Milton Babbitt, Composition for 12 instruments, ensemble conducted by Ralph Shapey

[tdsthomas]

organman52 - bitter again.

[musicmaven6]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear..the opening sequence of the first 5 or so paintings are what I'm interested in....

[musicmaven6]

This is so beautiful. Can you tell me who did the paintings.

[PJinBston]

"Milton Babbit, Protessor . . . . " That says it all. This is academic exercise. As opposed to an artistic endeavor. Call it a sonic construction if you like. It's not music. Never will a professor give us any music of value.

[organman52]

@zsinet3 Great music? Are you serious?

[matchboxmatt]

@organman52 It's easy to say that when standing on the outside or if you don't like serialism, but this is music that signifies how deeply process can affect aesthetic. If it's not "great", then at the very least it's important.

[organman52]

@matchboxmatt It is not about 'liking' it. It is about inspiration - the hallmark of great music and art. Serialism, by definition, is a contrivance, and that which one contrives from it is anything but inspired. A child with the simple knowledge of tone rows and their permutations could do it. It requires little more than technique - something that cannot be said about true master composers.

[matchboxmatt]

@organman52 Who's to say that composers like Babbitt and Boulez aren't inspired? They're trying to set out and accomplish something. The entire point of serialism is to make logical progress from the European tradition. It isn't so much how automatic the music is when it comes to the tone row as much as it is the fact that they came up with the formula in the first place. To even conceive of the idea of integral serialism and how to apply it takes enormous amounts of creativity and ingenuity.

[organman52]

@matchboxmatt I am to say, that's who. Serialism is nothing more than a gimmick - a failed attempt to innovate. Logical progress from the European tradition? Are you kidding? And by calling it a 'formula' you prove my point. Art cannot be based on formulas. If you are going to counter by calling, e.g., sonata 'form' a formula, well then look at the countless ways the masters expressed it - never once duplicating themselves. FYI - music composition died with Messiaen and Stravinsky.

[matchboxmatt]

@organman52 How did it not innovate? Post-WW2 era experimentation kicked off with integral serialism, it's largely responsible for the departure of old form.

As for sonata form, classical formal schemata were driven to the ground before Messiaen and composers of the same era pushed to try something else that hadn't been done already. And how the hell is formula not a massive element of art? Just because you don't agree with the linear nature of minimalism or serialism doesn't mean it's not.

[matchboxmatt]

@organman52 And no, I'm not kidding. Continuing the European tradition was the entire point of most early to mid 20th century music. Tonality was abandoned was out of what composers saw as a natural progression from Wagner pushing the limits in harmony. Chromaticism and dissonance started to become two very different things, and people set off to explore that.

Tonality > Post Tonality > Atonality > Serialism > Integral Serialism.

[organman52]

@matchboxmatt You sound like one of those dried up music history books - written by individuals who know less than nothing about musical structure. But have it your way - I know you will. I leave this discussion with this question - where is there a law that requires music to be composed for eternity, regardless of how uninspired and unoriginal it is?

[organman52]

@matchboxmatt Your assertion regarding 'experimentation' is quite true. But this also serves to indict your cause. How did the master composers - from the Renaissance to Messiaen 'experiment?' Answer - they did not. They were BORN to create great music. It simply flooded their minds and they often could not copy it out fast enough. It is called artistic conception - destined to be. So don't be telling me that babbitt - or any present-day contriver - fits into that category. It would be useless.

[matchboxmatt]

@organman52 Wait, what? Are you aware of music history at all? Haydn didn't just magically become a master composer of symphonies, he was literally isolated with an orchestra most of his life and contracted to write hundreds of pieces for the string orchestra and baryton. Listen to his early music and you'll realize how it was basically copy & pasted Baroque. It was his experimentation over several years that began the Classical era.

[organman52]

@matchboxmatt You sound as if you were THERE. The only 'place' you have been is as an adherent to what OTHERS have asserted - however, flimsy their assertions are.

[matchboxmatt]

The only person you probably have described is Mozart because he was a child prodigy. Everyone else worked rigorously in order to achieve any semblance of success. Brahms was obsessed with Beethoven in his early career and took several years to write his first symphony because he thought Beethoven already perfected it. It was only after copious amounts of writing that he was able to get out of that mindset and produce music with his own voice. Debussy, Wagner: they didn't happen overnight.

[organman52]

@matchboxmatt Again, you are simply parroting what those awful history books spew. LISTEN to the music, STUDY its structure. STOP repeating what others have said. TRUST the composers. Do NOT trust the 'experts.'

[matchboxmatt]

@organman52 Ha, so I'm the fool for actually making an effort to know what I'm talking about? How about you do yourself a favor, practice what you preach and study the music yourself. It's visible any of the music you call "the Masters": you can see experimentation and growth from a lifetime of work. I'm hardly saying anything radical. Anyone with half a brain knows that progress isn't spontaneous in ANY medium. People didn't just wake up and have inherent knowledge of counterpoint.

[matchboxmatt]

But no, go ahead and ignore what I have to say because I actually invested myself in the scores and found out for myself. People have dedicated their lives to studying the scores and the history and outlined it for us, and you're calling it bullshit because it's in a book and you can't accept that music that challenges the formulas you find so beautiful have some significance.

Hilarious that you even have Messiaen on your page since he wrote the first integral serialist piece in existence.

[edufern1]

beautiful! Thank you!

[rwdust]

The first artwork is a drawing by Franz Kline. Ink on newsprint.

[ooooooooser]

@rwdust cheers!

[ooooooooser]

who is the first painting by? the one with the newspaper and black marks

[MrAnymajordude]

The legacy of Webern with the serial control of sonic parameters by means of mathematical precision. Great, clear orchestral articulation. I should have said in the first place that I like it very much.

[jneelt]

what is the instrumentation

[NewsOrAim]

@jneelt

Flute, Oboe, Clarinet, Bassoon,

French Horn, Trumpet,

Harp,

Celesta,

Violin, Viola, Cello & Bass!

[pelodelperro]

Great upload.

[Kethvan]

Obvious Webern influence, maybe?

[alaincasaville]

Babbitt's Piano Quartet and Clarinet Quintet are welcome.

[johnnynoirman]

AWESOME!!!!

[NewMusicXX]

Very fine! Thanks!!