You know, I usually find so-called "Modern" composers ridiculous in the extreme. I mean, I am supposed to think that a bird skittering across a piano's keys is a moving piece? Please! But this idea is fairly intriguing... I wonder if they will go the distance....
Originally posted by Guru ZimI'm just trying to figure out this throw-away comment at the end...
The performance follows a legal case in which composer Mike Batt was forced to pay a six-figure sum to Cage's publishers, who accused him of plagiarising a silent piece of music.
About six months ago, another composer included a minute of silence in one of his pieces and credited John Cage, who wrote a famous piece called "4'33"" which was about four and a half minutes of...well, you know. The Cage Trust found out about it and sued...and won!
I remember reading in something that there is reason to think the whole lawsuit thing was more a publicity stunt that the Cage people were in on then any actual legal matter they intended to pursue. Did anyone else read this who might be able to source it, because for the life of me I have no idea where I saw this, but I am SURE I read it somewhere.
If I were a cartoon character in high school, I would so have a crush on Joan Of Arc.
I'm trying to figure out how they won when the guy, you know, CREDITED Cage.
Speaking of John Cage and 4'33"...
Quiz Bowl team was playing at one of the local Arkansas tournaments that mean nothing when we were presented with the very worst question ever written.
"Buzz in and perform the first five seconds of John Cage's 4'33"."
So one of the guys on our team buzzed in and sat there for about five seconds. After the moderator continued to stare at him like she needed an answer he said, "Do nothing," and we got the points. At the end of the round, the other team challenged on grounds that by saying something his answer was wrong, which is right, of course, but for god's sake why the hell was that question even written in the first place?
Pearl Jam - Live in Little Rock: 94 Days & Counting
Crediting was the fallacy. If they had given no credit, no one would know that it was a sample of Cage's work. Look at Soulfly's III. They gave no credit for their track "9-11-01" which was a one minute silence. No lawsuit there. More than likely, there was some sort of publicity stunt involved since Batt told the record company it was "Clint Cage" a psuedonym for himself to trick them into letting him credit it like that. Also, it should be pointed out that John Cage Trust didn't win the case, there was an out-of-court settlement, leading me to believe he had intended to pay out the whole time, sincee the case was realitively weak.
This is the funniest fucking thing I have read in a while. As soon as I saw her picture, I had to ask "How could you NOT punch her?" I'm surprised she made it out of the house without catching a soupbone.