Concerts of Everyday Living response

I am not posting this as a response to Brad's post, but to respond to the same thing.

In Concerts of Everyday Living, it states that musicians do not play as if they are someone else like an actor, but play as themselves.

This statement is pretty straight forward. And I agree. When I go on stage to play a show, I do not try to act like Vinnie Paul or Lars Ulrich, I do not want to act like them. I play myself, I express myself through my music and the motions I put into playing my music is a way I express my emotions towards the song. I'm not disagreeing with you Brad but I would like to know how that sentence irritated you so much. I will agree though, I do not understand how silence is a song at all. I am not artsy either and do not have the mind or thinking process to be artsy.

They do state later on that Cage's piece dnies the raison d'etre of music itself though. Sound. This article then goes on to give reasoning towards this. "On one level, as is relatively known, there is no absolute silence. Even in an anechoic chamber, pitched impulses of the nerve system and the low pitched drone of the circulation of the blood." Tudor raising and lowering his keyboard was his demonstration of constant sound. Raising and lowering his keyboard was making noise, the audience breathing was making noise. There never is any silence. But I still do not agree that this is considered a song of some sort.

By: Lucas Tracy