Dear Jay, (01)
> Actually, I wasn't being so bold as to advance any theses one way or
> another - that's why I used quote marks :) I was asking
> questions because
> it seems to me that this notion of a performance of 4:33 is
> odd (vague) on
> the face of it in various ways, and I wanted clarification of
> what others
> took it to be. (02)
MW: Well Chris and I agree about that part. What is special
about a performance is its intentional nature. (03)
> Personally, I suspect John Cage of trying to
> mess with my
> mind :) (04)
MW: Yes, well at least trying to make you think.
>
> Simon and Garfunkel wrote "The Sounds of Silence". I think
> that at least
> some folks are taking it that a performance of 4:33 is
> intended to direct us
> towards attending to silence? (05)
MW: I really recommend reading the reference I gave earlier:
http://solomonsmusic.net/4min33se.htm (06)
> (Is that right? - Chris spoke
> of 4:33 as a
> limiting case of a musical rest.). Do we know that it's not
> the intention of
> the composer or performer to direct us to listen to ambient
> sounds during a
> performance? Do we know that these ambient sounds are not part of the
> 'music' that we are supposed to attend to as well as
> attending to silence?
> (Jeffrey referred to John Cage 'music'. Is the point of
> performing 4:33 an
> attempt to direct us to reconsider what our definition of
> music is? - Does
> music have to be sound intentionally produced? What about an
> accidental
> bow-scrape? What about foot stomps during Flamenco? What about my own
> foot-tappings?) Are we even supposed to be attending to
> silence as well
> as to sound? Or have I missed something about what a
> performance of 4:33 is
> supposed to be? (07)
MW: All questions I suspect John Cage was trying to ask with this
peice.
>
> Ironically, my phone just rang. When I picked it up, there
> was 'silence' on
> the line, besides a background noise.Was someone trying to
> call me or was it
> a random computer glitch somewhere? This happens a lot more
> these days than
> it used to :) I guess this is an epistemological question, though. (08)
MW: Yes. There are companies who have automatic dialers, and when
someone picks up, they try to connect you to one of their salesman.
If they can't get one on the line within a few seconds, they (or you)
hang up.
>
> Other questions which puzzle me:
>
> What if two performers announce simultaneous performances of
> 4:33 on the
> same stage and I don't hear one of the announcements? I
> suppose that I, in
> the audience, only (hear?) attend to one of the performances?
> But other
> folks hear two performances? Is that right? Or does everyone hear one
> performance? (09)
MW: I think there are two performances. (This is a bit like the
sound of a tree falling when there is noone to hear it).
>
> What if a performance of 4:33 is broadcast on the radio, but
> the transmitter
> fails during the 4:33 broadcast. - does the radio audience
> hear the whole
> performance? (Someone else alluded to this, I think.)
>
> An orchestra can perform a Beethoven symphony without
> announcing it first,
> and then folks in the audience willl likely respond
> affirmatively to the
> question: did you hear a symphony just now? And maybe,
> depending on the
> audience, even to the question, did you hear a Beethoven
> symphony just now?
> But will folks in the audience of an unannounced performance
> of 4:33 respond
> affirmatively to the question: did you hear a performance of
> 4:33 just now?
> What's the difference in these cases? Or can one perform 4:33
> unannounced?
> (Chris spoke of 'an internal nod', though.) (010)
MW: The first performance was announced by the lid of the piano
being raised or lowered at the beginning of the performance, and
at the start of each movement and at the end. (011)
Regards (012)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Registered number: 621148
Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (013)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (014)
>
> Also, is there a problem about (how you represent) the notion
> of 'hearing
> silence' (or of 'attending to silence')? Since silence is
> the absence of
> sound?
>
> (iff ( hearsSilenceDuring (?X ?T) (not (exists ?Y) (and
> (sound ?Y) (hears ?X
> ?Y ?T))))
>
> ??? (A crude attempt)
>
> How are you supposed to formalize this stuff?
>
> Cheers,
> Jay
>
> PS Speaking of intentions:
>
> " Hello darkness, my old friend
> I've come to talk with you again
> Because a vision softly creeping
> Left its seeds while I was sleeping
> And the vision that was planted in my brain
> Still remains
> Within the sound of silence"
>
> Metaphor and simile, of course, and so off-limits to
> formalization, as far
> as I know. That's why I suspect Cage of messing with my mind.
> He was an
> artist after all :).
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 9:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer pizza
> (was ckae)
>
>
> > Dear Chris,
> >
> >> >
> >> > > Your questions betray a radically extensionalist view of
> >> music, Jay
> >> > > -- you seem to be suggesting that a performance of
> Cage's piece is
> >> > > identical with any 4'33" interval of silence.
> >> > >
> >> > > > What is the sound of one hand clapping?
> >> > >
> >> > > Obviously you don't watch The Simpsons. :-)
> >> > >
> >> > > > "No entity without identity."
> >> > >
> >> > > Ah, confirmation of your extensionalism!
> >> >
> >> > What Jay had actually missed was the intentional nature of a
> >> > performance.
> >>
> >> Er, uh...huh? I chided Jay about his apparently
> extensional view of
> >> musical performances, i.e., the view that they are
> identical with the
> >> sound produced.
> >
> > MW: Well then perhaps I should be asking what you mean by
> > extensionalism, since it seems to be different from my
> understanding.
> >
> > MW: My understanding would be that under extensionalism, the
> > identity of an object (that it is a distinct object) is
> defined by its
> > extension. So a performance of 4'33" is a particular piece
> of space time
> > including temporal parts of the performers and listeners and some
> > instrument(s). It would not be any peice of silent 4'33", because it
> > needs to be an intentional silent performance of 4'33" to
> qualify. So
> > I would see a category error in what you were criticising
> as apparently
> > extensionalist.
> >
> >> Obviously, what is missing from such a view are the
> >> intentional elements of a performance (as I even illustrated; see
> >> below).
> >
> > MW: Yes, we are agreed on this. It is the leap to a problem with
> > xtensionalism that I do not follow.
> >>
> >> > (You may recall Leo pointing out the intentional nature of
> >> > performance.)
> >>
> >> And you may recall my pointing out that musical
> performances are not
> >> extensional. ;-)
> >
> > MW: Well I would say that they were extensional, so clearly we mean
> > something different. I'd like to know what you mean.
> >>
> >> > There is no performance of 4' 33" unless it is intended
> to be. The
> >> > intentional nature of performance is a key element of
> its identity.
> >>
> >> *boggle* In addition to registering my disagreement with an
> >> extensional
> >> view of musical performance, I paid explicit homage to the
> intentional
> >> in a passage you neglected to quote:
> >>
> >> > > Obviously [4'33"] begins at the beginning; given the
> nature of the
> >> > > piece it seems to me it begins when the performer gives
> >> some sort of
> >> > > internal nod and, of course, ends 4'33" later.
> >>
> >> > Extensionalism here is irrelevant, except that it allows
> >> you to answer
> >> > the question of how many performances there were in a
> >> particular hall
> >> > at a particular time based on the participation of the
> >> performers and
> >> > the audience.
> >>
> >> I think you need to re-read my post. Our views of performance are
> >> apparently quite similar. Why you failed to see that is
> >> rather baffling
> >> to me.
> >
> > MW: I agree our views of performance are similar. I am baffled by
> > what you mean by extensionalism.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Matthew West
> > Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> > Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> > Registered in England and Wales
> > Registered number: 621148
> > Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> >
> > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> > Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.shell.com
> > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (015)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (016)
|