Freakaholic
not just an addiction
If you miss Friday's musical happening at St. Burchardi Church in this eastern German town, no worries. There is always 2008. And the next year. And the one after that.
In fact, you have about six more centuries to hear developments in the work being performed, a version of a composition by John Cage called "As Slow as Possible." A group of musicians and town boosters has given the title a ridiculously extreme interpretation, by stretching the performance to 639 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/a...a63f5016d7ef52&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Somehow, this really seems to me to defeat the purpose of music, and art in general. I know John Cage is known for avant garde minimalism and stuff like that, and of course the 4'33" song, and how its purpose was to quote wikipedia:
"while nobody produces sound deliberately, there will nonetheless be sounds in the concert hall. It is these sounds, unpredictable and unintentional, that are to be regarded as constituting the music in this piece. The piece remains controversial to this day, and is seen as challenging the very definition of music."
But is this still "challenging the definition of music"? Personally, I prefer it challengedin more noisy ways.
In fact, you have about six more centuries to hear developments in the work being performed, a version of a composition by John Cage called "As Slow as Possible." A group of musicians and town boosters has given the title a ridiculously extreme interpretation, by stretching the performance to 639 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/a...a63f5016d7ef52&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Somehow, this really seems to me to defeat the purpose of music, and art in general. I know John Cage is known for avant garde minimalism and stuff like that, and of course the 4'33" song, and how its purpose was to quote wikipedia:
"while nobody produces sound deliberately, there will nonetheless be sounds in the concert hall. It is these sounds, unpredictable and unintentional, that are to be regarded as constituting the music in this piece. The piece remains controversial to this day, and is seen as challenging the very definition of music."
But is this still "challenging the definition of music"? Personally, I prefer it challengedin more noisy ways.
