Babbitt: "Composition For Viola and Piano"

Milton Babbitt: "Composition For Viola and Piano" (1950)

Category:

Music

Tags:

• twelve
• 12
• tone
• serial
• serialism

[linguistmuz]

I'm surprised that I'm starting to like Babbitt's music more and more.

[jaspernatchez]

@kristopaivinen What a confused jumble you've written. I don't think you have any clue why you listen to music. You know what? Go get yourself babbitted to tears while you're having fun-yay. I think I'm done here.

[jaspernatchez]

@jaspernatchez I'm still not clear whether your "yay-fun" is derived aurally. If you claim that to be the case, I'd ask for proof. You could prove it with the viola piece here - I'll presume you don't have the score. Listen to it 50 more times and then let me hear about all the "yay-fun" you found, with details, of course.

[jaspernatchez]

@kristopaivinen "Such a conclusion" is drawn from repeatedly attempting to get you to say precisely what it is about this music that appeals to you. Answer: "yay-fun". Figuring out a puzzle. That's the truth and that's the end of the story. The rest is baloney. Frankly, I don't really comprehend the remainder of your above post.

[jaspernatchez]

@kristopaivinen As I said a few days ago, go enjoy your babbitt.

[jaspernatchez]

@jaspernatchez problematic. The issue of electronic media became confusing for you because you lost sight of the "problem" that B was trying to solve. Had you kept in mind the overall picture, it would have been clear. Think about it. Here's the bottom line: B knew people hated his "music" and resented it. Basically, the article is saying "fock it, I don't need them any more than they need me." Sour grapes, anyone?

[jaspernatchez]

@kristopaivinen my two replies appear reversed for some reason. Please note post times. IN summary, B's problem and solution violate the function of art. His inability to distinguish the difference between music, an art, and philosophy, mathematics, or physics show that, in addition to having no clue about the purpose that art serves, he has no clue what is or is not an art. Why bring science into the discussion at all? Of course, because he knew his point was weak. Your inability to see that is

[jaspernatchez]

@kristopaivinen This is in direct violation of the very function of art, which I have described in detail above. He goes on to say that the solution to this problem is to forget the public, to "withdraw totally", where concerts now resemble gatherings of advanced mathematicians or physicists. The mention of "electronic media" seems to be confusing you, because YOU DON'T KEEP IN MIND THE "PROBLEM" THAT B IS TRYING TO SOLVE. That is a PROBLEM FOR YOU.

[jaspernatchez]

@kristopaivinen "What has your attention" is irrelevant. THE POINT IS that both Sartre and Camus were very concerned with the public, and had great success with it. THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT BABBITT CLAIMS HAPPENS IN PHILOSOPHY. I find your comment about private performance above quite bizarre. You seem totally unable to see the overall picture. Here you have an article that states very clearly that, in B's view, music has grown too "advanced" for the normal, well-educated concert goer.

[jaspernatchez]

@kristopaivinen Yes, wrt music, my belief is feeling is not part of the equation for you. That doesn't mean you lack feelings. I find your musical equation odd, since feeling is the reason for music's existence - it's the way it makes people FEEL that is why it has survived for centuries. Regarding history, of course it is irrelevant to personal choice - anyone can listen to anything they want, regardless of its quality.