But your 20s avant guardist actually *did* something in relation to
his act! My pianist just sits there. There's a difference, don't you
think? In your case something is given, in my case nothing is. There
is no mystery in your case. The mystery in mine is why some people
thought they had received what they paid for and others did not.
Perhaps it is only via that special mental activity we refer to as
"creativity" that we are able to "give freely". You can even - via
artistic expression - convince (some) people that Nothing is Something.
Happens all the time in Hollywood......;)
You have to remember that most of what people call "art" is something
that happens inside their head anyway. I'm quite sure that there
would have been some people at your concert in the 20s who considered
hacking a piano to pieces a valid form of musical expression, just as
at least half of the audience who sat through John Cage's 4'33" (he's
no 'epigone', mate!) in the 50s were prepared to pay the ticket price
to watch a guy looking at a piano keyboard.
Pure nothing is unusual. I can only JUST bear it for 4'33".
Why this duration?
I hope people see the point to this end of the discussion
On 07/03/2006, at 6:27 AM, John M wrote:
> you described an epigon (I suppose) It happened in the
> 20s at an 'avant-guard' performance that the pianist
> walked in with a big hatchet and chopped the piano to
> pieces, then took a bow and left. (I did not call that
> a concert).
> People like to expect what they are used to.
> --- Kim Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Somebody once wrote a piece of music which in fact
>> involved not
>> writing a piece of music at all.
>> The score of the piece merely instructs the pianist
>> to sit down, open
>> the lid of the piano and wait out a period of 4' 33"
>> then close the
>> piano lid and walk off.
>> Many people who "heard" it at the premiere felt
>> ripped off. Others
>> agreed with the composer that music had in fact
>> Something was given for Nothing
>> Does something have to be paid for?
>> Kim Jones
>> On 06/03/2006, at 4:14 PM, Norman Samish wrote:
>>> "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
>>> When I heard that Famous Question, I did not
>> assume that "nothing" was
>>> describable - because, if it was, it would not be
>> "nothing." I
>>> don't think
>>> of "nothing" as an empty bitstring - I think of it
>> as the absence of a
>>> bitstring - as "no thing."
>>> Given that definition, is there a conceivable
>> answer to The Famous
>> Everyone lies about everything all of the time.
>> Believe me.
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Everyone lies about everything all of the time. Believe me.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at