Vulfpeck, a small-time funk band with a couple of retro-styled albums under its belt, recently released Sleepify, an album made up of nothing but silence. This isn’t a completely new concept: Anyone with a pompous theory streak will insist that it’s really the silence between the notes that matter—and congratulations if you’re already thinking of John Cage’s 4’33,” a composition performed by sitting there without playing.
OK, that’s cool. John Cage is a highly regarded artist and his 1953 composition 4’33” is a highly regarded work. In fact, there’s a fantastic exhibit at New York’s Museum of Modern Art dedicated to the creation and performance of 4’33”. It runs until June 22nd.
But I digress.
Vulfpeck’s latest album is a business experiment, not a musical one. The idea behind the project is for fans to stream the “songs” constantly, generating royalties for the band in their spare time. Vulfpeck plans to use the proceeds to go on tour. It’s an ingenious publicity stunt and, if you squint hard enough, a commentary on the way music is valued in the digital age.
Um, what? Is this art or is it theft?
At first blush, I immediately went to the latter. But then I thought, what if this music was more traditional. What if Vulfpeck did the traditional thing and pushed their fans to listen to their music via Spotify to help fund their tour. Nothing wrong with that, right? So if the music is composed of silence, does that cross some line?
Interesting.
This is absolutely not theft in any way.
“Is this art or is it theft?” — Great artists steal.
Theft? Probably not.
But it is jumping through loopholes. I don’t expect Spotify to keep it around much.
I suspect they’d do better via Kickstarter or some other crowd-funding method, than this.
It’s not theft. It’s just cleverness.
It would be the same as having the fans listen to the band with the volume turned down.
It would be the same as having the fans listen to the band with the volume turned down.
Considering the recent court ruling that screwed artists in favor of streaming on the Internet, I think it’s not only not crossing the line, but a genius way to stick it to the thieving Internet streaming companies that pay a pittance in royalties to the artists who make their business model so lucrative.
I say every artist should have a silence channel. Do a tribute album to Cage’s 4’33” that streams silence 24/7.
i realize it’s famous for being first, but 4’33” is like putting an empty canvas up in an art gallery. to call it a “work” is the same as art collectors staring wistfully at the empty canvas and raining accolades of its subtle tonal mastery. it’s nonsense. a case of the emperor wearing no clothes, if ever there was one.
There’s nothing stopping them from doing a kickstarter as well.
How Dada of them. (See Marchel Duchamp “Fountain” among others for putting up regular things as works of art.)
when I was younger, back in the days of jukeboxes with 45s, there was a blank record that played a few minutes of silence per play. The old timers used to stuff the jukebox with money so they could drink their beer in peace as away from us rock dudes.
In John Cages 4’33” there is a mistake at the two minute mark.
studied that in school, too. yyyeah…
i always think to myself, you know what Michelangelo never did? deliver a hunk of boulder to a patron and pretend it was art.
thats awesome.
That’s interesting.
Some people want the “product” of silence, and will pay to get it.
You offer a good analogy.
So, Vulfpeck is doing something similar. However, to be successful, they still have to get (lots of) people to listen. For myself, I never would.
About a piece of artwork in a museum that consists no more of one red rectangle: “Yeah, I must admit, when I see a painting like this, I get emotionally… erect.” – L.A. Story