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

dear richard,

in fact to think 0`00``as a koan is a very wise thing to think... not  
only because its true but also because cage would love the idea i  
think... best regards. vitor rua


On 26 Oct 2011, at 00:04, Richard Friedman wrote:

> Something that has zero duration is a physical impossibility, unless  
> perhaps we're talking about quantum effects.
> That said, I always considered 0'0" to be not a joke, but a  
> conundrum, perhaps a musical koan, equivalent to the sound of one  
> hand clapping. And very clever.
> <R>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Vitor Rua <[email protected]>  
> wrote:
> it´s your vision and i respect... but don´t agree...
>
> if 0`00``is a "part 2" of 4`33``... why should we do interpretations  
> about what is not there?...
> what is there is that the piece is zero seconds of duration...
> if he wants to say absence of time measure he can put (thats the  
> correct notation for that) a "O" !!! thats the sign for "no measure"  
> used by all the contemporary composers...
> but its your opinion ... and its a valid opinion like others... like  
> mine...
> best regards
> vitor rua
>
>
>
> On 25 Oct 2011, at 22:03, matteo pittoni wrote:
>
>> As the partition talks about performing an action, and we try to  
>> recall the devotion to rational thought always showed by John Cage,  
>> I believe there is no reason to think that it should last zero  
>> seconds.
>>
>> As for the reason of the title, maybe he used this to suggest the  
>> absence of a time measure : thus, a temporal indeterminacy.
>>
>> In 4'33', there was a constraint on duration, but no constraint on  
>> any action ; maybe 0'00'' is meant to constrain the action (which  
>> must be disciplined) but not duration...
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Matteo
>>
>>
>> On 25 October 2011 22:38, David Badagnani  
>> <[email protected]> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Richard Friedman
> Oakland, California
> http://rchrd.com/