Babbitt.

Excerpts from an essay Milton Babbitt entitled "Who Cares If You Listen?"

Some of you will know about this work already, some of you won't. :P

Watch the video if you don't know what essay I'm talking about.

YouTube - Who Cares If You Listen?

I was interested enough to find the essay in its entirety, which can be found here:

Who Cares if You Listen?

I understand a lot of Babbitt's arguments from a composer's point of view, but I personally think that he's full of scraggy on this one, but maybe it's tainted from my own compositional ambitions and wanting to think I have worth in society at large. :whistling:

OF COURSE the audience matters. Not only because a listener is the ultimate "receiver" of music and therefore the judge of its artistic merit, but also because the primary reason of music is to be a direct channel of expression. If the composer does not consider the audience, what value does his composition have except to himself? Not saying that he should alter the content of his work in order to please an audience, but it is asinine to disregard the audience as an integral part of music.

I also don't really like his tone in his disregard for the "layman" and his appreciation for only the visceral aspects of music enjoyment...

He says some good stuff, but I disagree with a lot (if not most) of the things he says.

He mentions "determinancy" as a measurement of music to determine whether it's "serious" or "popular", while completely disregarding that some of the most indeterminate music ever thought of was written by the same people who wrote some of the most determinate music: Stockhausen, for example. And I'm sure Stockhausen never thought of his music as "popular music", no matter how indeterminate it got. Indeterminancy is certainly not something that only exists in "popular music". Neither does extreme determinancy only exist in "serious music": Just consider how much fine tuning and studio work goes into a pop production, where every instrument is recorded separately and then put together in an optimal way in the studio. A classical recording might be much more "flawed" than that, in favour of a more "authentic" sound result, and is in this respect much more indeterminate in its recorded form than a pop song.

I also strongly disagree with his notion that music needs to be "understood". This is exactly the nonsense that makes people not even give contemporary music a try. "Oh no, Xenakis used complex mathematical models for his music, so I can't enjoy it without a mathematical understanding" - which is bullshit. Little children, who aren't prejudiced yet and don't think they have to "understand" exactly what's going on in the music, are often much more open to "weird" contemporary music than grown-ups.

Sure, a person who is familiar with certain musical concepts and sounds may hear things in some music that a person doesn't hear who's completely foreign to this kind of music. An analytical understanding may even lead to a greater enjoyment of some music. But thinking that it's a necessity is just wrong. You don't have to understand anything about biology to appreciate the beauty of a flower. And you don't have to understand how Xenakis composed his music in order to enjoy it.

Not only because a listener is the ultimate "receiver" of music and therefore the judge of its artistic merit, but also because the primary reason of music is to be a direct channel of expression.

Well, I quite disagree with you too, sorry. For you the primary reason of music may be a "direct channel of expression", but that's no universal truth, just your personal approach. For me this doesn't apply at all.

If the composer does not consider the audience, what value does his composition have except to himself? Not saying that he should alter the content of his work in order to please an audience, but it is asinine to disregard the audience as an integral part of music.

I'm getting somewhat tired of the word "the audience" being thrown around all the time. There is no such thing as "the audience". There are different people with different musical orientations. Babbitt is writing for an audience, just a smaller one than Britney Spears. You may criticise that only writing for "experts" isn't good, but it's an illusion to think one can write for everyone.

And honestly, as a listener and thus part of "the audience", it often annoys me a lot to hear music where I get the feeling it was made easy "for the audience". Because it insults me as a listener. It's patronizing. I don't want a composer to write a music he thinks I will like, because I know best what music I like and I don't want a composer thinking for myself. Making music "easier" for the listener just tells the listener that she or he is too simple-minded to understand anything else.

Music that gives me the impression of "being written for me" often gives me a feeling of invasiveness into my private zone. I don't want a composer to sit in front of my nose and bottle-feed me. I want to be respected as a listener by keeping a respectful distance, writing what you think you need to write and letting -me- decide whether I like it or not. The music that touched me most was always music that was boldly put forth, seemingly without -wanting- to touch me, without following established esthetic rules, without trying to reach anyone forcibly. And the music that disgusted me most was always music where I got the feeling that the composer wanted to "sneak into my soul" with the music.

I also don't really like his tone in his disregard for the "layman" and his appreciation for only the visceral aspects of music enjoyment...

Well, at least we can whole-heartedly agree on this point. :)

This reply is getting printed first thing tomorrow morning, framed and put on my door and I won't allow anyone walking into my room unless they've read it. I'll also print it on shirts and start distributing them around for free.

And cups. I'll make cups too. I'll start a fan website, called "Gardener's babbitt-17507.html#post266274" and soon we'll run Critical Masses to let people know this quote. Soon after that, though, it will go off the line and people will start making their own little groups, interpreting your comment differently, and soon we'll have wars and your comment will be the new commandment for all music, and people will die, animals will be eaten, and booze will be very very cheap for some reason, so everyone will get drunk.

I have reasons to believe Jesus said something similar back then and this is where we ended up...

But in all seriousness,

[i']You don't have to understand anything about biology to appreciate the beauty of a flower. And you don't have to understand how Xenakis composed his music in order to enjoy it.[/i]

^ that's just beautiful...

You don't have to understand anything about biology to appreciate the beauty of a flower. And you don't have to understand how Xenakis composed his music in order to enjoy it.

Yeah, but flowers are pretty and make girls like you...

Every Xenakis concert I've ever taken a date on ends... well... let's just say the girls aren't exactly gnawing at the bit to jump in the sack with you...

I'm kidding of course... :shifty: ...or am I?

I'm getting somewhat tired of the word "the audience" being thrown around all the time. There is no such thing as "the audience". There are different people with different musical orientations. Babbitt is writing for an audience, just a smaller one than Britney Spears. You may criticise that only writing for "experts" isn't good, but it's an illusion to think one can write for everyone.

And honestly, as a listener and thus part of "the audience", it often annoys me a lot to hear music where I get the feeling it was made easy "for the audience". Because it insults me as a listener. It's patronizing. I don't want a composer to write a music he thinks I will like, because I know best what music I like and I don't want a composer thinking for myself. Making music "easier" for the listener just tells the listener that she or he is too simple-minded to understand anything else.

Music that gives me the impression of "being written for me" often gives me a feeling of invasiveness into my private zone. I don't want a composer to sit in front of my nose and bottle-feed me. I want to be respected as a listener by keeping a respectful distance, writing what you think you need to write and letting -me- decide whether I like it or not. The music that touched me most was always music that was boldly put forth, seemingly without -wanting- to touch me, without following established esthetic rules, without trying to reach anyone forcibly. And the music that disgusted me most was always music where I got the feeling that the composer wanted to "sneak into my soul" with the music.

There's something to be said for a composer who can do that, and regardless of how it affects you (obviously it's offensive to you), you should have some kind of appreciation for it. I mean, when I come across composers that just don't give a crap about the audience's experience at all, I'm a bit put off. If you're going to do something new and creative, do it well.

I sat through an hour and a half of music, some of it I liked and some of it I didn't. The last composer's work required a complete stage change. They must have spent five minutes just putting the stage together. Twelve performers stepped out, each wearing some weird hat or mask... the intent was humor. The auditorium was quiet, the work started, and 12 syllables later (about 3 seconds total), the piece ended and the concert was over.

That... offends me. :angry:

No matter. To each their own, I suppose. :sleeping:

There's something to be said for a composer who can do that, and regardless of how it affects you (obviously it's offensive to you), you should have some kind of appreciation for it.

Oh, sure, I highly respect their ability to make me angry with music. It's not a very easy thing to do :P I can't really say I appreciate it though...

If you're going to do something new and creative, do it well.

Sure, but we might not agree on what exactly constitutes "doing it well". By the sound of it, we look out for different things in music, so "doing it well" probably means something entirely different for you than it does for me. For some it might have something to do with trying to reach a certain listener or group of listeners directly, for me it doesn't.

I sat through an hour and a half of music, some of it I liked and some of it I didn't. The last composer's work required a complete stage change. They must have spent five minutes just putting the stage together. Twelve performers stepped out, each wearing some weird hat or mask... the intent was humor. The auditorium was quiet, the work started, and 12 syllables later (about 3 seconds total), the piece ended and the concert was over.

The interesting thing about this is, that this strikes me as a composition that is particularly written for an audience and its reaction. I get that feeling with some of John Cage's pieces too, which is also why I don't like some of them: For my taste he almost seems to "care" too much for The Audience™ in these pieces, in the sense that it sometimes has an almost didactic touch, which I never really like.

No matter. To each their own, I suppose.

Yep :)

Ho-hum.

The first thing I would be very careful with is trying to pin down appreciation for any artform to a simple black/white formula. It's very conceivable that you can like a piece of music for any given number of reasons in spite of what is actually there in terms of music.

To like Xenakis, for example, I really have to look at his concepts and what he was trying to do/thinking because the music itself just by itself does nothing to me. In proper context, however, I actually enjoy it. Likewise with the majority of Mozart, it sounds forgettable at best to me except when I'm analyzing it and have a whole lot of intellectual stuff going on. And even then, it's only a couple of pieces.

I don't think I'm the only one either. There are thousands upon thousands of ways to "like" something just as there are thousands upon thousands of ways to "not like" something, in spite of what that something actually is. In that sense, Babbitt's point here isn't silly at all, he's targeting exactly the context that causes people who are out of tune with the discourse on modern art to simply "not get it." He's also quite right.

Sure, on the off chance that some random passerby with no knowledge of music beyond what most people have (their favorite bands, composers, whatever) really loves Xenakis just on the basis of how it sounds, that's wonderful and it's not less valid because they don't have "proper knowledge" of anything. But it's much more realistic to simply admit that a lot of concepts are practically very hard to grasp unless you have more to work with in terms of context, knowledge and/or experience.

It also does great to remember that the thing was written in 1958. The world has changed a lot since then and while the above isn't particularly different today it is MUCH easier for anyone to do their own research and explore stuff on their own (with a higher degree of success, too.)

I just want to quote this for the sake of reference:

The unprecedented divergence between contemporary serious music and its listeners, on the one hand, and traditional music and its following, on the other, is not accidental and- most probably- not transitory. Rather, it is a result of a half-century of revolution in musical thought, a revolution whose nature and consequences can be compared only with, and in many respects are closely analogous to, those of the mid-nineteenth-century evolution in theoretical physics The immediate and profound effect has been the necessity of the informed musician to reexamine and probe the very foundations of his art. He has been obliged to recognize the possibility, and actuality, of alternatives to what were once regarded as musical absolutes. He lives no longer in a unitary musical universe of "common practice," but in a variety of universes of diverse practice.

I think this encapsulates the entire argument. Frankly the only attitude you can have when you're on the "isolated" side of the argument is to simply not care, there's no other position. You either put yourself before everyone else, or you concede to trends and to things which you know work (for others) regardless if you like them or not, since that isn't the point. You can try to have both and write many different things which is a popular option and ensure that you have a balance between coming first and "writing for others" but it's never as easy.

It's the price to pay for actual artistic freedom; price which I find really is inevitable. You may just end up writing for yourself and shut everyone (except maybe close friends, relatives, other composers?) out and sometimes that's simply the only way it can go.

I already referred to context playing a huge role in liking and not liking things, but it's precisely in this that it really shoots the dog, so to speak. It's the realization that given proper context you can not only find a laugh track in a loop from a 80s sitcom enjoyable music but also comparable to (or even better than) any of the "great masters." Obviously, many people don't enjoy facing that particular bit of reality and react badly when others take advantage of it.

In any case, I agree with what Babbitt says overall but I think contemporary music as he puts it will go on regardless if universities take or not the role he says they should, since it's already out there. It's impossible to pretend the 20th century didn't exist, as it is impossible to pretend it's for the "better" or "worse." But, I do understand his concern and I second it somewhat though with much less urgency.

I'm so glad Gardener is on this forum.

Sure, but we might not agree on what exactly constitutes "doing it well". By the sound of it, we look out for different things in music, so "doing it well" probably means something entirely different for you than it does for me. For some it might have something to do with trying to reach a certain listener or group of listeners directly, for me it doesn't.

There's always going to be this "individual" disagreement among composers such as you or me. I think this is overshadowed more by the cultural reaction. Not to put it into such a majority/minority context, but it's almost as though a distinction here is made in much the same way that Christians bicker with Scientists about Creation and Evolution. Neither really comes out any better in the end. It's a phenomenon, in and of itself, because the criteria for one position rarely (if ever) applies to the other. Apples and oranges, so to speak.

The interesting thing about this is, that this strikes me as a composition that is particularly written for an audience and its reaction. I get that feeling with some of John Cage's pieces too, which is also why I don't like some of them: For my taste he almost seems to "care" too much for The Audience™ in these pieces, in the sense that it sometimes has an almost didactic touch, which I never really like.

Yep :)

I can assure you that this individual was, in no way, concerned for his audience or wrote the piece with a particular person or group in mind. Quite the opposite. I know because I asked him directly, and he had some response out in left field somewhere. It wasn't even worth the hour long argument it probably would have become if I pressed the issue. Refer to my response above...

Sure, on the off chance that some random passerby with no knowledge of music beyond what most people have (their favorite bands, composers, whatever) really loves Xenakis just on the basis of how it sounds, that's wonderful and it's not less valid because they don't have "proper knowledge" of anything. But it's much more realistic to simply admit that a lot of concepts are practically very hard to grasp unless you have more to work with in terms of context, knowledge and/or experience.

This is precisely what hasn't been the case throughout the history of music, though. It's more telling of modern art in the 20th Century that the kind of music Babbitt advocates as "serious" is that which the uneducated audiences generally had a more difficult time accepting, by and large. What does this say for those works today that a composer or audience member might more easily accept as a "serious" work of composition but doesn't meet the criteria Babbitt refers to as "serious" composition? Is that NOT serious composition because it doesn't fit Babbitt's criteria or because audiences have an easier time accepting it?

It seems, at least to me, that two things happened here. Babbitt defined serious composition for the 20th Century, yes. In doing so, he defines what is NOT serious composition in the 20th Century. This is where he starts digging his own grave, so to speak. Who gave him the authority to draw such a distinction? How can such a distinction be drawn, by germane characteristics and such, between one and the other, yet then we can turn right back around and say subjective criterion doesn't matter - it's all good? To accept one while denying the other is just not possible within this context. It's either one or the other: music that meets his criteria is the only serious music that exists, or all music is serious if the composer had the intent or the creative process yielded the result. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. Sorry.

More on this later...

Well, I quite disagree with you too, sorry. For you the primary reason of music may be a "direct channel of expression", but that's no universal truth, just your personal approach. For me this doesn't apply at all.

True. What is your overall aesthetic with regards to music though? I can't think of a way that music doesn't boil down directly to expression at one point or another, given it isn't a completely academic exercise (which I think are perfectly valid too in their own ways).

I'm getting somewhat tired of the word "the audience" being thrown around all the time. There is no such thing as "the audience". There are different people with different musical orientations. Babbitt is writing for an audience, just a smaller one than Britney Spears. You may criticise that only writing for "experts" isn't good, but it's an illusion to think one can write for everyone.

And honestly, as a listener and thus part of "the audience", it often annoys me a lot to hear music where I get the feeling it was made easy "for the audience". Because it insults me as a listener. It's patronizing. I don't want a composer to write a music he thinks I will like, because I know best what music I like and I don't want a composer thinking for myself. Making music "easier" for the listener just tells the listener that she or he is too simple-minded to understand anything else.

Music that gives me the impression of "being written for me" often gives me a feeling of invasiveness into my private zone. I don't want a composer to sit in front of my nose and bottle-feed me. I want to be respected as a listener by keeping a respectful distance, writing what you think you need to write and letting -me- decide whether I like it or not. The music that touched me most was always music that was boldly put forth, seemingly without -wanting- to touch me, without following established esthetic rules, without trying to reach anyone forcibly. And the music that disgusted me most was always music where I got the feeling that the composer wanted to "sneak into my soul" with the music.

I didn't say a composer should write for everyone...I don't think writing for only musically educated peers is bad, but the tone I got from Babbitt's essay was one of disdain for those who DO write with some kind of audience in mind, be it "popular" or "serious" (as he put it, which I think is an unnecessary dichotomy).

I agree that music that is cloyingly and transparently catered directly to the listener is immediately repulsive...I wasn't considering it when I said what I said about "The Audience."

I think many composers' consideration of the listener should extend only so far as to NOT breach that boundary of "private zone" - which I think was a very good way of putting it - whether it be with something obviously written to "touch" or so far removed from anyone's ear but his own that the audience feels violated.

But I can't help but contradict myself on the last point - for example, I love The Rite of Spring but I don't know how I would have reacted to it had I been in the audience in 1913. :p I think the adaption of new musical ideas is a matter of circumstance and the way it's presented to the audience. Listeners ultimately decide what "sticks."

I agree that music that is cloyingly and transparently catered directly to the listener is immediately repulsive

Good'ol sweeping generalizations there. Truth is for a lot of pieces (some of which you may actually like) we have no idea at all if the composer was catering directly "to the listener" and therefore it isn't "immediately repulsive" via ignorance.

Using Bach as an example, (assuming we are fond of him to some degree) we have plenty of evidence Bach was transparently writing and catering for "the listener" of his time, that is, after all, what the baroque affects are all about. He wrote music that was predictable for the listener (Oh it's in D minor, the piece will be aggressive and fast. Oh it's in b minor, the piece will be slow and filled with chromatics and symbolism for pain and sadness, etc etc.) But it wasn't just him, that was the entire point of having trends and conventions to begin with.

Is his (Bach's) music to you immediately repulsive?

Take a more obscure example, Clara Schumann wrote a version of "Das Veilchen." Now, if you compare hers to Mozart, there are OBVIOUS analogies and not only that but you can say that it's almost a tribute to Mozart's famous lieder there that uses the same text. The reason she did what she did was to cater to listeners which would be obviously familiar to Mozart's (because it was, after all, quite popular) and it is quite transparent.

I assume that these examples aren't examples of what repulses you, but I can't help but see the distinction unnecessary when such wide generalizations are made.

I think the adaption of new musical ideas is a matter of circumstance and the way it's presented to the audience. Listeners ultimately decide what "sticks."

But always important to remember, artists ultimately decide whether or not to give a scraggy. :>

But I can't help but contradict myself on the last point - for example, I love The Rite of Spring but I don't know how I would have reacted to it had I been in the audience in 1913. :p I think the adaption of new musical ideas is a matter of circumstance and the way it's presented to the audience. Listeners ultimately decide what "sticks."

I'm a music hoe sometimes for writing for my clients! Equally I'm fine with myself cause my secret little game is to 'cheat' in the relationship between me and my clients and I tend to do what I want instead. With a tiny bit of salt to hazy the waters... It's a fun game and I can't say I'm not enjoying what I'm doing, nor I'm not proud! ;)

But even Babbitt was equally interested in the popular. He wrote musical theater cabaret songs! They suck, but he wrote them!

I think a better term than "audience" is "auditor." There are really four roles in music, after all: the composer, the performer, the auditor, and the critic. The fun part is when those roles mix. How do you align yourself?

I often find myself taking the role of all four.

I think a better term than "audience" is "auditor." There are really four roles in music, after all: the composer, the performer, the auditor, and the critic. The fun part is when those roles mix. How do you align yourself?

In the traditional sense of the word, Auditor is someone with expertise in tax law (we hope) who comes into a business and checks the records against the taxes paid. If you're just making a play on words (Auditory => Auditor), then I applaud you, sir.

But I have to disagree with your assessment of the listener as the Auditor in a more technical context, considering the technical roles are not even remotely similar. Clever play on words, though.

I don't really see how auditors or listeners are any different. Care to expound on this a bit if you intend to make a distinction?

In the traditional sense of the word, Auditor is someone with expertise in tax law (we hope) who comes into a business and checks the records against the taxes paid. If you're just making a play on words (Auditory => Auditor), then I applaud you, sir.

Auditor: 1. a person appointed and authorized to examine accounts and accounting records, compare the charges with the vouchers, verify balance sheet and income items, and state the result.

2. a university student registered for a course without credit and without obligation to do work assigned to the class.

3. a hearer; listener.

Auditor: 1. a person appointed and authorized to examine accounts and accounting records, compare the charges with the vouchers, verify balance sheet and income items, and state the result.

2. a university student registered for a course without credit and without obligation to do work assigned to the class.

3. a hearer; listener.

Yeah, but that's like... number 3! It doesn't count! :P

Yeah, but that's like... number 3! It doesn't count! :P

Funny. I apply the same rule to Gorecki's Symphonies. :hmmm:

I cannot imagine any composer writing ultimately to not have their work heard.

Of course if a composer is serious about their work, fundamentally the composer is writing first and foremost for themself.

Communication in any medium is most satisfying.

However, the composer should be aware that no one else could possibly understand the impetus of their piece but the composer.

The composer is alone in their own concept of creation.

Which is why I could never understand any composer, who is a seasoned one of course, becoming persuaded to write it, or alter it differently just because some other set of ears, who is environmentally conditioned in a particular way different then the composer, says so.

Edgard Varese only wrote 12 compositions I believe. The reason he didn't write more is because he wasn't popular in the classical world.

If the internet did not exist, I honestly feel I might have given up composition years ago, or more pragmatically, reduced my input significantly.

He definitely wrote more than 12. There are 17 on his Wikipedia page alone.

Edgard Varese only wrote 12 compositions I believe. The reason he didn't write more is because he wasn't popular in the classical world.

Yeah, but when Eric Dolphy plays your music... that's pretty high up in the art-music world.

He definitely wrote more than 12. There are 17 on his Wikipedia page alone.

Yes, thank you...

Yeah, but when Eric Dolphy plays your music... that's pretty high up in the art-music world.

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the heads up!

Haha, sorry, I like correcting people. Your general idea (that he didn't write much) is true.

To make it look like I'm actually addressing the topic: I think the audience/auditors are important, but the composer is more important. Each person ultimately decides the value of the work to himself only. (However, this will inevitably be shot down.)

He definitely wrote more than 12. There are 17 on his Wikipedia page alone.

Yes' date=' thank you...

[/quote']

True, but at some of these compositions (Nocturnal, Tuning Up, etc.) is very incomplete and were only "finished" after Var

Haha, sorry, I like correcting people. Your general idea (that he didn't write much) is true.

To make it look like I'm actually addressing the topic: I think the audience/auditors are important, but the composer is more important. Each person ultimately decides the value of the work to himself only. (However, this will inevitably be shot down.)

Uhm, I'd just like some clarification why we need to use the term "auditor" as opposed to "listener." Is this just a game of semantics, or is there a real, distinguishing purpose for using one or the other?