From: John Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Either this discussion is taking place on a plane much higher than I can
reach, or it's beginning to get silly.
... 8^)
The simple fact is that all kinds
of music, not originally concieved or designed for dance, have been
co-opted by choreographers who
jef chippewa (or somebody) wrote:
>in 4'33", there are no specific theatrical or dance elements defined
>by the composer himself. all the claims to its being part of the
>field of dance, performance art, theatre are only individual
>perceptions and desires. for it to be considered a dance piec
At 4:03 AM +0100 1/08/03, jef chippewa wrote:
could you arrange mahler's 3rd for actors and for performance in a
theatre setting? how about just the trombone solo in the 1st
movement?
Yes, I probably could. (smile!) It would certainly bring a new point
of view to the work. This kind of co
hmmm, my response seems to have gotten quite long...
-
From: Christopher BJ Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Am I mis-remembering, or is there not a specific stage direction for
the pianist...
that was the original performance by tudor. it is not essential to
the performance, but seems to have se
Title: Re: [Finale] Re: [OT] 4'33: can anyone confirm that it isn't [only] music?
on 1/4/03 12:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 04/01/2003 16:59:29 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4'33" is not without sounds, it is
In a message dated 04/01/2003 16:59:29 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4'33" is not without sounds, it is without *intentional* sounds. The
dance equivalent would be to mark off a "dance floor" in some public
place, and then the dance would consist of the motions of all the
peopl
Jeff Chippewa:
the most essential intention of 4'33 clearly lies in the realm of
sound/music, although it is certainly not without interest to
consider the piece in relation to other contexts: dance =
non-movement?; theatre = non-action?; performance art =
non-intention?...
4'33" is not wit
At 3:14 AM +0100 1/04/03, jef chippewa wrote:
it has been argued that the fact that there is a specific [non-]
visual/movement element for the piece means that it is theatre,
dance, or performance art in some way.
Can it be said that ANY live performance of a piece of music is ONLY
sound, and
it has been argued that the fact that there is a specific [non-]
visual/movement element for the piece means that it is theatre,
dance, or performance art in some way.
4'33 [1952] is a work composed in three movements, to be "performed
by any instrumentalist(s)" [intro notes in score], with no
