Babbitt.

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?

I like your chosen quote/signature by the way....

Sometimes people get too heavy in over-analyzing the simplicity in this fine art of music.

People write music...People listen to music...People choose to critique music according to their environmentally conditioned backgrounds. There is no way around this.

Composers utilize their talents the best they can. When we speak to one another, we do the best we can to try and convey what we mean. When composers write music, they try the best they can to convey the subject matter they choose.

It's quite simple actually.

Gardener -

Interesting point about self-criticism. To police oneself with nearly impossible standards is to have your worst audience.

In a way you have to admire Babbit's surety in his compositional voice and acceptance people may never fully understand all the techniques he puts into his pieces. And I think like any sentinent, social human, he loves it when people love his work. It just is very difficult for him to hear someone who doesn't like it provide an incompetent reason. Unfortunately this leads to most people not being entirely truthful about their reaction to your composition - they can say they just don't understand it.

In a way you have to admire Babbit's surety in his compositional voice and acceptance people may never fully understand all the techniques he puts into his pieces. And I think like any sentinent, social human, he loves it when people love his work. It just is very difficult for him to hear someone who doesn't like it provide an incompetent reason. Unfortunately this leads to most people not being entirely truthful about their reaction to your composition - they can say they just don't understand it.

Generally, I think it's extraordinarily redundant to be so sure of one's voice, whether basing it on "technique" or purely intuitive processes (or both, doesn't really matter), that when expecting a truthful answer about the listener's thoughts concerning the piece the composer should expect anything more than, "I didn't understand it."

What was the point of asking? You're going to do what you want to do... if you're going to ask and get upset when people can't answer you because you're off in left field to them, then you don't have very realistic expectations to begin with...

It's sort of like explaining a complex mathematical proof to a construction worker, then asking if they like it. "Uh..." Yeah, that's sort of how I perceive Babbitt in that context. :)

When composers write music, they try the best they can to convey the subject matter they choose.

It's quite simple actually.

Or is it?

I'm wondering if you somehow missed the whole "What is music?" discourse, because honestly none of this is simple at all if you get down to the details. When composers write music, they create art and from that alone we can't infer anything else. Just to put it according to your example: when I write, I could try as best as I can to NOT convey the subject matter I chose, etc etc.

Good'ol subjectivity, messing up everything~

Anti - agree with your response. But one point was missed - the "I don't understand comment" can be used by audiences as a cop out to dismiss a work while listening. Nevertheless, I see it as the best solution so far.