an ambivilence re audience's reactions. He felt as though his stance vis a vis nbon-intentional sound required that he accept whatever noises an audience may make. On the other hand he said that when HE attends a performance he goes to listen, rather than add to the sounds present.
@nobodady1 - as you may have noticed, I also walk this line of disturbance, in that I've enhanced the sounds used in the piece. The sound of the rubber duck for instance was lost within the crowd's response. I wanted to hear them so I "fixed" what was missing for me:-) Still I imagine if the sounds of the audience could have been anticipated - Mr. Cage would have used the sound of discomforted laughter as an essential part of the work. Come to think of it I have no way to be sure that he did not
I just noticed that the response I just left was under the screen name of another of my accounts. I can see of course, that it looks like this @wmshaxpere is trying to take credit for the work of @xozoome - however I assure everyone involved that both of these persons are indeed - me:-) - I am Jonathan Ellis. I suppose one might say i wear many hats.
@wmshaxpere Prior to the performance Cage agreed with the moderator that laughter was OK : "preferable to tears" were Cage's words. So there is an openness to the audience response that he got. I can accept also that laughter became integral to this particular performance of Water Walk, but I would not agree that this response is an ESSENTIAL part of the composition as such. That is, alternate performances of the work would be satisfactory without this response.
@nobodady1 RE: "preferable to tears" - That's fascinating and and quite funny.) In that I considered the laughter a possibly essential characteristic, you are correct in that each performance would consequently include audience reaction of some sort, or if it were recorded in a "studio" space the result would be lacking that element. That being considered - would you not agree there's a great deal of spontaneity in the work that clearly allows for random elements to be introduced and/or removed?
@wmshaxpere Well, the score precisely notates the performer's actions. However, it is also true that no score can dictate every element of performance, nor does the score dictate a listener's response. Considering how in most classical performances, it may be unthinkable to perform a piece in which several of the instruments or instrumentalists weren't able to work, Cage's work embraces the ad hoc circumstances of performance.
@wmshaxpere Many things occured in this performance that were not written in the piece. The problem with the radios required an adaptation on the performer's part. The laughter was not scored, of course, but was explicitly welcomed in this venue. Random elements are ever present -- even in traditional performances, but this piece, like most of his other work, seems to intentionally allow for SOMETHING to happen that is not planned. What I find most comical is Cage shaking his hand dry.
I don't think people laughed because they felt uncomfortable, they laughed because this can either be viewed as art: Or the actions of an insane person. It's awesome that you appreciate what he's doing, I do as well. It can't be hard to see why putting a plant in a bathtub full of water, then watering it with a watering can, and calling it music is humorous. It'd be nice to hear without laughter, but to the general public TV audience, this is insanity. Hopefully a few of them actually listened.
I feel that people laugh at this sort of art because they become uncomfortable and don't truly have a desire to expand their understanding of sound. It's a shame, really.
I liked this a lot. I think the metronome was an excellent choice. The one thing I didn't like so much was the duck quack, which I think was slightly disruptive, and not really to good effect.
goldencricket 9 months ago
I am very interested in the two sorts of comments, broadly speaking, between those who are disturbed by the audience's laughter, and those who welcome it. Cage actually expressed an ambivilence re audience's reactions. He felt as though his stance vis a vis nbon-intentional sound required that he accept whatever noises an audience may make. On the other hand he said that when HE attends a performance he goes to listen, rather than add to the sounds present.
nobodady1 10 months ago
@nobodady1 - as you may have noticed, I also walk this line of disturbance, in that I've enhanced the sounds used in the piece. The sound of the rubber duck for instance was lost within the crowd's response. I wanted to hear them so I "fixed" what was missing for me:-) Still I imagine if the sounds of the audience could have been anticipated - Mr. Cage would have used the sound of discomforted laughter as an essential part of the work. Come to think of it I have no way to be sure that he did not
wmshaxpere 10 months ago
I just noticed that the response I just left was under the screen name of another of my accounts. I can see of course, that it looks like this @wmshaxpere is trying to take credit for the work of @xozoome - however I assure everyone involved that both of these persons are indeed - me:-) - I am Jonathan Ellis. I suppose one might say i wear many hats.
wmshaxpere 10 months ago
@wmshaxpere Prior to the performance Cage agreed with the moderator that laughter was OK : "preferable to tears" were Cage's words. So there is an openness to the audience response that he got. I can accept also that laughter became integral to this particular performance of Water Walk, but I would not agree that this response is an ESSENTIAL part of the composition as such. That is, alternate performances of the work would be satisfactory without this response.
nobodady1 10 months ago
@nobodady1 RE: "preferable to tears" - That's fascinating and and quite funny.) In that I considered the laughter a possibly essential characteristic, you are correct in that each performance would consequently include audience reaction of some sort, or if it were recorded in a "studio" space the result would be lacking that element. That being considered - would you not agree there's a great deal of spontaneity in the work that clearly allows for random elements to be introduced and/or removed?
wmshaxpere 10 months ago
@wmshaxpere Well, the score precisely notates the performer's actions. However, it is also true that no score can dictate every element of performance, nor does the score dictate a listener's response. Considering how in most classical performances, it may be unthinkable to perform a piece in which several of the instruments or instrumentalists weren't able to work, Cage's work embraces the ad hoc circumstances of performance.
nobodady1 10 months ago
@wmshaxpere Many things occured in this performance that were not written in the piece. The problem with the radios required an adaptation on the performer's part. The laughter was not scored, of course, but was explicitly welcomed in this venue. Random elements are ever present -- even in traditional performances, but this piece, like most of his other work, seems to intentionally allow for SOMETHING to happen that is not planned. What I find most comical is Cage shaking his hand dry.
nobodady1 10 months ago
FUCKIN AUDIENCE!!!!
giogotico 1 year ago
I don't think people laughed because they felt uncomfortable, they laughed because this can either be viewed as art: Or the actions of an insane person. It's awesome that you appreciate what he's doing, I do as well. It can't be hard to see why putting a plant in a bathtub full of water, then watering it with a watering can, and calling it music is humorous. It'd be nice to hear without laughter, but to the general public TV audience, this is insanity. Hopefully a few of them actually listened.
SpaceRitual 1 year ago
I feel that people laugh at this sort of art because they become uncomfortable and don't truly have a desire to expand their understanding of sound. It's a shame, really.
meaningfulthings 1 year ago
he's either really good at improv or REALLY bad at piano
happyface4444 1 year ago
@agatah55 To be fair, he put a mechanical fish on the piano strings. I would have laughed.
swordmaster373 1 year ago
I kind of wish the audience didn't laugh, it makes it hard to hear
swordmaster373 2 years ago 2
Thanks very much for this! I too was frustrated by the technical difficulties of this performance.
jasonels 2 years ago
XD
XD
NEXNEXT 2 years ago