Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 0'00" is a joke...

dear david: you are absolutly rigth !!!!!
best regards
vitor rua


On 25 Oct 2011, at 21:38, David Badagnani wrote:

> Great discussion.  I can't think of any better use for this list!
>
> If 0'00" is not the duration of the piece, why is it entitled that?   
> From all this discussion, I'm still not sure I understand that.  Is  
> the lack of time in the title metaphorical?  And is there not at  
> least a hint of humor?  First came the white paintings, then the  
> silent piece of 4 minutes and 33 seconds' duration, then the very  
> loud piece of no duration...it simply seems to be taking an idea to  
> its logical extreme.
>
> -- 
> David Badagnani
> Kent, Ohio
> USA
>
> From: Matt Rogalsky <[email protected]>
> To: Vitor Rua <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 4:09 PM
> Subject: [silence] Re: Re: Re: 0'00" is a joke...
>
> OK, you pulled me in to make one more reply.
>
> On 2011-10-25, at 4:01 PM, Vitor Rua wrote:
>
> > oh pleaseeeeeee... not even einstein will think that this  
> composition must be performed... unless they perform on a warm whole  
> or something...theres no DURATION !!!!!
>
> The title of this piece is not its duration. The score instructions  
> make that clear.
>
> >> think of some of the more abstract Fluxus era compositions by La  
> Monte Young and others, for instance, which really are not really  
> performable in a concert hall sense).
> >
> > I have performed almost all the pieces
>
> But not all.. because some cannot be performed in a concert-hall  
> sense.
> Such as: "This piece is little whirlpools in the middle of the  
> ocean" (that's from memory, please forgive if I am paraphrasing)
>
> OK, bye! That's the end of my contribution to this discussion!
>
> in friendship,
> Matt R
>