I think his contention that the music is produced at negative monetary gain is only true if you believe it to be the case that professorships are extrinsic to the profession of composer. Since the people who make this music tend to have lecturer positions or (less often) tenure-track jobs, I would say that their music is making them money, just not directly. If it were left entirely to the market, there would be no experimental music anymore.
"Understand" and "enjoy" are not entirely synonymous, although the former can really aid the latter. I don't think music is purely only a science or that its evolution should be guided by progressiveness alone. The greatest works of music (which often happen to be the best-loved) were inspired, I believe (maybe wrongly), by the desire to express something- an idea, a sound, an image, an emotion, or a purely musical thought. New forms/ tonalities/ methods of playing are just tools to get there.
@LesbianStraightGay But can't the government also be driven by greed, at least in some ways? I mean, it (our government) isn't too terrible, especially compared to what it could be, but it isn't near perfect and no government can ever be all that great.
@AyumuVanguard I didn't say that the US government was terrible.I just said that greed was not always a primal drive behind the government. But of course, if we generalize our life then almost every person is more or less greedy.
@LesbianStraightGay ...typical or extrovert) is still going to like music more for the people they associate it with than the music itself most of the time, made worse by fear of being "weird" and anything associated with "weird."
@LesbianStraightGay I do agree that the Internet is killing trendy music. My main use of the Internet is for looking for more music. Without it, I'd either be stuck with my parents' taste or mainstream music, neither of which I'd be able to enjoy that much. Maybe I did misinterpret what Babbitt was saying, maybe Babbitt misinterpreted what was happening historically so I interpreted it differently, being able to look back and see what was happening. But your typical extrovert (I'm neither...
@LesbianStraightGay There's a difference between writing music for yourself and writing specifically NOT to be listened to. All art should be done for the sake of art and not for an audience. What Milton Babbitt is saying is to make music for the purpose of an audience, but, when it comes down to it, an audience of music professors etc. who live in their own little world and are glad that you have to put up with "Baby, Baby, Baby OOOHHHHHH" because you didn't major in music like they did.
@AyumuVanguard Acually Babbitt deeply cared about the audience, at least in the second half of his career. It seems like in the 50s he was slightly arrogant but mellowed considerably since then.But again, there was no internet then. He died without realising its true power. Not that he wasn't interested but he was too old to study computer and programming thoroughly.
@AyumuVanguard You mentioned an obstacle preventing form getting Babbitt to the wider audience. I would agree that the audience of his music are usually well-off (higher middle class) , very educated people who are extremely enthusiastic about music.They are few of the few. ( though I don't belong to this category). A random guy/girl obsessed with GaGa will never ever listen to such music.
Babbitt wanted to say that theoretical concepts as well as new technology dramatically expand the abilities of the composer and such composer should create art for the sake of art without any compromise or commercial interest.Though when he was writing it , there was no internet, but now,internet is slowly but steadily killing trendy music.
By the way, I think this is a very creative and engaging way to bring Babbitt's article to a new readership, whatever else one thinks about it. Well done.
@platero55 "It's like a diner at a restaurant saying 'Phooey on your beef bourguignon and cabernet sauvignon. I'll sit over here by myself and gnaw on my molecular gastronomy which you are obviously too benighted to appreciate.'"
I want to quote that one day. I'm not sure when, but I want to. And I do agree with you. I like new music but I think Babbitt started the "elitist side" to it. I mean, Shoenberg didn't, Stockhausen didn't, Messiaen didn't... Everyone else WANTED some sort of audience..
@AyumuVanguard At the beginning Stockhausen didn't give a damn about the audience. At the beginning he couldn't even make living out of composing. He had to conduct. Though later a small circle of connaisseurs became bigger.
And more @ Milton Babbitt - You do know that just because the public isn't at the concerts doesn't mean that they can't know about it and therefore not have an opinion, right? The social aspects will still be there, they will just be undesirable. The only people who will be able to come will be those who are experts, and the music will be shunned accordingly and stereotyped as "ivory tower" and "intellectual" even though it mostly isn't (except for yours.) Oh wait, that IS the case. Oops.
@ Milton Babbitt - I know you can't respond, but I'm typing this as if you could anyways. You can't just rob the public of quality music so you can go sit in your ivory tower and do whatever you want with yourself. If you saw the mass-produced crap that people call music today, you would take this all back. Without culture, society is nothing and will fall. It is falling right now, and probably partially because of you. And then the ground will shake right under your ivory tower and it'll fall.
@PCPTPCPT So you are saying that art/classical music is more for intellectual than aesthethic enjoyment? Personally, I like stuff that makes you think and I do want to study music but you need emotional pleasure in life too and in great amounts. If you want something purely intellectual there's always mathematics, which I also like.
I am a passionate apostle of new music AND I reject entirely Milton Babbitt's thesis. It's like a diner at a restaurant saying "Phooey on your beef bourguignon and cabernet sauvignon. I'll sit over here by myself and gnaw on my molecular gastronomy which you are obviously too benighted to appreciate."
Music is like a meal with friends. It has always been been a shared, communal experience. Bring the tastiest, most nourishing sounds to the table or go home.
As a non-musician, I have found Babbitt's music both intellectually invigorating and emotionally satisfying. Evidence of his unabashed elitism has no effect on my enjoyment. Suppose Mozart really was an "unprincipled spoiled brat"? It has no effect on on the music's intrinsic beauty. In short, Mr. Babbitt, love your music, hate your attitude! Thanks for posting.
>he conclusion drawn by the writer of the liner notes was that Davis was expressing the attitude that the artist should "do as he pleased", indifferent to the desires or needs of the audience. I think Babbitt is basically conveying the same sentiment.
The artist should indeed be free to do as he/she pleases, while noting that this does not necessarily have to be done on a stage, nor for an audience whose money you are taking.
Really what difference does it make? Does it really matter? Who cares? When you turn to radio for so-called Classical Music you get the same tired stuff most of us have been listening to for decades. Don't get me wrong Chopin as one of the posters uses as a yard stick was a master indeed there have been many masters from the various periods of serious music, however I have grown tired of it. Twentieth and Twenty-First Century music are something different at least. Creativity is where it's at.
I favorited this one, for sure! Music is math, and science, and art: the comparisons are apt. What Babbitt dares to write is what intellectuals were thinking. But no one knew about Internet then, and what might become of the future. The question of balance, "the average mind comprehends" swings to-fro throughout the history of, at least Western Music. An example is the music of Palestrina. Compare it with Arcadelt. It took a Pope to force that change.
What Babbitt seems to forget is that even scientists are slaves to the large businesses who decide whether or not to fund their research or the universities and labs in which it takes place. Within the capitalist system we have implemented in the US, the most important source of power is material wealth (including money) and with that you can exchange for anything - including art. I see nothing wrong with Babbitt's moral stance, but he seems to think only music is affected by greed.
@DerangedRanger1 OK. You said in the previous comment that science was driven by greed. I think it's not necessarily true. Every developed country has government-funded research institutes.
@LesbianStraightGay You seem to be quite naive. Governments are about power and the want of power is a greedy act. Moreover, most Western governments seem to be controlled largely by businesses and this is especially true in the United States. You understand what lobbyists do correct? You understand that large corporations fund our major party political candidates and advertise them for free on their "news?" You understand the concept of the military-industrial complex as outlined by Eisenhower?
@DerangedRanger1 Well, maybe you are right to a certain degree but I still think that it's much better than nothing. At least the situation is better than almost anywhere else. Let alone the fact, that science gives a competetive advantage to the country.
@LesbianStraightGay I disagree with most of what you say there. I do not think that competition is necessarily good - or maybe you prefer developing war technologies so that we can kill each other. I think you ned to reappraise your value system.
@DerangedRanger1 The idea of competition is the law of the market economy. Competition may not seem to be humanistic, but we have to face the reality. The Soviet Union failed because they tried to remove competition. Mankind is not mature enough yet to appeal to some high moral standards.
@LesbianStraightGay That is a simplistic and ideologically biased analysis. There were many reasons that the USSR failed: it was a fascist totalitarian state that repressed people. According to the Reagan mythology, it was the arms race and the loss in Afghanistan.
You also make the mistake of pretending you know "reality."
Do you know that it is possible to have communist economy within a democracy? Czechoslovakia was to be the first until the Soviet Army repressed that in 1968.
Talking about art music, there is not "simple" music. A lot of people "like" Mozart, Chopin... but they actually are just "accostumated" to the music of Mozart, Chopin... Art music, like any other kind of art, must be studied. No-one can understand Bach just by listening to it. If you can't understand what you're listening to, you can obviously say "I like it", "I don't like it", "It makes me happy", "It makes me sad" and so on. Art music should make you think (not feel).
Interesting. I listened to it three times. The first time I listened, it sounded like non-sense. So, I listened to it again twice more. I actually find it very relaxing to listen to, almost like rain drops. I like the randomness of it & the auditory concentration/perception of enjoying it, wondering where this piece is going & what is meant by it. I also really like the simplicity of it as well, almost like a painting with a dark background & a vibrant splash of color in contrast to it.
Art is not science. They are antagonic elements. Music is made to be heard, not to "evolve". The "evolution" its a reflex of its practice and its not something to be pursued, it will come naturally. If the goal is to "evolve" music, than the evolution will inevitably end to become impossible to be perceived by any human. What's the purpose? Make music for robots?
The comparison with mathematics seems to me completely out of point, for two reasons: 1) it's false that the layman of, say, XIX century understood maths, he didn't; but he appreciated Brahms; 2) appreciating art is not just a matter of knowledge, otherwise Saint Saens would have not totally misunderstood and scorned Stravinsky and Debussy as he did.
@Barbapippo I think the comparison between Babbit-esque art music and pure mathematics IS apt. But an average 19th century educated person could understand the physics of the day just as he could understand Brahms.
What is pathological is the substitution of pure mathematics for applied, musical experiment of Babbit's kind, for art music.
Both pure and applied math have their place, and both "musicians music" and art music. But they are not interchangeable.
I don't think a person needs a musical preparation to understand "new music". I have no idea of what the compositions methods are, but i find pieces like "Dammerschein" by Xenakis as moving as something by Chopin might be.
Ermm... I hope everyone realises that Babbitt NEVER WROTE an essay entitled "Who cares if you listen?": he wrote the essay, but his original title was replaced by his editors with this one, without his knowledge or permission. Thus he unwillingly became one of the "bogey-men" of the avant-garde!
No, I don't think the content was, but it was the altered title that infuriated people and created a sort of Babbitt hate-club. Didn't do serial music as a whole any favours, either. You can imagine people seeing such a provocative title and not feeling a need to read the rest.
Babit's article has its logic. But for me, a fundamental part of music is the human aspect, in which performer and audience are at least nearly as important as the composer.
Thank you for initializing such an unusually cultured and thought-provoking youtube discussion!
I'm not completely pleased with my previous comments. They kind of made me even more confused than I was in the first place. Sorry about the rant...
Anyway, another thing I wanted to say, is that thanks to youtube, contemporary music has gained a much larger audience than before. I actually posted a video of a brand new composition by a student from the school I go to, and it's already been viewed by about 30 people. I wonder what Babbitt would think of that!
I think your comments are very insightful! Babbitt's article is provacative and thought-provoking, and seems to generate a lot of comments. My sense is that he is simply reacting to critics who dismiss his music because audiences generally don't (or didn't at that time) seem to like it. I think in the intervening years have increased the appreciation for his and all kinds of modern music.
composing of music that's mainly theoretical in nature, but I also feel that one of my main drives is having a significant bunch of people with whom I can share my music and who would appreciate it, and I find it crucial on my behalf that the music should be pleasant to listen to, at least to some extent. There's nothing wrong with purely scientific and theoretical music, but if I'm not mistaken, one of the main original ideas of music is to affect people's feelings, rather than their brains.
Just because something is created using scientific means, ideoligies, or concepts, doesn't mean that it lacks emotion. It just means it wasn't created to create a specific emotion, every person will have a different emotional response when listening to a piece of Babbits music if they have an open mind. Or maybe they won't if they can't get over the idea that the music was made for their "brains" instead of "emotions".
Wow... There are so many comments floating around in my head... Especially after reading half of the comments already posted. Where do I begin??
Well, first thing's first, I disagree with the majority of Babbitt's article, but I understand his approach. Apparently, he doesn't intend to entertain people with his music, and he doesn't care about conveying certain emotions to people through it, i.e. his music is primarily technical and/or "intelligent". I completely comprehend and identify with the
I agree with Babbitt and I'm confused. I couldn't read a note if my life depended on it BUT I love contemporary music, spend lots of time listening to it, looking for it, reading about it. Am I that guy who reads mathematical papers and, unable to understand a word, says: "I LOVE IT, please give me more!"?
I think that time has been more kind to Babbitt and his fellow modernist composers than any one of them might realize. I'm just 29, and I've turned on many of my friends from my generation to this music who would have probably rebelled at Mozart's "Piano Sonata in C". Ferneyhough, Lachenmann, Xenakis, Varese, Oliveros, etc. are more comprehensible today.
I believe the main problem now is that many classical music institutions still cater to conservative tastes in music.
Speaking as a biologist, I'm afraid Feldman was being a little too optimistic about the layman's interference in science and mathematics, even in 1958.
Granted, this was the year after Sputnik, so Americans felt less confidence in their grasp of science, more willing to accept a standardized science curriculum and appreciative of scientists as experts.
Still, there was a proto-creationist movement just waiting to emerge in 1961 with the publication of "The Genesis Flood".
People don't listen to new music because they don't understand it. it is music for musicians, in some sense. If you listen to Webern and learn what he was doing, then suddenly it all makes sense: the idea of composing the total work from a musical cell.
I'm not a musician, and I don't find that incomprehensible.
AMAZING!!!! Thanks so much for posting. Will have to go find the rest of the article. Perfect. And paradigmatic for the condition of all the other "high arts" since then. Same could be said of poetry, fiction, theater etc.
I was reading the liner notes for a Miles Davis CD recently. The author noted that Davis frequently turned his back on the audience, almost never announced the songs, and in general seemed to show disdain and contempt for his audience. The conclusion drawn by the writer of the liner notes was that Davis was expressing the attitude that the artist should "do as he pleased", indifferent to the desires or needs of the audience. I think Babbitt is basically conveying the same sentiment.
NewMusic: It's interesting you say, 'the attitude that the artist should "do as he pleased", 'cause it seems that whenever an artist [whether composer, filmmaker, writer, etc.] does so there are complaints of 'pretentiousness' and 'self-indulgence'.
I'm not an expert in any of these fields, but I'd say that to be a great artist it almost requires a bit of 'indulgence'. Afterall, why shouldn't one try to use their talent to the best of their ability?
-the second reason is, i think, that new music is veeeeeery different to everything we hear outside a concert hall. There is rarely atonal filmmusic, for example.
- probably, an interest of new music (for example, works with noises) does not occur if you are not spending quite a lot of time in music. It something which occurs if you want to deal with the extrems. new music is extreme music, often as extreme as possible. That is a logical consequence of the evolevement of music.
1. Actually, there is quite a bit of atonal music to be found in film music - most famously the Ligeti works in "2001 A Space Odyssey". In film music dissonance equals tension. Think of Herrmann's music for the shower scene in "Psycho". When I play modern music for my students, their reaction is "this sounds like a horror film". They say this because that is their only frame of reference due to their lack of education and listening experience.
2. The broader point is that, to the extent that there is a "crisis" in new music due to its failure to attract a wider audience, it is not because the audience fails to understand modern music (they don't understand the music they like). The uninformed listener generally likes only what is familiar. As Ives rightly observed, listeners want to put their ears "in an easy chair" and go to sleep.
Atonal film music is not rare. In fact it is probably the idiom in which the public is most often exposed to atonal music. Horror, science fiction, fantasy, thriller and mystery movies and television programs employ atonal music routinely.
I have to disagree with babitt. a listener certainly does not need understanding of the music. the composer and the perfomancers have to, but a listener's complete if he brings two ears into a concert.
i think there are 3 major reasons of the crisis of new music:
- the music has changed so quickly in the 20th century (which is clear, because the whole century changed very fast). When Schoenberg was dead, Strauss still composed romanticly and two years later, cage wrote pieces by chance.
I found and read the article by Susan McClary. However, I still agree with the underlying premise of Babbitt's "Who Cares If You Listen?" piece: it should not matter to the producer of art whether or not it is comprehensible or appreciated by an audience. Let's face it. Anything that appeals to a mass audience, by necessity, aims at the lowest common denominator. The ordinary "man in the street" listener is a dullard, getting duller every day, who wants music like candy: sweet & easy to consume
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the fact that you are very thoughtful on the subject. I can't see that Boulez or Babbitt have created or perpetuated high brow or low brow distinctions. I do think that Babbitt has simply recognized that there is a distinction between popular music and art music. The fact that composers of art music are unappreciated by the consumers of pop music shouldn't mean that the pop music audience should be taken into account by "serious" composers.
Then I guess great composers who achieved success in their day were simply aiming at the lowest common denominator?
I am a composer and I do care whether people will want to listen to my music or not. I also do not share your view that in order for something to be successful it has to be inherently simplistic and lacking in musical value.
The great composers of the past were not writing for the masses, but for wealthy patrons and aristocratic elites. That economic situation no longer exists, and today a composer must either write music that appeals to a large enough audience to make his work profitable, or ignore the audience altogether and write what he personally wants to write, making money elsewhere (as Babbitt suggests, through teaching, for instance). The more complex the music, the smaller the audience.
Complexity is not the only measure of musical success.
It is true that there are many mindblowingly simple pieces of music achieving financial success for the composer (ie, Part or film composers such as Zimmer), however it won't be remembered in 100 years time. Neither will the mindblowingly complicated music of say... Boulez. I think we will look back at the last century, and names such as Barber, Shostakovich, Prokofiev will be the most revered.
Of course there is truth in what you say. Even a well known composer like Rachmaninov will be remembered more for the brief 18th variation in the Paganini Variations, but all of his music is not exactly unaccomplished or casual is it? If it was easy to write like him, his music wouldn't be remarkable in the first place...
In passing - I don't think the case can be made that music has any inherent symbolic value at all. Music is only a sound, the meaning of which is completely subjective and determined by the listener. This is why the casual listener (the dullard) cannot appreciate music that seems alien to him, when compared to his past experience listening to pop music. I think the situation can be corrected by education. Anyone who takes time to investigate will be rewarded by a more satisfying experience.
The title of Babbitt's article (not his, of course, but still good) is "Who Cares If You Listen?", which nicely conveys the thought that the composer of serious music should consider himself free of the likes or dislikes of the broader audience and simply pursue his musical goals. The fact that his music is incomprehensible to some part of the listening public is irrelevant to its value and says more about the capacity of the listener than the relative merits of the music itself.
I don't really understand why Susan McClary (and others like her) feel the need to comment at all on the "avant garde" composers. It's not as though their music is posing a threat to anyone. If she wants to listen to Earth Wind and Fire, Babbitt and Boulez are not stopping her. I simply disagree with her premise and think she's the one who is misguided, not Babbitt and Boulez. But I appreciate your bringing her to my attention.
Though I must say, it's absolutely wonderful to have a machine that can *replicate* the experience, because that means the composer can have a realization of his music whilst in the process of writing it, and if he has any doubts of whether something would work on the instrument he writes for, he can test it out.
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate and enjoy alot of modern music. It SHOULD be difficult and sophisticated. But for some, the solution is neither to look back with sentimentality to the classical, romantic era, where audience and music were in jolly symbiosis, nor "return to the monasteries", as living German composer Moritz Eggert put it, or rather to science labs. "Behind me is the past, in front is the avantgarde, and I want to escape." (somewhat modified quote by Ligeti)
The drum music is a Babbitt composition, "Homily" for snare drum solo. It seemed less distracting from the text than music with a melodic and harmonic component. My feeling is that when Babbitt recommends abandoning a live audience in favor of electronic media he had in mind recordings rather than synthesizer compositions.
'(...)the work demands increased accuracy from the transmitter (the performer) and activity from the receiver (the listener). Incidentally, it is this circumstance, among many others, that has created the need for purely electronic media of "performance."'
I found the text on the net, thought this might be interesting. I think he's referring to musique concrète and other electronic means
I also wanted to point out with that quote that he did probably mean electronic music by "electronic media", since he was a pioneer in the electronic field
Interesting article, yet a little stringent. I think the editor did capture the tendency of the article with his new title. I disagree on one thing: As a composer, I do want to have my music heard, definitely. But since, in some ways, music was taken over by scientists, mathematicians and the like in the second half of the 20th century, I do appreciate and understand his stance. But honestly, no offence intended, with the arrival of newer and newer generations, this work ethic will be replaced.
His conclusion - that the composer should withdraw from public performance in favor of electronic media - has been vindicated by the newer electronic media (like youtube) in which music that does not have a "lowest common denominator" appeal can reach a more appreciative and informed audience.
You think that's what he meant by electronic media? I doubt it, since he added: "(...)resulting in total elimination of the public(...)". I think he had music performed by electronic devices in mind, getting rid of the living musician (I'm all for that: no rehearsal costs, straining one's patience etc., if there were a way of emulating, perfecting and artificially recreating all man-made, musical sonorities, I'd never show a musician a score again)
Actually, Babbitt made it very clear that he didn't want to eliminate the performer, which surprised me. I'm really against that notion too, and feel that one of the fundamental things about music is how performers play it. A synthesized string quartet, for instance, could never work on the same emotional level as live musicians. There's just too much detail involved.
Exactly. That's why I said, only if "emulating, perfecting and artificially recreating all man-made musical sonorities" was possible. But that's "Zukunftsmusik", in the literal sense. Unless you're a romantic person of course, and just can't do without the performer. That's why Zappa retired to his synclavier for years. He couldn't deal with human inaccuracies anymore. When you meet an ensemble like the ensemble modern, it's a totally different story of course.
I think his contention that the music is produced at negative monetary gain is only true if you believe it to be the case that professorships are extrinsic to the profession of composer. Since the people who make this music tend to have lecturer positions or (less often) tenure-track jobs, I would say that their music is making them money, just not directly. If it were left entirely to the market, there would be no experimental music anymore.
alexandergreenb 1 month ago
"Understand" and "enjoy" are not entirely synonymous, although the former can really aid the latter. I don't think music is purely only a science or that its evolution should be guided by progressiveness alone. The greatest works of music (which often happen to be the best-loved) were inspired, I believe (maybe wrongly), by the desire to express something- an idea, a sound, an image, an emotion, or a purely musical thought. New forms/ tonalities/ methods of playing are just tools to get there.
Caramellatta 4 months ago
@LesbianStraightGay But can't the government also be driven by greed, at least in some ways? I mean, it (our government) isn't too terrible, especially compared to what it could be, but it isn't near perfect and no government can ever be all that great.
AyumuVanguard 1 year ago
@AyumuVanguard I didn't say that the US government was terrible.I just said that greed was not always a primal drive behind the government. But of course, if we generalize our life then almost every person is more or less greedy.
LesbianStraightGay 1 year ago
"Composition for Milton Babbitt (d. 2011)" by @logankyoung
LoganKYoung 1 year ago
@LesbianStraightGay ...typical or extrovert) is still going to like music more for the people they associate it with than the music itself most of the time, made worse by fear of being "weird" and anything associated with "weird."
AyumuVanguard 1 year ago
@LesbianStraightGay I do agree that the Internet is killing trendy music. My main use of the Internet is for looking for more music. Without it, I'd either be stuck with my parents' taste or mainstream music, neither of which I'd be able to enjoy that much. Maybe I did misinterpret what Babbitt was saying, maybe Babbitt misinterpreted what was happening historically so I interpreted it differently, being able to look back and see what was happening. But your typical extrovert (I'm neither...
AyumuVanguard 1 year ago
@LesbianStraightGay There's a difference between writing music for yourself and writing specifically NOT to be listened to. All art should be done for the sake of art and not for an audience. What Milton Babbitt is saying is to make music for the purpose of an audience, but, when it comes down to it, an audience of music professors etc. who live in their own little world and are glad that you have to put up with "Baby, Baby, Baby OOOHHHHHH" because you didn't major in music like they did.
AyumuVanguard 1 year ago
@AyumuVanguard Acually Babbitt deeply cared about the audience, at least in the second half of his career. It seems like in the 50s he was slightly arrogant but mellowed considerably since then.But again, there was no internet then. He died without realising its true power. Not that he wasn't interested but he was too old to study computer and programming thoroughly.
LesbianStraightGay 1 year ago
@AyumuVanguard You mentioned an obstacle preventing form getting Babbitt to the wider audience. I would agree that the audience of his music are usually well-off (higher middle class) , very educated people who are extremely enthusiastic about music.They are few of the few. ( though I don't belong to this category). A random guy/girl obsessed with GaGa will never ever listen to such music.
LesbianStraightGay 1 year ago
Babbitt wanted to say that theoretical concepts as well as new technology dramatically expand the abilities of the composer and such composer should create art for the sake of art without any compromise or commercial interest.Though when he was writing it , there was no internet, but now,internet is slowly but steadily killing trendy music.
LesbianStraightGay 1 year ago
By the way, I think this is a very creative and engaging way to bring Babbitt's article to a new readership, whatever else one thinks about it. Well done.
tuttlemsm 1 year ago
@platero55 "It's like a diner at a restaurant saying 'Phooey on your beef bourguignon and cabernet sauvignon. I'll sit over here by myself and gnaw on my molecular gastronomy which you are obviously too benighted to appreciate.'"
I want to quote that one day. I'm not sure when, but I want to. And I do agree with you. I like new music but I think Babbitt started the "elitist side" to it. I mean, Shoenberg didn't, Stockhausen didn't, Messiaen didn't... Everyone else WANTED some sort of audience..
AyumuVanguard 1 year ago
@AyumuVanguard At the beginning Stockhausen didn't give a damn about the audience. At the beginning he couldn't even make living out of composing. He had to conduct. Though later a small circle of connaisseurs became bigger.
LesbianStraightGay 1 year ago
And more @ Milton Babbitt - You do know that just because the public isn't at the concerts doesn't mean that they can't know about it and therefore not have an opinion, right? The social aspects will still be there, they will just be undesirable. The only people who will be able to come will be those who are experts, and the music will be shunned accordingly and stereotyped as "ivory tower" and "intellectual" even though it mostly isn't (except for yours.) Oh wait, that IS the case. Oops.
AyumuVanguard 1 year ago
Comment removed
AyumuVanguard 1 year ago
@ Milton Babbitt - I know you can't respond, but I'm typing this as if you could anyways. You can't just rob the public of quality music so you can go sit in your ivory tower and do whatever you want with yourself. If you saw the mass-produced crap that people call music today, you would take this all back. Without culture, society is nothing and will fall. It is falling right now, and probably partially because of you. And then the ground will shake right under your ivory tower and it'll fall.
AyumuVanguard 1 year ago
@PCPTPCPT So you are saying that art/classical music is more for intellectual than aesthethic enjoyment? Personally, I like stuff that makes you think and I do want to study music but you need emotional pleasure in life too and in great amounts. If you want something purely intellectual there's always mathematics, which I also like.
AyumuVanguard 1 year ago
I am a passionate apostle of new music AND I reject entirely Milton Babbitt's thesis. It's like a diner at a restaurant saying "Phooey on your beef bourguignon and cabernet sauvignon. I'll sit over here by myself and gnaw on my molecular gastronomy which you are obviously too benighted to appreciate."
Music is like a meal with friends. It has always been been a shared, communal experience. Bring the tastiest, most nourishing sounds to the table or go home.
platero55 1 year ago
As a non-musician, I have found Babbitt's music both intellectually invigorating and emotionally satisfying. Evidence of his unabashed elitism has no effect on my enjoyment. Suppose Mozart really was an "unprincipled spoiled brat"? It has no effect on on the music's intrinsic beauty. In short, Mr. Babbitt, love your music, hate your attitude! Thanks for posting.
SweetSweetWaldo 1 year ago 3
"By so doing the composer would be free to pursue a private life of professional achievement..."
... in his ivory tower. Why do I feel like I'm reading an essay explaining how wanking is better than sex with a partner?
giomakyo 1 year ago 2
>he conclusion drawn by the writer of the liner notes was that Davis was expressing the attitude that the artist should "do as he pleased", indifferent to the desires or needs of the audience. I think Babbitt is basically conveying the same sentiment.
The artist should indeed be free to do as he/she pleases, while noting that this does not necessarily have to be done on a stage, nor for an audience whose money you are taking.
giomakyo 1 year ago
Really what difference does it make? Does it really matter? Who cares? When you turn to radio for so-called Classical Music you get the same tired stuff most of us have been listening to for decades. Don't get me wrong Chopin as one of the posters uses as a yard stick was a master indeed there have been many masters from the various periods of serious music, however I have grown tired of it. Twentieth and Twenty-First Century music are something different at least. Creativity is where it's at.
Flextones 1 year ago 2
I favorited this one, for sure! Music is math, and science, and art: the comparisons are apt. What Babbitt dares to write is what intellectuals were thinking. But no one knew about Internet then, and what might become of the future. The question of balance, "the average mind comprehends" swings to-fro throughout the history of, at least Western Music. An example is the music of Palestrina. Compare it with Arcadelt. It took a Pope to force that change.
Composerland 1 year ago
What Babbitt seems to forget is that even scientists are slaves to the large businesses who decide whether or not to fund their research or the universities and labs in which it takes place. Within the capitalist system we have implemented in the US, the most important source of power is material wealth (including money) and with that you can exchange for anything - including art. I see nothing wrong with Babbitt's moral stance, but he seems to think only music is affected by greed.
DerangedRanger1 1 year ago
@DerangedRanger1 As far as I know there is fundamental science in the USA which is supported by the government without any commercial expectations.
LesbianStraightGay 1 year ago
@LesbianStraightGay I don't understand what you are talking about. Can you explain more?
DerangedRanger1 1 year ago
@DerangedRanger1 OK. You said in the previous comment that science was driven by greed. I think it's not necessarily true. Every developed country has government-funded research institutes.
LesbianStraightGay 1 year ago
@LesbianStraightGay You seem to be quite naive. Governments are about power and the want of power is a greedy act. Moreover, most Western governments seem to be controlled largely by businesses and this is especially true in the United States. You understand what lobbyists do correct? You understand that large corporations fund our major party political candidates and advertise them for free on their "news?" You understand the concept of the military-industrial complex as outlined by Eisenhower?
DerangedRanger1 1 year ago
@DerangedRanger1 Well, maybe you are right to a certain degree but I still think that it's much better than nothing. At least the situation is better than almost anywhere else. Let alone the fact, that science gives a competetive advantage to the country.
LesbianStraightGay 1 year ago
@LesbianStraightGay I disagree with most of what you say there. I do not think that competition is necessarily good - or maybe you prefer developing war technologies so that we can kill each other. I think you ned to reappraise your value system.
DerangedRanger1 1 year ago
@DerangedRanger1 The idea of competition is the law of the market economy. Competition may not seem to be humanistic, but we have to face the reality. The Soviet Union failed because they tried to remove competition. Mankind is not mature enough yet to appeal to some high moral standards.
LesbianStraightGay 9 months ago
@LesbianStraightGay That is a simplistic and ideologically biased analysis. There were many reasons that the USSR failed: it was a fascist totalitarian state that repressed people. According to the Reagan mythology, it was the arms race and the loss in Afghanistan.
You also make the mistake of pretending you know "reality."
Do you know that it is possible to have communist economy within a democracy? Czechoslovakia was to be the first until the Soviet Army repressed that in 1968.
DerangedRanger1 8 months ago
Talking about art music, there is not "simple" music. A lot of people "like" Mozart, Chopin... but they actually are just "accostumated" to the music of Mozart, Chopin... Art music, like any other kind of art, must be studied. No-one can understand Bach just by listening to it. If you can't understand what you're listening to, you can obviously say "I like it", "I don't like it", "It makes me happy", "It makes me sad" and so on. Art music should make you think (not feel).
PCPTPCPT 1 year ago
Interesting. I listened to it three times. The first time I listened, it sounded like non-sense. So, I listened to it again twice more. I actually find it very relaxing to listen to, almost like rain drops. I like the randomness of it & the auditory concentration/perception of enjoying it, wondering where this piece is going & what is meant by it. I also really like the simplicity of it as well, almost like a painting with a dark background & a vibrant splash of color in contrast to it.
:) TSF
TheSynthFreq 1 year ago
This is ridiculous!
Art is not science. They are antagonic elements. Music is made to be heard, not to "evolve". The "evolution" its a reflex of its practice and its not something to be pursued, it will come naturally. If the goal is to "evolve" music, than the evolution will inevitably end to become impossible to be perceived by any human. What's the purpose? Make music for robots?
TSD86 2 years ago
The comparison with mathematics seems to me completely out of point, for two reasons: 1) it's false that the layman of, say, XIX century understood maths, he didn't; but he appreciated Brahms; 2) appreciating art is not just a matter of knowledge, otherwise Saint Saens would have not totally misunderstood and scorned Stravinsky and Debussy as he did.
Barbapippo 2 years ago 7
@Barbapippo I think the comparison between Babbit-esque art music and pure mathematics IS apt. But an average 19th century educated person could understand the physics of the day just as he could understand Brahms.
What is pathological is the substitution of pure mathematics for applied, musical experiment of Babbit's kind, for art music.
Both pure and applied math have their place, and both "musicians music" and art music. But they are not interchangeable.
DarkwingScooter 10 months ago
@Barbapippo Maybe the correct term for "musicians music" should be "eye music", since that is the correct historical correlate.
DarkwingScooter 10 months ago
I don't think a person needs a musical preparation to understand "new music". I have no idea of what the compositions methods are, but i find pieces like "Dammerschein" by Xenakis as moving as something by Chopin might be.
threviatghei 2 years ago 8
Ermm... I hope everyone realises that Babbitt NEVER WROTE an essay entitled "Who cares if you listen?": he wrote the essay, but his original title was replaced by his editors with this one, without his knowledge or permission. Thus he unwillingly became one of the "bogey-men" of the avant-garde!
flibbertergibbet 2 years ago
This is true, but was the actual content of the essay altered at all?
kentokhromatic 2 years ago
No, I don't think the content was, but it was the altered title that infuriated people and created a sort of Babbitt hate-club. Didn't do serial music as a whole any favours, either. You can imagine people seeing such a provocative title and not feeling a need to read the rest.
flibbertergibbet 2 years ago
I have read this. Interesting how he forms his arguments and compares music a lot to scientific development.
avb20540 2 years ago
Babit's article has its logic. But for me, a fundamental part of music is the human aspect, in which performer and audience are at least nearly as important as the composer.
Thank you for initializing such an unusually cultured and thought-provoking youtube discussion!
OAmus 2 years ago
I'm not completely pleased with my previous comments. They kind of made me even more confused than I was in the first place. Sorry about the rant...
Anyway, another thing I wanted to say, is that thanks to youtube, contemporary music has gained a much larger audience than before. I actually posted a video of a brand new composition by a student from the school I go to, and it's already been viewed by about 30 people. I wonder what Babbitt would think of that!
I guess I'll shut up now :P
maraboov 2 years ago 3
I think your comments are very insightful! Babbitt's article is provacative and thought-provoking, and seems to generate a lot of comments. My sense is that he is simply reacting to critics who dismiss his music because audiences generally don't (or didn't at that time) seem to like it. I think in the intervening years have increased the appreciation for his and all kinds of modern music.
NewMusicXX 2 years ago 2
composing of music that's mainly theoretical in nature, but I also feel that one of my main drives is having a significant bunch of people with whom I can share my music and who would appreciate it, and I find it crucial on my behalf that the music should be pleasant to listen to, at least to some extent. There's nothing wrong with purely scientific and theoretical music, but if I'm not mistaken, one of the main original ideas of music is to affect people's feelings, rather than their brains.
maraboov 2 years ago
Just because something is created using scientific means, ideoligies, or concepts, doesn't mean that it lacks emotion. It just means it wasn't created to create a specific emotion, every person will have a different emotional response when listening to a piece of Babbits music if they have an open mind. Or maybe they won't if they can't get over the idea that the music was made for their "brains" instead of "emotions".
TheOrangeKrewe 2 years ago
Wow... There are so many comments floating around in my head... Especially after reading half of the comments already posted. Where do I begin??
Well, first thing's first, I disagree with the majority of Babbitt's article, but I understand his approach. Apparently, he doesn't intend to entertain people with his music, and he doesn't care about conveying certain emotions to people through it, i.e. his music is primarily technical and/or "intelligent". I completely comprehend and identify with the
maraboov 2 years ago
I had no idea I could disagree so much with a composer whose music I love to the same degree. Pity.
SimonKinland 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree with Babbitt and I'm confused. I couldn't read a note if my life depended on it BUT I love contemporary music, spend lots of time listening to it, looking for it, reading about it. Am I that guy who reads mathematical papers and, unable to understand a word, says: "I LOVE IT, please give me more!"?
gattinociclope 2 years ago
Comment removed
gattinociclope 2 years ago
One other observation.
I think that time has been more kind to Babbitt and his fellow modernist composers than any one of them might realize. I'm just 29, and I've turned on many of my friends from my generation to this music who would have probably rebelled at Mozart's "Piano Sonata in C". Ferneyhough, Lachenmann, Xenakis, Varese, Oliveros, etc. are more comprehensible today.
I believe the main problem now is that many classical music institutions still cater to conservative tastes in music.
Nullifidian 2 years ago 2
Today, conservativism is manufactured
in the instituitions called ``conservatoriums``.
vokshumana 2 years ago
Speaking as a biologist, I'm afraid Feldman was being a little too optimistic about the layman's interference in science and mathematics, even in 1958.
Granted, this was the year after Sputnik, so Americans felt less confidence in their grasp of science, more willing to accept a standardized science curriculum and appreciative of scientists as experts.
Still, there was a proto-creationist movement just waiting to emerge in 1961 with the publication of "The Genesis Flood".
Great video, though.
Nullifidian 2 years ago
People don't listen to new music because they don't understand it. it is music for musicians, in some sense. If you listen to Webern and learn what he was doing, then suddenly it all makes sense: the idea of composing the total work from a musical cell.
I'm not a musician, and I don't find that incomprehensible.
plslvmn 2 years ago
AMAZING!!!! Thanks so much for posting. Will have to go find the rest of the article. Perfect. And paradigmatic for the condition of all the other "high arts" since then. Same could be said of poetry, fiction, theater etc.
stuffbyken 2 years ago
I was reading the liner notes for a Miles Davis CD recently. The author noted that Davis frequently turned his back on the audience, almost never announced the songs, and in general seemed to show disdain and contempt for his audience. The conclusion drawn by the writer of the liner notes was that Davis was expressing the attitude that the artist should "do as he pleased", indifferent to the desires or needs of the audience. I think Babbitt is basically conveying the same sentiment.
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
NewMusic: It's interesting you say, 'the attitude that the artist should "do as he pleased", 'cause it seems that whenever an artist [whether composer, filmmaker, writer, etc.] does so there are complaints of 'pretentiousness' and 'self-indulgence'.
I'm not an expert in any of these fields, but I'd say that to be a great artist it almost requires a bit of 'indulgence'. Afterall, why shouldn't one try to use their talent to the best of their ability?
I apologize if this is a bit random. :D
NGS712 2 years ago 2
Thanks - I agree completely. Well said.
NewMusicXX 2 years ago
-the second reason is, i think, that new music is veeeeeery different to everything we hear outside a concert hall. There is rarely atonal filmmusic, for example.
- probably, an interest of new music (for example, works with noises) does not occur if you are not spending quite a lot of time in music. It something which occurs if you want to deal with the extrems. new music is extreme music, often as extreme as possible. That is a logical consequence of the evolevement of music.
lorenzarthur91 3 years ago
1. Actually, there is quite a bit of atonal music to be found in film music - most famously the Ligeti works in "2001 A Space Odyssey". In film music dissonance equals tension. Think of Herrmann's music for the shower scene in "Psycho". When I play modern music for my students, their reaction is "this sounds like a horror film". They say this because that is their only frame of reference due to their lack of education and listening experience.
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
2. The broader point is that, to the extent that there is a "crisis" in new music due to its failure to attract a wider audience, it is not because the audience fails to understand modern music (they don't understand the music they like). The uninformed listener generally likes only what is familiar. As Ives rightly observed, listeners want to put their ears "in an easy chair" and go to sleep.
NewMusicXX 3 years ago 2
@lorenzarthur91
Atonal film music is not rare. In fact it is probably the idiom in which the public is most often exposed to atonal music. Horror, science fiction, fantasy, thriller and mystery movies and television programs employ atonal music routinely.
tuttlemsm 1 year ago
I have to disagree with babitt. a listener certainly does not need understanding of the music. the composer and the perfomancers have to, but a listener's complete if he brings two ears into a concert.
i think there are 3 major reasons of the crisis of new music:
- the music has changed so quickly in the 20th century (which is clear, because the whole century changed very fast). When Schoenberg was dead, Strauss still composed romanticly and two years later, cage wrote pieces by chance.
lorenzarthur91 3 years ago
Who cares if you write... :)
sebastian181812 3 years ago
Comment removed
deseant 3 years ago
Thanks - I'll see if I can find it. Maybe it will make a good video with drum music behind it.
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
I found and read the article by Susan McClary. However, I still agree with the underlying premise of Babbitt's "Who Cares If You Listen?" piece: it should not matter to the producer of art whether or not it is comprehensible or appreciated by an audience. Let's face it. Anything that appeals to a mass audience, by necessity, aims at the lowest common denominator. The ordinary "man in the street" listener is a dullard, getting duller every day, who wants music like candy: sweet & easy to consume
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
Comment removed
deseant 3 years ago
Comment removed
deseant 3 years ago
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the fact that you are very thoughtful on the subject. I can't see that Boulez or Babbitt have created or perpetuated high brow or low brow distinctions. I do think that Babbitt has simply recognized that there is a distinction between popular music and art music. The fact that composers of art music are unappreciated by the consumers of pop music shouldn't mean that the pop music audience should be taken into account by "serious" composers.
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
Then I guess great composers who achieved success in their day were simply aiming at the lowest common denominator?
I am a composer and I do care whether people will want to listen to my music or not. I also do not share your view that in order for something to be successful it has to be inherently simplistic and lacking in musical value.
revoltz7 3 years ago
The great composers of the past were not writing for the masses, but for wealthy patrons and aristocratic elites. That economic situation no longer exists, and today a composer must either write music that appeals to a large enough audience to make his work profitable, or ignore the audience altogether and write what he personally wants to write, making money elsewhere (as Babbitt suggests, through teaching, for instance). The more complex the music, the smaller the audience.
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
Complexity is not the only measure of musical success.
It is true that there are many mindblowingly simple pieces of music achieving financial success for the composer (ie, Part or film composers such as Zimmer), however it won't be remembered in 100 years time. Neither will the mindblowingly complicated music of say... Boulez. I think we will look back at the last century, and names such as Barber, Shostakovich, Prokofiev will be the most revered.
revoltz7 3 years ago
Of course there is truth in what you say. Even a well known composer like Rachmaninov will be remembered more for the brief 18th variation in the Paganini Variations, but all of his music is not exactly unaccomplished or casual is it? If it was easy to write like him, his music wouldn't be remarkable in the first place...
revoltz7 3 years ago
don't forget stravinsky- I dont see him being forgotten. and I'd tend to think bartok...
Steinway12345 2 years ago
In passing - I don't think the case can be made that music has any inherent symbolic value at all. Music is only a sound, the meaning of which is completely subjective and determined by the listener. This is why the casual listener (the dullard) cannot appreciate music that seems alien to him, when compared to his past experience listening to pop music. I think the situation can be corrected by education. Anyone who takes time to investigate will be rewarded by a more satisfying experience.
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
Comment removed
deseant 3 years ago
The title of Babbitt's article (not his, of course, but still good) is "Who Cares If You Listen?", which nicely conveys the thought that the composer of serious music should consider himself free of the likes or dislikes of the broader audience and simply pursue his musical goals. The fact that his music is incomprehensible to some part of the listening public is irrelevant to its value and says more about the capacity of the listener than the relative merits of the music itself.
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
Comment removed
deseant 3 years ago
I don't really understand why Susan McClary (and others like her) feel the need to comment at all on the "avant garde" composers. It's not as though their music is posing a threat to anyone. If she wants to listen to Earth Wind and Fire, Babbitt and Boulez are not stopping her. I simply disagree with her premise and think she's the one who is misguided, not Babbitt and Boulez. But I appreciate your bringing her to my attention.
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
Well said.
TheBlackPage1 3 years ago
Comment removed
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
Comment removed
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
I don't know... why?
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
You juniors do not have a clue now...go on grovelling...dah dah di dit dit ...di di di dah dah...
Schoenberg12 3 years ago
Though I must say, it's absolutely wonderful to have a machine that can *replicate* the experience, because that means the composer can have a realization of his music whilst in the process of writing it, and if he has any doubts of whether something would work on the instrument he writes for, he can test it out.
TheBlackPage1 3 years ago
You're right, he didn't want to do away with the performer. Mistake on my part.
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
That's true - it's a real benefit. Computers are great tools! Real performers with skill are hard to come by.
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate and enjoy alot of modern music. It SHOULD be difficult and sophisticated. But for some, the solution is neither to look back with sentimentality to the classical, romantic era, where audience and music were in jolly symbiosis, nor "return to the monasteries", as living German composer Moritz Eggert put it, or rather to science labs. "Behind me is the past, in front is the avantgarde, and I want to escape." (somewhat modified quote by Ligeti)
P.S.:drum music?
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
The drum music is a Babbitt composition, "Homily" for snare drum solo. It seemed less distracting from the text than music with a melodic and harmonic component. My feeling is that when Babbitt recommends abandoning a live audience in favor of electronic media he had in mind recordings rather than synthesizer compositions.
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
Yes, it's possible he meant recordings. He certainly didn't mean the internet. They had no clue back then
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
'(...)the work demands increased accuracy from the transmitter (the performer) and activity from the receiver (the listener). Incidentally, it is this circumstance, among many others, that has created the need for purely electronic media of "performance."'
I found the text on the net, thought this might be interesting. I think he's referring to musique concrète and other electronic means
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
Thanks - that's a good quote and very true.
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
I also wanted to point out with that quote that he did probably mean electronic music by "electronic media", since he was a pioneer in the electronic field
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
Interesting article, yet a little stringent. I think the editor did capture the tendency of the article with his new title. I disagree on one thing: As a composer, I do want to have my music heard, definitely. But since, in some ways, music was taken over by scientists, mathematicians and the like in the second half of the 20th century, I do appreciate and understand his stance. But honestly, no offence intended, with the arrival of newer and newer generations, this work ethic will be replaced.
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
His conclusion - that the composer should withdraw from public performance in favor of electronic media - has been vindicated by the newer electronic media (like youtube) in which music that does not have a "lowest common denominator" appeal can reach a more appreciative and informed audience.
NewMusicXX 3 years ago
You think that's what he meant by electronic media? I doubt it, since he added: "(...)resulting in total elimination of the public(...)". I think he had music performed by electronic devices in mind, getting rid of the living musician (I'm all for that: no rehearsal costs, straining one's patience etc., if there were a way of emulating, perfecting and artificially recreating all man-made, musical sonorities, I'd never show a musician a score again)
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
cont.: But probably he would not have resented Youtube, you're right there.
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
Actually, Babbitt made it very clear that he didn't want to eliminate the performer, which surprised me. I'm really against that notion too, and feel that one of the fundamental things about music is how performers play it. A synthesized string quartet, for instance, could never work on the same emotional level as live musicians. There's just too much detail involved.
TheBlackPage1 3 years ago
Exactly. That's why I said, only if "emulating, perfecting and artificially recreating all man-made musical sonorities" was possible. But that's "Zukunftsmusik", in the literal sense. Unless you're a romantic person of course, and just can't do without the performer. That's why Zappa retired to his synclavier for years. He couldn't deal with human inaccuracies anymore. When you meet an ensemble like the ensemble modern, it's a totally different story of course.
GreggaryPeccary 3 years ago
too bad they play so much boring euromusic...
Schoenberg12 3 years ago