# Milton Babbitt



## science

I'm very surprised to find that we evidently don't have a Milton Babbitt thread here. (I searched - did I miss it? If so, let me know and I'll ask the mods to merge this into that one.)

According to wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Babbitt], Milton Babbitt (1913-2011) "is particularly noted for his serial and electronic music." He studied under several teachers including Roger Sessions, and his students included Stephen Sondheim and Frederic Rzewski.

According to his New York Times obituary [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/arts/music/30babbitt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0], "Mr. Babbitt was the first to use this serial ordering not only with pitches but also with dynamics, timbre, duration, registration and other elements. His methods became the basis of the "total serialism" championed in the 1950s by Pierre Boulez, Luigi Nono and other European composers."

He became most famous probably not for his music but for an essay that someone else titled, "Who Cares if You Listen?" The article argued "that contemporary composition was a business for specialists, on both the composing and listening end of the transaction, and that the general public's objections were irrelevant" (NYT). Babbitt wrote, "The time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, philosophy and physics. Advanced music, to the extent that it reflects the knowledge and originality of the informed composer, scarcely can be expected to appear more intelligible than these arts and sciences to the person whose musical education usually has been even less extensive than his background in other fields."

The Telegraph obituary (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obi.../music-obituaries/8296854/Milton-Babbitt.html) quotes Alex Ross's declaration that Babbit's music was "so Byzantine in construction that one practically needed a security clearance to understand it."

I suspect that _Philomel_ and "All Set" have become his most famous works, but I am not confident about that. His string quartets seem to be popular as well. His works for synthesizer are also famous, but, as far as I know, hard to find on CD or vinyl. According to the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/jan/30/milton-babbitt-obituary), "Notable in his output are Composition for Twelve Instruments (1948), Sextets, for violin and piano (1966), Reflections, for piano and tape (1975), and Quintet, for clarinet and string quartet (1997)."


----------



## starthrower

I watched this film on Babbitt a few weeks ago, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.


----------



## aleazk

Some pieces I quite enjoy:

Composition for Guitar: 




Partitions: 




Piano Concerto N°2: 



 (I really like this piece, quite intriguing)


----------



## Neo Romanza

What a horrible composer...I mean really. Anyone who _gets_ this 'music' my hat is off to them.


----------



## PetrB

Neo Romanza said:


> What a horrible composer...I mean really. Anyone who _gets_ this 'music' my hat is off to them.


I feel quite the same about some of your favored composers, which we've already discussed rather congenially in PM's some time ago. I don't recall enough of those, but do not think _horrible_ was in any of them, nor did either of us need to put _'music'_ in satiric air quotes 

Just sayin' so as to match the as I perceive it gratuitous nature of your post.


----------



## Couac Addict

I think we're shirking the real issue....who dressed the pianist?


----------



## Cheyenne

I never could get over the fact that the guy's name is actually 'Babbitt'.


----------



## PetrB

Cheyenne said:


> I never could get over the fact that the guy's name is actually 'Babbitt'.


Ironic, idn't it? That the name of the central character of the Sinclair Lewis novel by the same name should became eponymous with "a person and especially a business or professional man who conforms unthinkingly to prevailing middle-class standards" 
... that this "thorny" composer should have that as his family name? LOL.


----------



## Neo Romanza

PetrB said:


> I feel quite the same about some of your favored composers, which we've already discussed rather congenially in PM's some time ago. I don't recall enough of those, but do not think _horrible_ was in any of them, nor did either of us need to put _'music'_ in satiric air quotes
> 
> Just sayin' so as to match the as I perceive it gratuitous nature of your post.


It certainly wouldn't matter to me what you think of Elgar, RVW, or Shostakovich for example. So, in that spirit, it really shouldn't matter what I say about Babbitt if you really enjoy his music, right? I was just telling people how I felt about this 'composer' and since this is his thread, I have every right to express that opinion just as anyone would have the right to express their dislike for whatever composer they don't care for.


----------



## Mandryka

He's a compsoser of some beautiful and refined piano music, this is a CD I play often, especially Partitions, Post partitions and Canonical Form









You may enjoy this documentary, I did.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivec...cumentary-on-the-late-composer-milton-babbitt


----------



## millionrainbows

Babbitt was head of composition at Yale, and Steven Sondheim was one of his students. Sondheim remembers their analysis of popular songs. Babbitt was a sax player, and played in some popular music bands. As did Allan Forte, also of Yale, and America's top music theorist. Forte frequently analyzed "Over the Rainbow" in his analysis classes.

Babbitt not only applied serialism to non-pitch elements; he also was instrumental in identifying certain forms of serial sets, such as "all-interval sets" which were sought out for their symmetry characteristics. Elliott Carter was also interested in sets like this, as was George Perle. This created an American school of serialism, with its own unique thrust.

Look for the Youtube clip on Allen Forte, called "Music makes a better person."

Babbitt's music has its own unique beauty, as reflected in works like Philomel, the Piano Concerto, and all the piano works (as mentioned).


----------



## millionrainbows

Neo Romanza said:


> It certainly wouldn't matter to me what you think of Elgar, RVW, or Shostakovich for example. So, in that spirit, it really shouldn't matter what I say about Babbitt if you really enjoy his music, right? I was just telling people how I felt about this 'composer' and since this is his thread, I have every right to express that opinion just as anyone would have the right to express their dislike for whatever composer they don't care for.


We know this, and respect your feelings, neo; but it's rather like a vegan at the table, complaining, while I'm trying to enjoy my steak.


----------



## Neo Romanza

millionrainbows said:


> We know this, and respect your feelings, neo; but it's rather like a vegan at the table, complaining, while I'm trying to enjoy my steak.


So we should just all be sheep and follow what the others are doing on the same thread? I don't think so. A composer thread isn't just meant for positive reinforcement, it's also meant to express negative opinions, otherwise, all you have is a white page with nothing on it. I look at it as conversation and not as myself trying to 'pick a fight with the Babbitt fans.' You or anyone else can spin it however you want, I'm out of here.


----------



## Flamme

Not exactly my cup of tea but definitely has a value


----------



## KenOC

Neo Romanza said:


> ...A composer thread isn't just meant for positive reinforcement, it's also meant to express negative opinions...


This area is called "Composer guestbooks." I take that somewhat literally. Would you go to somebody's house for dinner and leave a comment in their guestbook that the food was lousy and the bathroom stank?

There are other places in the forum for that!


----------



## Neo Romanza

KenOC said:


> This area is called "Composer guestbooks." I take that somewhat literally. Would you go to somebody's house for dinner and leave a comment in their guestbook that the food was lousy and the bathroom stank?
> 
> There are other places in the forum for that!


Where would I post that I think Babbitt is a terrible composer? What thread in the forum is dedicated only to Milton Babbitt? Last time I checked, this was it.


----------



## KenOC

Neo Romanza said:


> Where would I post that I think Babbitt is a terrible composer? What thread in the forum is dedicated only to Milton Babbitt? Last time I checked, this was it.


Actually poor Miltie has been getting a bit of a drubbing on more than one "modern music" thread lately. Or you can simply start a new thread: "Is Babbitt's music as bad as I know darned well it is?"

Of course, you can post anything anywhere you like. Only a moderator can say otherwise. I was just pointing out that these are supposedly "guest books," which may or may not mean something. :tiphat:


----------



## Flamme

The ''I hate Milton Babbitt'' thread would be suitable...


----------



## Neo Romanza

KenOC said:


> Actually poor Miltie has been getting a bit of a drubbing on more than one "modern music" thread lately. Or you can simply start a new thread: "Is Babbitt's music as bad as I know darned well it is?"
> 
> Of course, you can post anything anywhere you like. Only a moderator can say otherwise. I was just pointing out that these are supposedly "guest books," which may or may not mean something. :tiphat:


I think some people's feathers just got ruffled and they really just need to get over it. Not all of us like the same things, and, again, this is the only Babbitt thread on TalkClassical and I don't feel the need or want to create a 'I Hate Milton Babbitt' thread. That seems rather pointless since this thread exists. If I created a thread for every composer I disliked, then the 'Composer Guestbook' would be filled up with too many threads. 

I should also point out that it's perfectly fine for people to go on any other composer thread and post what they want to, but somehow if I make a negative post, which I try my best not to make in most cases, then I'm suddenly under scrutiny from other members. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## Flamme




----------



## arpeggio

*Dislike & Terrible*

It is one thing to say I dislike Babbitt.

It is another thing to say he was a terrible composer.

I dislike Babbitt bit I would never say he was a terrible composer.

It is amusing that in another thread members complained that people who like atonal music should stay out of threads complaining about atonal music. Yet these same individuals participate in pro-atonal threads complaining about atonal music. :scold:


----------



## KenOC

Neo Romanza said:


> I think some people's feathers just got ruffled and they really just need to get over it. Not all of us like the same things...


And I think you have no idea whether or not I like Babbitt's music. It hasn't come up here, though I might have mentioned my views elsewhere. I said (clearly I think) why I posted. Going beyond that is speculation without basis.


----------



## Mahlerian

I find much of Babbitt's music nigh on impenetrable. That said, the pieces of his I have enjoyed I really enjoy, and I find it intriguing that instead of extending the expressionist aesthetic of angst and darkness like Sessions he wanted to take 12-tone writing more in the direction of Schoenberg's 20s works, more playful and "objective".


----------



## Neo Romanza

KenOC said:


> And I think you have no idea whether or not I like Babbitt's music. It hasn't come up here, though I might have mentioned my views elsewhere. I said (clearly I think) why I posted. Going beyond that is speculation without basis.


Well, thankfully, history will sort Babbitt out and by judging from the FLOODS of recordings and concerts that Babbitt's music receives on a monthly basis, it's nice to know that he's touched the lives of three people. :lol:


----------



## Neo Romanza

Mahlerian said:


> I find much of Babbitt's music nigh on impenetrable. That said, the pieces of his I have enjoyed I really enjoy, and I find it intriguing that instead of extending the expressionist aesthetic of angst and darkness like Sessions he wanted to take 12-tone writing more in the direction of Schoenberg's 20s works, more playful and "objective".


Give me Schoenberg any day of the week.  Hell, I'll even take Cage over Babbitt.


----------



## Mahlerian

Neo Romanza said:


> Give me Schoenberg any day of the week.  Hell, I'll even take Cage over Babbitt.


Oh, I _vastly_ prefer Schoenberg (or Carter, for that matter) over Babbitt. I also prefer Sessions over Babbitt, but I think that's a matter of personal taste more than thinking one's a better composer than the other. Cage...I'm ambivalent about in general.


----------



## Flamme

:lol:


----------



## Neo Romanza

arpeggio said:


> It is one thing to say I dislike Babbitt.
> 
> It is another thing to say he was a terrible composer.
> 
> I dislike Babbitt bit I would never say he was a terrible composer.
> 
> It is amusing that in another thread members complained that people who like atonal music should stay out of threads complaining about atonal music. Yet these same individuals participate in pro-atonal threads complaining about atonal music. :scold:


Well, so what? People have a right to express their opinions. After all, this is a forum is it not? This isn't Nazi Germany where everything is put under a magnifying glass. Maybe terrible composer wasn't the right word...I meant to say horrendous composer. There...that's better. :lol:


----------



## Neo Romanza

Mahlerian said:


> Oh, I _vastly_ prefer Schoenberg (or Carter, for that matter) over Babbitt. I also prefer Sessions over Babbitt, but I think that's a matter of personal taste more than thinking one's a better composer than the other. Cage...I'm ambivalent about in general.


Which is why I'm giving a subjective opinion. I need to investigate Sessions' music. Thanks for bringing him up.


----------



## ahammel

Neo Romanza said:


> Well, so what? People have a right to express their opinions. After all, this is a forum is it not? This isn't Nazi Germany where everything is put under a magnifying glass.


Ladies and gentlemen, we have achieved Godwin.

_All Set_ is cute.


----------



## dgee

ahammel said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, we have achieved Godwin.
> 
> _All Set_ is cute.


There was also a flounce-out and triumphal return less than 2 hours later - it's been quite a performance!


----------



## Flamme

Romanza is a tough nut to crack...He dug his trenches, built his bunkers, loaded his cannons...He will not give his position without a fight!


----------



## arpeggio

There are limits to freedom of speech.

One does not have the right to say whatever they want to whomever they want. According to Talk Classical Polocies there are limits on what a person can say.

If Babbitt was alive and a member of this forum a person could be banned for stating he is a terrible composer. Since he is no longer with us one can technically get away with it. It is still in bad form.


----------



## Neo Romanza

arpeggio said:


> There are limits to freedom of speech.
> 
> One does not have the right to say whatever they want to whomever they want. According to Talk Classical Polocies there are limits on what a person can say.
> 
> If Babbitt was alive and a member of this forum a person could be banned for stating he is a terrible composer. Since he is no longer with us one can technically get away with it. It is still in bad form.


Man, when did giving an opinion turn into the crime of the century? Get over it. I mean really...just get over it.


----------



## KenOC

arpeggio said:


> If Babbitt was alive and a member of this forum a person could be banned for stating he is a terrible composer. Since he is no longer with us one can technically get away with it. It is still in bad form.


Babbitt's getting off light! René Leibowitz called Sibelius "the worst composer in the world."


----------



## moody

Neo Romanza can give her opinion on this and any other composer whenever she so wishes. As for the point made about family members, that's a ridiculous idea---can you imagine the implications ??


----------



## arpeggio

I dislike Babbitt so I do not care. But many of my friends like Babbitt and I try to respect their feelings.

It is bad form to make a statement like Babbitt is a "horrible composer", then when a person who likes Babbitt tries to defend Babbitt, to come back and say "I am just expressing my opinion, you should get over it."

Well there are a few people here who like Babbitt. Maybe you should get over it.


----------



## Neo Romanza

moody said:


> Neo Romanza can give her opinion on this and any other composer whenever she so wishes. As for the point made about family members, that's a ridiculous idea---can you imagine the implications ??


I'm a man, but thanks for the support, moody.


----------



## Neo Romanza

KenOC said:


> Babbitt's getting off light! René Leibowitz called Sibelius "the worst composer in the world."


And Leibowitz had every right in the world to voice his opinion.


----------



## Neo Romanza

arpeggio said:


> I dislike Babbitt so I do not care. But many of my friends like Babbitt and I try to respect their feelings.
> 
> It is bad form to make a statement like Babbitt is a "horrible composer", then when a person who likes Babbitt tries to defend Babbitt, to come back and say "I am just expressing my opinion, you should get over it."
> 
> Well there are a few people here who like Babbitt. Maybe you should get over it.


Yes, but I'm not the one who is putting any of the people who like Babbitt under any scrutiny. Where in my posts did I say that people who listened to Babbitt were morons or just completely wrong-headed? Nowhere. I simply stated that anyone who enjoys his music receives a pat on the back because they're doing a lot better than I am. Babbitt is just out of the realm of what I consider good music. Is this okay with you or do I have to issue a public apology telling everyone on here that I'm sorry I spoke against Babbitt?


----------



## moody

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm a man, but thanks for the support, moody.


And your a friend of mine ...so how did I slip that piece of misinformation into the works ??? I apologise.


----------



## ahammel

Neo Romanza said:


> Yes, but I'm not the one who is putting any of the people who like Babbitt under any scrutiny. Where in my posts did I say that people who listened to Babbitt were morons or just completely wrong-headed?


When you express your dislike for music in extremely unfriendly terms, people who like that music tend to take it personally, whether that was intended or not (as I'm sure, in this case, it wasn't).

Perhaps these people are just being over-sensitive, but I don't think it's a problem with the particular group of people we've got here, as this happens everywhere on the Internet where I'm active. So perhaps, in the interests of not derailing threads (two-pages and counting!) you could consider not doing that?


----------



## Neo Romanza

moody said:


> And your a friend of mine ...so how did I slip that piece of misinformation into the works ??? I apologise.


No problem, moody. I hope all is well with you.


----------



## Neo Romanza

ahammel said:


> When you express your dislike for music in extremely unfriendly terms, people who like that music tend to take it personally, whether that was intended or not (as I'm sure, in this case, it wasn't).
> 
> Perhaps these people are just being over-sensitive, but I don't think it's a problem with the particular group of people we've got here, as this happens everywhere on the Internet where I'm active. So perhaps, in the interests of not derailing threads (two-pages and counting!) you could consider not doing that?


Yes, perhaps some over-sensitivity is definitely a factor here, but I'm not worried about it, because, I'll just stop frequenting this forum. If I say I think so and so is a horrible composer, I'm not expecting a round of applause, I'm simply stating how I feel and if how I feel about such and such composer is looked at as something that's completely implausible, even when there is, make no mistake, 100% subjectivity involved with said opinion, then perhaps I would do better on another forum?

But, all of this doesn't really matter does it? I'm a member of another forum and I've been generally well-received on there and I have made many good friends there who don't frown upon someone with a differing opinion, but have actually, in fact, encouraged contrasting viewpoints.

Also notice that nobody has really asked _why_ I don't like Babbitt nor do they probably care at this juncture, they just want to complain about how somebody doesn't share the same opinion as they do.


----------



## Neo Romanza

The reason I don't like Babbitt besides the general absurdity of his music has to do with the theories and methods he applies to music. This is the same reason why I don't like 12-tone music in general, because I don't believe music should be guided by intellectual pursuits but rather it should be an extension of someone's innermost feelings and emotions and Babbitt, to my ears, cares nothing about connecting with another listener or at least a listener who isn't into mind games.


----------



## BurningDesire

Milton Babbitt was a great composer, an artist of integrity and bountiful imagination. People who disagree are of course allowed to hold their wrong opinions ^_^


----------



## PetrB

Neo Romanza said:


> Where would I post that I think Babbitt is a terrible composer? What thread in the forum is dedicated only to Milton Babbitt? Last time I checked, this was it.


Well, maybe it is time for another TC category, 
"Sour Grapes pronounced resentments against the composers I don't like who are outside the set I actually do like,' .... Or maybe

"Not yet house-trained members" could have a dedicated corner of their own in which to romp and revel.

I recall saying I did not at all care for some later 20th century British composer, late romantic, in a thread made about that one composer, but did not flat out say he was a 'terrible composer,' -- which implies that composer does not know how to write, at all; did not say it was god-awful stuff and refer to it as 'music' in sardonic air quotes, nor did I call it 'noise.'

Point is, it is the maturity level at which you say these things, not so much what is said as how.


----------



## PetrB

Neo Romanza said:


> I think some people's feathers just got ruffled and they really just need to get over it. Not all of us like the same things, and, again, this is the only Babbitt thread on TalkClassical and I don't feel the need or want to create a 'I Hate Milton Babbitt' thread. That seems rather pointless since this thread exists. If I created a thread for every composer I disliked, then the 'Composer Guestbook' would be filled up with too many threads.
> 
> I should also point out that it's perfectly fine for people to go on any other composer thread and post what they want to, but somehow if I make a negative post, which I try my best not to make in most cases, then I'm suddenly under scrutiny from other members. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Well, looking up the generally accepted etiquette for when you are a guest -- anywhere a guest -- might keep that 'scrutiny' from falling in your direction.


----------



## violadude

Neo Romanza said:


> I think some people's feathers just got ruffled and they really just need to get over it. Not all of us like the same things, and, again, this is the only Babbitt thread on TalkClassical and I don't feel the need or want to create a 'I Hate Milton Babbitt' thread. That seems rather pointless since this thread exists. If I created a thread for every composer I disliked, then the 'Composer Guestbook' would be filled up with too many threads.


As with most people who have been bashing 20th century music lately, it's more the silly stuff like putting the word composer in quotes that peeve us off more than the actual dislike of the music.


----------



## violadude

Neo Romanza said:


> The reason I don't like Babbitt besides the general absurdity of his music has to do with the theories and methods he applies to music. This is the same reason why I don't like 12-tone music in general, because I don't believe music should be guided by intellectual pursuits but rather it should be an extension of someone's innermost feelings and emotions and Babbitt, to my ears, cares nothing about connecting with another listener or at least a listener who isn't into mind games.


What if ones innermost feelings ARE intellectual in nature?


----------



## dgee

That documentary was utterly charming. A nice dude with a sense of fun, a deep love of music, improvs a mean Broadway piano and doesn't mind being compared to Brahms ("Say Brahms again!"). Always a delight to see artists going about their business in that everyday way






Brag alert: I met Gunther Schuller and played for him! I said I admired the third stream and got a slight smackdown but he was then very pleasant. His glass eye has got more noticeable as he's aged


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Babbitt's getting off light! René Leibowitz called Sibelius "the worst composer in the world."


Hmmmm. (scratch chin.) May be that Leibowitz was right.


----------



## PetrB

Neo Romanza said:


> The reason I don't like Babbitt* besides the general absurdity of his music* has to do with the theories and methods he applies to music. This is the same reason why I don't like 12-tone music in general, because I don't believe music should be guided by intellectual pursuits but rather it should be an extension of someone's innermost feelings and emotions and Babbitt, to my ears, cares nothing about connecting with another listener or at least a listener who isn't into mind games.


hahaha some people just cannot help themselves. Yeah, anyone has a free speech right to mouth off, blahblahbalh, and they have the right to choose to be rude, deliberately punkish provacateur, whatever they care to be. Why others might not care to listen, or care about what is said after such an introduction .....

.... about the rest, "intellect" is the _force majeure_ underlying all classical music of any era, its materials, the choice thereof, including scale, tuning, harmonic system, all somewhat arbitrarily decided upon conventions, all utterly synthetic, and as much the prime thing at work in the works we love as well as the ones we don't.

The anti-intellect complaint / argument is often at the forefront of the arguments against -- bell-ringing cliche -- any and all manifestations of music post 1900 to present, but even more specifically (do you want to hear the biggest and most often rung bell?) against 'atonal' 12-tone series music. It is nearly the first complaint / argument against out of every lay listener's mouth. Yawn.

Babbitt wrote some fantastic, dense music, and rather like Benjamin Britten, when criticized for not going with another style, another current flux of style, variant of process, just stuck to his guns -- one has to admire this composers high integrity, at least, even if you don't care for the music.


----------



## moody

violadude said:


> What if ones innermost feelings ARE intellectual in nature?


You mean like me don't you----intellectual as all get -out that's me !!!


----------



## moody

PetrB said:


> hahaha some people just cannot help themselves. Yeah, anyone has a free speech right to mouth off, blahblahbalh, and they have the right to choose to be rude, deliberately punkish provacateur, whatever they care to be. Why others might not care to listen, or care about what is said after such an introduction .....
> 
> .... about the rest, "intellect" is the _force majeure_ underlying all classical music of any era, its materials, the choice thereof, including scale, tuning, harmonic system, all somewhat arbitrarily decided upon conventions, all utterly synthetic, and as much the prime thing at work on the works we love as well as the ones we don't.
> 
> The anti-intellect complaint / argument is often at the forefront of the arguments against -- bell-ringing cliche -- any and all manifestations of music post 1900 to present, but even more specifically (do you want to hear the biggest and most often rung bell?) against 'atonal' 12-tone series music. It is nearly the first complaint / argument against out of every lay listener's mouth. Yawn.
> 
> Babbitt wrote some fantastic, dense music, and rather like Benjamin Britten, when criticized for not going with another style, another current flux of style, variant of process, just stuck to his guns -- one has to admire this composers high integrity, at least, even if you don't care for the music.


Is this becoming "kick Neo Romanza Week" ? Enough I say, he doesn't like Mr.Babbitt ,OK? As has been pointed out you might not care to listen or care about what is being said after reading his words. So leave him to his fate---ignorance is bliss ,is it not ?


----------



## Pennypacker

.........................................................


----------



## PetrB

moody said:


> Is this becoming "kick Neo Romanza Week"


It is a Thread on Composer Milton Babbitt, with just one unfortunately very rude "Waaah, I don't like the 'music' of Babbitt." comment. That its placement came at the near beginning of this thread might have been on of the more unfortunate bits of timing anyone wanting to deliberately commit a faux pas could have possibly planned.


----------



## Neo Romanza

violadude said:


> As with most people who have been bashing 20th century music lately, it's more the silly stuff like putting the word composer in quotes that peeve us off more than the actual dislike of the music.


I wasn't bashing 20th Century music. I was bashing Babbitt. There was more to the 20th Century than the unfortunate strain of serialism.


----------



## Pennypacker

PetrB said:


> The anti-intellect complaint / argument is often at the forefront of the arguments against -- bell-ringing cliche -- any and all manifestations of music post 1900 to present, but even more specifically (do you want to hear the biggest and most often rung bell?) against 'atonal' 12-tone series music. It is nearly the first complaint / argument against out of every lay listener's mouth. Yawn.


Yep. The fear of intellectualism can drive people crazy. "How dare he write something I don't get right away, that patronizing prick!" 
But that's too specific a case, isn't it? There's gotta be a broader rule. Probably fear in general. Fear of the different, unfamiliar, anything that might make you uncomfortable. Some people just can't disregard all these 'negative' words attached to some sorts of music: Intellectual, weird, ugly, scary. Some people wouldn't dare listen to, say black metal, because it's 'scary'. Why? Because they pushed the distortion level a bit further and use their voices in somewhat unconventional ways? 
Then there are the 'positive' words: Beautiful, sweet, emotional. And in pop culture, you have the cool, the funky, etc. Hundreds of years of bombardment by these cliches, and you get a pretty biased society. 
Here's a nice philosophy to help clear your ears a bit: No one is better, smarter, scarier or whatever, than you. Using 'intellectual' or 'patronizing' to complain about a certain attitude is admitting your own inferiority.
Just listen to the music for its actual content, then you can determine the truly worthy and the absolutely empty. Then nothing is too 'intellectual' or 'cool' or 'hip'.

Of course, some things we just don't like. Not because we got it just right, but because... some things we just don't like. Those who are smart enough will say "This is too much for me. But that's just me", but then there are those who insist on their absolute truth. "This is too much for me... Therefor it is too much for everyone! Anyone who likes this is either crazy or just pretending".


----------



## Neo Romanza

moody said:


> Is this becoming "kick Neo Romanza Week" ? Enough I say, he doesn't like Mr.Babbitt ,OK? As has been pointed out you might not care to listen or care about what is being said after reading his words. So leave him to his fate---ignorance is bliss ,is it not ?


Thanks, moody. What I find interesting is, again, no one has asked me _why_ I dislike Babbitt's music nor has anyone tried to suggest works that I should check out that could change my opinion of the composer. No, what we have here is a bunch of people complaining about one man's opinion and nobody being able to accept it.


----------



## PetrB

Neo Romanza said:


> I wasn't bashing 20th Century music. I was bashing Babbitt. There was more to the 20th Century than the unfortunate strain of serialism.


In a way, if the unfortunates are left with serialism as their one bone to pick and growl over, maybe all the other atonal and non-tonal musics being done will get off more lightly.


----------



## Sudonim

Neo, I think the problem many have is that your comment was just _unnecessary._ I know you're not a blanket "modernist"-basher (I know you love Schnittke, for instance) but you came on like one here. If you don't like Babbitt's music, just don't say anything. Or, at least, offer criticism that's more constructive.


----------



## PetrB

Neo Romanza said:


> Thanks, moody. What I find interesting is, again, no one has asked me _why_ I dislike Babbitt's music nor has anyone tried to suggest works that I should check out that could change my opinion of the composer. No, what we have here is a bunch of people complaining about one man's opinion and nobody being able to accept it.


You had every opportunity in that first post, and clearly either did not think or did not care to think to do it any differently than you had. Post like that and then wait for people to solicit you to ask what, poor baby, is wrong? -- really kind of unbelievable.


----------



## Neo Romanza

PetrB said:


> Babbitt wrote some fantastic, dense music, and rather like Benjamin Britten, when criticized for not going with another style, another current flux of style, variant of process, just stuck to his guns -- one has to admire this composers high integrity, at least, even if you don't care for the music.




Comparing a composer who continues to have a strong foothold in the 20th Century and certainly a major composer with someone like Babbitt who only appeals to a small group of listeners, doesn't seem like a fair comparison to me. Britten was criticized by academia for not going into serialism or writing in a pure atonal style. The fact that he was a tonal composer and believed in that kind of expression is one reason why I admire him. Babbitt could never be in the same class as Britten, but your comparison is apples and oranges really.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Sudonim said:


> Neo, I think the problem many have is that your comment was just _unnecessary._ I know you're not a blanket "modernist"-basher (I know you love Schnittke, for instance) but you came on like one here. If you don't like Babbitt's music, just don't say anything. Or, at least, offer criticism that's more constructive.


Ah, but I did give my opinion of why I disliked Babbitt's 'music' -



Neo Romanza said:


> The reason I don't like Babbitt besides the general absurdity of his music has to do with the theories and methods he applies to music. This is the same reason why I don't like 12-tone music in general, because I don't believe music should be guided by intellectual pursuits but rather it should be an extension of someone's innermost feelings and emotions and Babbitt, to my ears, cares nothing about connecting with another listener or at least a listener who isn't into mind games.


I was merely testing out this forum's general attitude and what I've found is, like many other forums, the 'you're either with me or against me' attitude is the most prominent. I can come on the Babbitt thread and say anything I want to about him. Even if I started off with saying what I quoted above, I'm sure I would have been jumped on for not being one that agrees with the whole party. This is nothing more than a witch hunt and it's rather amusing that nobody still can't even recommend something by Babbitt that I could listen to that may change my mind. Again, they just want complain that my opinion isn't in alignment with theirs. Freaking hilarious!


----------



## Neo Romanza

All of this discourse reminds me of the equivalent of a bloody carcass being thrown into a pool of piranhas.


----------



## Pennypacker

Neo Romanza said:


> Thanks, moody. What I find interesting is, again, no one has asked me _why_ I dislike Babbitt's music nor has anyone tried to suggest works that I should check out that could change my opinion of the composer. No, what we have here is a bunch of people complaining about one man's opinion and nobody being able to accept it.


Oh yes, the "it's just my opinion" safe zone. But you see, in a discussion we're looking for arguments, not blank statements about someone's taste. If you absolutely have to let everyone know what you think, get a hat that says "Milton Babbitt sucks". But don't hide under the word 'opinion'. And if you're trying to pass your empty "he's a horrible composer" comment as an argument, be ready for some counter 'arguments'.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Pennypacker said:


> Oh yes, the "it's just my opinion" safe zone. But you see, in a discussion we're looking for arguments, not blank statements about someone's taste. If you absolutely have to let everyone know what you think, get a hat that says "Milton Babbitt sucks". But don't hide under the word 'opinion'. And if you're trying to pass your empty "he's a horrible composer" comment as an argument, be ready for some counter 'arguments'.


Ah, but I did give my opinion of Babbitt's music in more detail and yet people are still fixated on that first post. Sounds like I just rocked their worlds and they still are trying to get over from the 'shock.'


----------



## Flamme

Neo Romanza said:


> All of this discourse reminds me of the equivalent of a bloody carcass being thrown into a pool of piranas.



Believe me this forum and its ''inhabitants'' are far more civilised than some others i have come across on these internets!
Im not in ''perfect terms'' with modern classical music and i prefer the ''old masters'...But music evolves, it cant be stuck only in One era...People who like Babbitt obviosly prefer the modern view/way of writing the classical music...


----------



## PetrB

Neo Romanza said:


> Ah, but I did give my opinion of Babbitt's music in more detail and yet people are still fixated on that first post. Sounds like I just rocked their worlds and they still are trying to get over from the 'shock.'


Rudeness is really about the only thing people can do which still surprises me. 
I was surprised.


----------



## Pennypacker

Neo Romanza said:


> Ah, but I did give my opinion of Babbitt's music in more detail and yet people are still fixated on that first post. Sounds like I just rocked their worlds and they still are trying to get over from the 'shock.'


Right, the 'intellectual' thing... Wait, didn't Petr point you to the fact that that's the basis for all classical music? And I'm pretty sure I commented on the subject as well. Are you still recovering from the shock?

You're in a very small minority of those who listen to classical music. But the music you don't get you disregard as 'intellectual'. Well I guess I'm just looking for a little consistency.


----------



## Ukko

I don't listen to Babbit's music. Doesn't do a damn thing for me. The "problem" isn't the 'density', because some of Webern's stuff works. The thing is, me and Babbit's music ain't going to be buddies, no matter how well crafted it is.

There is also his name of course; some of us hayshakers impute a resemblance to an ivory tower Casper Milquetoast. His music probably needs a little more emotive power just to get out of that hole.

:tiphat:


----------



## Neo Romanza

Pennypacker said:


> Right, the 'intellectual' thing... Wait, didn't Petr point you to the fact that that's the basis for all classical music? And I'm pretty I commented on the subject as well. Are you still recovering from the shock?
> 
> You're in a very small minority of those who listen to classical music. But the music you don't get you disregard as 'intellectual'. Well I guess I'm just looking for a little consistency.


What people seem to not understand is yes composing is an intellectual process. I mean the music was born in these composer's minds was it not? But, while the music does indeed come from the mind, your mind is also connected with your heart. Where I'm getting at is there's a disconnect between Babbitt's mind and his heart. All I hear in his music are serialist exercises. I do not hear one ounce of emotion and perhaps cold and detached are what he was striving for and if this is the case than he far than exceeded. I just personally think there's nothing of any substance in his music and I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## millionrainbows

Neo Romanza said:


> So we should just all be sheep and follow what the others are doing on the same thread? I don't think so. A composer thread isn't just meant for positive reinforcement, it's also meant to express negative opinions, otherwise, all you have is a white page with nothing on it. I look at it as conversation and not as myself trying to 'pick a fight with the Babbitt fans.' You or anyone else can spin it however you want, I'm out of here.


No, not be sheep, but realize that we are part of a diverse community of listeners, living in a diverse world, and don't deliberately create friction or confrontation. Also, these types of vague, blanket, off-the-wall criticisms contain no substantial food for thought. At least when I criticize Mozart or Brahms, I do it with a modicum of information, about specific works.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> I find much of Babbitt's music nigh on impenetrable. That said, the pieces of his I have enjoyed I really enjoy, and I find it intriguing that instead of extending the expressionist aesthetic of angst and darkness like Sessions he wanted to take 12-tone writing more in the direction of Schoenberg's 20s works, more playful and "objective".


That's true; Babbitt was not a Romantic, but an American through and through. That being said, Americans are much "cooler" than, say, Tchaikovsky was; there is no need for over-emotionality.

I think Babbitt's music works on an almost unconscious, intuitive level, because of its unity. He was interested in certain forms of the row-possibilities, and sought the special-case rows which exhibited symmetry under inversion, all-interval rows, and such. He did a lot for serial theory in this regard, and many common-use terms still in use were invented by him. Also, his use of electronics sets him apart from most other serialists.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I'm not totally _against_ serialism, but I prefer more white-hot emotionalism in the music than Babbitt provides. I love Berg for example. I believe his music was referred to at one point as "serialism with a heart." I could be paraphrasing here of course. I also like Schoenberg's 'free atonal' period, but think less of his purely 12-tone works. I enjoy Ligeti, Schnittke, Lutoslawski, B. A. Zimmermann, Hartmann, Dallapiccola, among others. So I'm not opposed to music off the tonal path but I just don't care for Babbitt or composers of his ilk.


----------



## millionrainbows

Neo Romanza said:


> Well, thankfully, history will sort Babbitt out and by judging from the FLOODS of recordings and concerts that Babbitt's music receives on a monthly basis, it's nice to know that he's touched the lives of three people. :lol:


Babbitt, like his associate Forte at Yale, may be remembered more for his pedagogical contributions and advancement of serial theory. But not for me; he is successful at both.


----------



## Aramis

Babbitt can only dream about writing something like this:


----------



## millionrainbows

Neo Romanza said:


> The reason I don't like Babbitt besides the general absurdity of his music has to do with the theories and methods he applies to music. This is the same reason why I don't like 12-tone music in general, because I don't believe music should be guided by intellectual pursuits but rather it should be an extension of someone's innermost feelings and emotions and Babbitt, to my ears, cares nothing about connecting with another listener or at least a listener who isn't into mind games.


Ever since the Greek quadrivium, and Pythagoras, music has always struggled with its dual nature of art and science. Most people here are stuck in a very Romantic mindset. It's perfectly acceptable for music to contain structures and methods which are based on inversion, symmetry, and mathematical models. Mozart did it, Bach did it, Brahms did it, and even medieval composers with their isorhythms did it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm not totally _against_ serialism, but I prefer more white-hot emotionalism in the music than Babbitt provides. I love Berg for example. I believe his music was referred to at one point as "serialism with a heart." I could be paraphrasing here of course. I also like Schoenberg's 'free atonal' period, but think less of his purely 12-tone works. I enjoy Ligeti, Schnittke, Lutoslawski, B. A. Zimmermann, Hartmann, Dallapiccola, among others. So I'm not opposed to music off the tonal path but I just don't care for Babbitt or composers of his ilk.


There's plenty of emotion for all in a work like *Philomel,* which was scored for soprano voice and tape/electronic sound. It exists in two performances; one by Bethany Beardslee (my favorite) and a later one by Judith Bettina. The work is based on a tale from Ovid's Metamorphoses, which is about the female Philiomela, who angered the Gods and was transformed into a bird. Kinda like "The Fly," but not as horrendous, it's fascinating to hear how Babbitt uses tape-manipulation to simulate the loss of human qualities, and witness the transformation into a bird. It's very convincing, and more enjoyable when you know this background. I was inspired to read the Ovid original, so in a very real way, this work by Babbitt expanded my learning.

BTW, the first thing I ever heard of Babbitt's was his *Ensembles for Synthesizer,* which used the behemoth RCA/Princeton synthesizer, which filled a room and used punch-cards as its input. I was a member of the Columbia record club, and I was sent the LP in error. I saw it and decided to keep it. It was called "New Music from Composers of the Avant Garde" on Columbia Masterworks. It never came into print on CD except as a Japanese import; then it was released as an Archiv CD-R, using that Japanese imprint and cover art. That Japanese disc is hard to find.


----------



## Rangstrom

I do enjoy a lot of modern music and I'm not afraid of needing to hear a piece a few times, but nothing I've heard by Babbitt has connected with me. I guess that I'm looking for music that involves more than my math "gene" (and yes I do have an advanced degree in Mathematics). I'll try a few more selections, but Milton is probably a lost cause for me. That said, his taking serialism to the ultimate extreme may have freed other composers to escape from serial handcuffs and for that I thank him.

I'm more bothered by his writing off inquisitive and educated music lovers who do not resonate with his approach to composing. I suspect there was a modicum of self-glorification in his pronouncement: If you don't understand (like?) my music, then you just aren't smart (educated/trained?) enough. At times this leads to some sort of reverse self-glorification. I get Babbitt, therefore I am an elite listener. If his music grabs you fine, but I still want to be able walk into a music hall and decide what I enjoy.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> BTW, the first thing I ever heard of Babbitt's was his *Ensembles for Synthesizer,* which used the behemoth RCA/Princeton synthesizer, which filled a room and used punch-cards as its input. I was a member of the Columbia record club, and I was sent the LP in error. I saw it and decided to keep it. It was called "New Music from Composers of the Avant Garde" on Columbia Masterworks. It never came into print on CD except as a Japanese import; then it was released as an Archiv CD-R, using that Japanese imprint and cover art. That Japanese disc is hard to find.


Not if you can read Japanese.


----------



## Mahlerian

Neo Romanza said:


> Comparing a composer who continues to have a strong foothold in the 20th Century and certainly a major composer with someone like Babbitt who only appeals to a small group of listeners, doesn't seem like a fair comparison to me. Britten was criticized by academia for not going into serialism or writing in a pure atonal style. *The fact that he was a tonal composer and believed in that kind of expression is one reason why I admire him.* Babbitt could never be in the same class as Britten, but your comparison is apples and oranges really.


Isn't your objection more ideological than musical, then? I never admire a composer because of the style that they wrote in (something which isn't chosen, really; people gravitate towards their natural language), only because of the results.



PetrB said:


> In a way, if the unfortunates are left with serialism as their one bone to pick and growl over, maybe all the other atonal and non-tonal musics being done will get off more lightly.


Yeah, let's get rid of those nasty 12-tone pieces: the Chamber Symphony and Pierrot lunaire!


----------



## NickNotabene

Neo Romanza said Babbitt is a "horrible composer." That's not the usual "I have a right to my opinion" judgement - it implies he is referencing an objective standard behind it that Babbitt does not live up to. With that he crosses the line where he can reasonably claim "I have a right to my opinion." Here is the question no one is asking: What is a "good composer"? (to make it more positive) You can answer this any way you want, and me be damned. But I personally will not accept a definition for "good" or "bad" here that merely names composers that you personally consider "good" as the definition of a "good composer." Bach was a good composer, but not because I or anyone else "likes" his music (otherwise you are forced into the definition that equates "good" and "popular" & I assume no one here is that stupid). We may not all agree on who fits in the definition or not, but we have to agree on the definition, otherwise there is absolutely nothing to talk about & it just, as usual, degenerates into playground Oh Yeah? crap. And the person who makes the judgement "good" or "bad" on any composer has the responsibility of setting out the definition (and it might help if the one defining also has some creds as a composer himself). So, Neo Romanza or anyone else: please educate me. Just what IS a "good composer"?


----------



## KenOC

NickNotabene said:


> Neo Romanza said Babbitt is a "horrible composer." That's not the usual "I have a right to my opinion" judgement - it implies he is referencing an objective standard behind it that Babbitt does not live up to. With that he crosses the line where he can reasonably claim "I have a right to my opinion."


If a renowned composer, conductor, music theorist like René Leibowitz can call Sibelius "the worst composer in the world," then I suspect that Neo Romanza is free to express his somewhat milder opinions. Besides, he could be right!


----------



## ahammel

Remeber when this thread was about Milton Babbitt? Those were the days...


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> If a renowned composer, conductor, music theorist like René Leibowitz can call Sibelius "the worst composer in the world," then I suspect that Neo Romanza is free to express his somewhat milder opinions. Besides, he could be right!


Milton Babbitt made a body of work that has made a substantial and worthwhile mark on things.

There is no question as to which of those named above have made substantial and worthwhile marks on things.


----------



## Pennypacker

NickNotabene said:


> Neo Romanza said Babbitt is a "horrible composer." That's not the usual "I have a right to my opinion" judgement - it implies he is referencing an objective standard behind it that Babbitt does not live up to. With that he crosses the line where he can reasonably claim "I have a right to my opinion." Here is the question no one is asking: What is a "good composer"? (to make it more positive) You can answer this any way you want, and me be damned. But I personally will not accept a definition for "good" or "bad" here that merely names composers that you personally consider "good" as the definition of a "good composer." Bach was a good composer, but not because I or anyone else "likes" his music (otherwise you are forced into the definition that equates "good" and "popular" & I assume no one here is that stupid). We may not all agree on who fits in the definition or not, but we have to agree on the definition, otherwise there is absolutely nothing to talk about & it just, as usual, degenerates into playground Oh Yeah? crap. And the person who makes the judgement "good" or "bad" on any composer has the responsibility of setting out the definition (and it might help if the one defining also has some creds as a composer himself). So, Neo Romanza or anyone else: please educate me. Just what IS a "good composer"?


It is incredibly dull to encounter these 'opinions' that can be trashed with simple logic, without the need to listen to a minute of Babbitt's work. Still, bravo.


----------



## NickNotabene

KenOC said:


> If a renowned composer, conductor, music theorist like René Leibowitz can call Sibelius "the worst composer in the world," then I suspect that Neo Romanza is free to express his somewhat milder opinions. Besides, he could be right!


How would you know that he was "right"? (other than you happen to agree with him).
I still haven't seen anyone make a stab at answering my question. How do you define "a good composer"? so that you know a horrible one when he or she comes along? The world is waiting. Treasures await the one who answers this. And if no one can, then just don't make such stupid judgements in the future. Stick to statements that begin "In my humble opinion ..." & stop trying to fake authority.


----------



## KenOC

NickNotabene said:


> How would you know that he was "right"? (other than you happen to agree with him).


I don't know that he was "right," nor did my post say that I agreed with him. Not sure where you're getting that.


----------



## NickNotabene

KenOC said:


> I don't know that he was "right," nor did my post say that I agreed with him. Not sure where you're getting that.


Got me. Correction: How would one know if Neo was "right" other than if one happened to agree with him & agreement certified rightness? Please. You are not an idiot & you know exactly what I'm getting at.
Now would someone please answer the question. How do you define a "good composer"? No coy clever evasion. Just a straight answer. I personally don't know & am willing to admit it. But surely one of you experts knows & can teach me & a host of others out here.


----------



## NickNotabene

KenOC said:


> I don't know that he was "right," nor did my post say that I agreed with him. Not sure where you're getting that.


You're feigning obtuse & I'm not going to rephrase my statement for you. I don't know who you are or what your claim to anything is, but clearly you're not an idiot and you know exactly what I was saying.
To attempt to get back on track, the question I'd like an answer to is: What is _the_ definition of a "good composer"? I don't know the answer, but some in this forum speak as if they do & others are willing to get run over by them. So these experts should stop equivocating & educate the rest of us with a straight answer. Then we can finally get on with the important task of justifying our prejudices.


----------



## NickNotabene

... sorry for the repetition, I thought the post before did not take. But maybe redundancy will help.


----------



## SimonNZ

I've been using this time to listen to Milton Babbitt.

I particularly enjoyed the String Quartet No.2 and the absolute commitment and manifest sympathy and understanding The Composers Quartet brought to it on their recording on the Nonesuch label.


----------



## science

I don't know whether I like Babbitt's music or not - really, I don't think I care whether I like it. I mean, of course I will probably like it, I almost never hear music and think something like, "Ohhh, I don't like _that_!" And of course I like some music more than other (I'm listening to Strauss's Elne heldenleben now, and I'm almost perfectly indifferent although it does have that pretty, late romantic orchestration). But whether I like Babbitt's music or not, he seems to have been quite the influential, controversial guy, so I definitely want to know about it.

I don't care so much whether someone else wants to know about it and I care even less whether someone else likes it. The only thing that would bother me is if people started judging each other for liking or not liking or listening or not listening to Babbitt. As long as that isn't going on, hey, I guess we're not the Nazis, so we've got that going for us.


----------



## starthrower

dgee said:


> That documentary was utterly charming. A nice dude with a sense of fun, a deep love of music, improvs a mean Broadway piano and doesn't mind being compared to Brahms ("Say Brahms again!"). Always a delight to see artists going about their business in that everyday way


The guy is so likeable, and so is his wife. I don't see how someone so charming an intelligent could produce bad music. The question of enjoyment is a matter of taste.


----------



## BurningDesire

To say that Babbitt is a bad composer is just wrong. Its not a question of opinion. If you don't like his music, thats fine, thats your opinion. But if you say he was a crappy composer, you're just wrong XD


----------



## BurningDesire

Anywho. I rather like Milton Babbitt  I especially love his sense of humor, with all the puns in his titles (especially It Takes Twelve to Tango, and The Joy of More Sextets). His music is also really just fun and beautiful. There is alot of jazziness to it, as well as a sort of classical elegance.


----------



## PetrB

NickNotabene said:


> How do you define a "good composer"?


A composer who makes pieces 'that work.' Whatever aesthetic argument, counterargument, lay complaint there is no tune, academic complaint it is too direct, whatever... a general but not wholly agreed upon consensus from those various quarters, not attached to 'I get no emotion from the piece,' or 'that music is not intellectual enough,' from the cognoscenti, musicians, and audience.

Individual tastes and preferences are damned to the near outer limits when it comes to this.

Past music history is littered with repertoire which has met this most base criterion, and some love or hate different composers, eras and pieces from those times; the 20th century to the present time has more of the same, i.e. many composers who write music 'which works.'

Whether it works on you is actually not so directly, at least, part of that criterion. Some will hate hearing that, others will struggle and get over it, some are completely over it, or never had a problem with it.

"music that works."


----------



## science

PetrB said:


> A composer who makes pieces 'that work.' Whatever aesthetic argument, counterargument, lay complaint there is no tune, academic complaint it is too direct, whatever... a general but not wholly agreed upon consensus from those various quarters, not attached to 'I get no emotion from the piece,' or 'that music is not intellectual enough,' from the cognoscenti, musicians, and audience.
> 
> Individual tastes and preferences are damned to the near outer limits when it comes to this.
> 
> Past music history is littered with repertoire which has met this most base criterion, and some love or hate different composers, eras and pieces from those times; the 20th century to the present time has more of the same, i.e. many composers who write music 'which works.'
> 
> Whether it works on you is actually not so directly, at least, part of that criterion. Some will hate hearing that, others will struggle and get over it, some are completely over it, or never had a problem with it.
> 
> "music that works."


As far as I can tell, this just begs the question, "What makes music work?" Or, perhaps better, "How do you know what makes music work?"


----------



## SottoVoce

A composer that I have adored for a long time, not least because the desire to enjoy his music got me to enjoy other works as well (The Second Viennese School, Carter, Boulez, which I had never gotten into before). Of course, I didn't start out enjoying him, just like I didn't start out enjoying the Beethoven String Quartets. I also don't enjoy him all the time; I wouldn't listen to Milton Babbitt on a bad day, but I also wouldn't read Emily Dickinson on a bad day; when I'm really tuned in, however, his work has brought me as great as enjoyment as any composer in the past 60 years.


----------



## PetrB

science said:


> As far as I can tell, this just begs the question, "What makes music work?" Or, perhaps better, "How do you know what makes music work?"


You know what 'makes a piece work' for you, No? You commented upon Strauss' ein Heldenleben that it was not moving you much, but that it did have that (to you) attractive later romantic orchestration... So Richard did not push your emotional buttons much, but I'm sure you recognized the piece as 'working,' vs. some stumbling unsuccessful effort.

Ludovico Einaudi writes 'stuff that works.' annnnd here we go... so the rest gets very rapidly subjective, and goes more to a debate about aesthetics than technical ability 'to write.'

I suppose I just wanted anyone who is more than ready to say the likes of "Milton Babbitt was a terrible composer." to at least pause for a moment and think about what their reaction was, what the basis of that was and think about why that would have them say anything as completely nonsensical as that statement is. [I.e. how do they anymore better know that Babbitt was "a terrible composer."???]

It is not that difficult to realize someone could or could not write music, and write it well. It seems like there is open season for a few acting from an emotional front without thinking at all, those who say "that is horrible music!" because they don't care for it.

So I'm still sticking with 'music that works,' and adding this little plea for a little detached working sense if it is still music 'which works,' before dissing the hell out of it, and saying you don't like in less of the manner of a rather indulged child vs. an adult's, "I don't care for it." Most TC members don't even need to think on that, while imo, a good number do.

But this reminds me of that other not at all neatly answered question of "what makes it classical?" The only way, really, is to listen to a ton, and over years, of what most in the world have agreed upon is classical music, and after a while you will have no problem at all instantly hearing the difference between Babbitt, Mozart vs. Einaudi and _______. The 'good composer' definition runs along near parallel lines.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> As far as I can tell, this just begs the question, "What makes music work?" Or, perhaps better, "How do you know what makes music work?"


Nah, when 'work' is evoked, you're sliding into mechanics. Music works if its key(s) fit your lock. Manifestly true, and 99% useless as an explanation. Music 'works' if you can find a grab-handle. True, implies more volition/effort on your part, still 99% useless.

There's a lot of mechanics in music _composition_, including choosing the sort of locks your keys will fit, and how accessible the grab-handles are. We listeners just have to deal with what we're given.


----------



## starthrower

The only work you need to do is to listen.


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> The only work you need to do is to listen.


But sir, that ain't work, it's recreation.


----------



## Duck

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm not totally _against_ serialism, but I prefer more white-hot emotionalism in the music than Babbitt provides. I love Berg for example. I believe his music was referred to at one point as "serialism with a heart." I could be paraphrasing here of course. I also like Schoenberg's 'free atonal' period, but think less of his purely 12-tone works. I enjoy Ligeti, Schnittke, Lutoslawski, B. A. Zimmermann, Hartmann, Dallapiccola, among others. So I'm not opposed to music off the tonal path but I just don't care for Babbitt or composers of his ilk.


What made B's music connect is simply its similitude to my own emotional character (or maybe we should call it my personality??). Surely I am somewhat able to identify emotional *components*, such as sadness and bliss, which correspond to specific parts of Babbitt's music. But mostly, each of these individual emotional components (or feelings, as you might call them) appear in Babbitt's pieces in very, very small amounts in an _extremely_ rapid succession, which eventually produce an emotional *composite* - hours of a heightened sense of excitement. There are such extremely intense episodes of mania in, say, Alban Berg's late works as well (the second act of Lulu is total overkill for me, lol!). Still, Berg allows a bit more room for individual emotional components to latch on on to the listener, whereas Babbitt clearly puts more emphasis on simply sustaining the maximum intensity for as long as humanly possible.

Babbitt's 1st Piano Concerto, for example, has provided me with enough thrills to have heard it around *2000 times*, most of the times to completion (yes, that's a thousand hours of one goddamn piece!). The amount of satisfaction I gained from this piece, when I discovered it, was AWESOME even before I had any idea what was going on there, as the mercurial character of the music effortlessly translated into excitement in my mind. Mind games are not part of this equation, which connects the listener to the music. It's all about what I _emotionally_ desire, and finding a substitute to Babbitt to satisfy my manic desires _has_ been unsuccessfully attempted. Of course if you have a certain kind of personality say, phlegmatic, melancholic or if you are a blissfully careless person, then other kinds of music will probbly connect far better with you.

Mind games, yes while it is possible to find such things in Babbitt's music, are to me a voluntary part of the satisfaction and I do not personally pay any attention to the presence of such games.


----------



## PetrB

@ Duck:

Many thanks for your Very Well Put contribution!


----------



## Morimur

Underrated? Milton Babbitt. Let's hope future generations come to appreciate this man's genius because ours certainly doesn't. A crime if there was ever one. Babbitt forever, MOFOs!


----------



## millionrainbows

Any composer who looks like Elmer Fudd has got to be instantly loved...also, "Babbitt" rhymes with "wabbitt."


----------



## millionrainbows

Remember when this thread was about Elmer Fudd?...sighhh...those were the days.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Underrated? Milton Babbitt. Let's hope future generations come to appreciate this man's genius because ours certainly doesn't. A crime if there was ever one. Babbitt forever, MOFOs!


If the apes take over, there's no chance. German drinking songs will be considered the apex of all Western (human) art. _Those damned apes...

_


----------



## Guest

Neo Romanza said:


> Where would I post that *I think Babbitt is a terrible composer*? What thread in the forum is dedicated only to Milton Babbitt? Last time I checked, this was it.


Hi Neo. Long time no speak!
I'm not so sure. His influence has been very important, let's not shy away from that. Shall we call him the post 40s serialists' _Albrechtsberger_?


----------



## millionrainbows

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm not totally _against_ serialism, but I prefer more white-hot emotionalism in the music than Babbitt provides. I love Berg for example. I believe his music was referred to at one point as "serialism with a heart." I could be paraphrasing here of course. I also like Schoenberg's 'free atonal' period, but think less of his purely 12-tone works. I enjoy Ligeti, Schnittke, Lutoslawski, B. A. Zimmermann, Hartmann, Dallapiccola, among others. So I'm not opposed to music off the tonal path but I just don't care for Babbitt or composers of his ilk.


This is saying more about the listener than it is about *Babbitt. Schoenberg* and* Berg *were overt Romantics, and used the same dramatic gestures, rhetoric, and forms. I don't think a comparison with* Babbitt *is productive. *Babbitt* was more concerned with permutations and unifying elements of symmetry, and was dabbling in electronic sound as well.* Schnittke *is a* Shostakovich *clone...*Dallapicolla *was a traditionalist as well. *Babbitt* needs to be put in a "special case" category because of the searching, syntax-expanding nature of his work. Not that he did not produce great works of art, like _*Philomel.

*_Okay, now I'm gonna go figure out what a "post 40s serialists' _Albrechtsberger"_ is.


----------



## Whistler Fred

Milton Bibbitt is one of the composers that I'm not sure if I've quite "gotten" but whose music I feel compelled to keep trying to comprehend. I've gotten to like some of his music, like _Philomel _and _All Set_ mentioned earlier and the hyper-virtuosic _Phonemena_. Other pieces of his I'm still working on. But that I keep listening despite some aural confusion suggests that it appeals on at least some level of my musical cognition.

For the record, Babbitt's original title for the article published as "Who Cares of You Listen?" was "The Composer as Specialist." Why the name was changed is not clear (Babbitt had maintained that it was an editor's decision and that he was not consulted, and would have never approved such a change). Certainly the revised title seems unnecessarily confrontational, and may have stiffened resistance to acceptance of his music.


----------



## PetrB

Neo Romanza said:


> Where would I post that I think Babbitt is a terrible composer? What thread in the forum is dedicated only to Milton Babbitt? Last time I checked, this was it.


Your screen name very much defines the parameters of of your musical taste, as shown by your stated likes and OPs you have initiated. I don't see any reason to drop in on each specifically modern / contemporary thread to announce, yet again, how horrible you think music past the early to mid-20th century Late and neoRomantics is. "We get it."

As someone said, if you want to be negative, you could always start either a private group or a thread, "I hate Milton Babbitt's music." LOL.


----------



## ArtMusic

I think Babbit was an ordinary 20th composer. His music was more of third or forth rank stuff.


----------



## PetrB

ArtMusic said:


> I think Babbit was an ordinary 20th composer. His music was more of third or forth rank stuff.


That requires a good deal of discernment about a lot of serial and other 20th century rep which you seem pre-disposed to dislike or dismiss. Where is your deep familiarity with and about this music -- other than "I know what I like," -- as the basis for the above ranking? :lol:

And that assessment from one who proposed that '20th century classical' missed its chance at being good and popular when it did not follow the direction of more film scores of the mid-century... another hysterical and hysterically funny premise.


----------



## PetrB

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PetrB suppresses own opinion. Hold the presses. More at 11:00. Meanwhile, a giant sinkhole has swallowed eight historical Corvettes in Kentucky...

(I'm not making this up)


----------



## ArtMusic

PetrB said:


> That requires a good deal of discernment about a lot of serial and other 20th century rep which you seem pre-disposed to dislike or dismiss. Where is your deep familiarity with and about this music -- other than "I know what I like," -- as the basis for the above ranking? :lol:
> 
> And that assessment from one who proposed that '20th century classical' missed its chance at being good and popular when it did not follow the direction of more film scores of the mid-century... another hysterical and hysterically funny premise.


I don't understand. My opinion was about Babbit's music. Yours was about me and my polls/posts. Why?


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> PetrB suppresses own opinion. Hold the presses. More at 11:00. Meanwhile, a giant sinkhole has swallowed eight historical Corvettes in Kentucky...
> 
> (I'm not making this up)


The remaining historical Corvettes have just jumped up in rarity and value


----------



## PetrB

ArtMusic said:


> I don't understand. My opinion was about Babbit's music. Yours was about me and my polls/posts. Why?


Patently disingenuous, my lad. It is not all about you _but what you said_.

We all know this is a discussion forum, and people can question both a comment and the qualifications of the one commenting, and that anything anyone has put up is fodder as a citation in a discussion.

I threw into question your ability to assess Babbitt as 3rd or 4rth rate because of your track record of near summarily dismissing so much of the atonal repertoire, and cited one of many of your statements as to what musical vocabulary would be better as per your taste and perhaps beliefs in "what music is and should be."

If you don't care to respond to that, it matters little to me. Lord knows there are comments in every thread that are not responded to at all. The forum is not a debate class, where if you do not respond to a post you lose points or some such.


----------



## arpeggio

PetrB said:


> Patently disingenuous, my lad. It is not all about you _but what you said_.
> 
> ...
> 
> I threw into question your ability to assess Babbitt as 3rd or 4rth rate because of your track record of near summarily dismissing so much of the atonal repertoire, and cited one of many of your statements as to what musical vocabulary would be better as per your taste and perhaps beliefs in "what music is and should be."


Agree with the above parts. I would also add that if one offers an observation which clashes with the experiences of others, they should expect a spirited response. I have lost count on how many times I have been zapped.


----------



## PetrB

arpeggio said:


> Agree with the above parts. I would also add that if one offers an observation which clashes with the experiences of others, they should expect a spirited response. I have lost count on how many times I have been zapped.


Ditto. It is silly to think no one will take you to accounts or hold you accountable if you 'publish' at all... and yea, prepare to be zapped.


----------



## ArtMusic

PetrB said:


> Patently disingenuous, my lad. It is not all about you _but what you said_.
> 
> We all know this is a discussion forum, and people can question both a comment and the qualifications of the one commenting, and that anything anyone has put up is fodder as a citation in a discussion.
> 
> I threw into question your ability to assess Babbitt as 3rd or 4rth rate because of your track record of near summarily dismissing so much of the atonal repertoire, and cited one of many of your statements as to what musical vocabulary would be better as per your taste and perhaps beliefs in "what music is and should be."
> 
> If you don't care to respond to that, it matters little to me. Lord knows there are comments in every thread that are not responded to at all. The forum is not a debate class, where if you do not respond to a post you lose points or some such.


I'm not the most linguistically punctilious. I usually type quickly on casual boards like this. Which is why I love stating my opinion without if ever going into much discussion.

As for babbit, just about any piece I have listened to of his easily ranks forth or fifth place so to speak. His string quartet pales in comparison with many other 20th century examples. So, MB is pretty a mediocre composer as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## SimonNZ

ArtMusic said:


> I'm not the most linguistically punctilious. I usually type quickly on casual boards like this. Which is why I love stating my opinion without if ever going into much discussion.


Well, that's simply not good enough. In fact that's really quite lazy. The burden of proof is on you if you wish to put forward the position that "Babbitt is fourth-rate". If you fail to provide examples or any carefully considered argument you can't possibly be taken seriously.

Which works have you heard? Which recordings? What were the pluses and minuses of each? Or is this like Messiaen's St.Francis where you hear one recording once and declare it rubbish now and for all time?

Here's the link to the String Quartet No.2 which I've posted before, praising:






I challenge you to listen to this and form a coherent argument about what you see as its faults.

(I notice you write: "His string quartet pales in comparison with many other 20th century examples" as though he wrote only one. He wrote six, you'll be surprised, it seems, to learn. So: which 16.6% of his string quartet output is it that you've heard, and in what way did it "pale"? I dare you to be specific.)


----------



## dgee

PetrB said:


> I threw into question your ability to assess Babbitt as 3rd or 4rth rate


Shame on you PetrB! I've seen Mr Music displaying his back-to-back listening of Herzogenberg CDs on our current listening thread and admiring the stylings of Sembiin Gonchigsumlaa - he is clearly well-versed in the 3rd and 4th rate ;-)


----------



## ArtMusic

There is no burden of proof. This isn't a court case. Nobody needs to prove why they dislike or like for that matter, any piece or composer. Opinions are free to come and go, as well founded or as stated plainly. Such is the "burden of freedom" composers like Babbit will have to accept from listeners free to express their opinion.


----------



## PetrB

ArtMusic said:


> There is no burden of proof. This isn't a court case. Nobody needs to prove why they dislike or like for that matter, any piece or composer. Opinions are free to come and go, as well founded or as stated plainly. Such is the "burden of freedom" composers like Babbit will have to accept from listeners free to express their opinion.


Wow... outrage of being questioned or held accountable for what was said -- LOL. Which, btw, is a natural and expected consequence of posting just about anything on a discussion forum.

I wonder just how much of a mark the commenter who said Babbitt is a 3rd or 4th - rate composer will make in the big picture, or if they or their comments will be discussed at all after they're dead... unlike Babbitt, who well after his death has a lingering presence and who is still a topic of conversation.


----------



## science

As a 3rd or 4th-rate poster here, I suggest that 3rd or 4th rate things might be underrated sometimes, and even if they are relegated with complete justice to the manure barns of our cultural space, I hope we can enjoy the sunshine a little on our way.


----------



## ArtMusic

PetrB said:


> Wow... outrage of being questioned or held accountable for what was said -- LOL. Which, btw, is a natural and expected consequence of posting just about anything on a discussion forum.
> 
> I wonder just how much of a mark the commenter who said Babbitt is a 3rd or 4th - rate composer will make in the big picture, or if they or their comments will be discussed at all after they're dead... unlike Babbitt, who well after his death has a lingering presence and who is still a topic of conversation.


Of course MB has a presence. But he's poorly known even to classical music listners in general. That's a fact. Along with his contemporaries.


----------



## ArtMusic

science said:


> As a 3rd or 4th-rate poster here, I suggest that 3rd or 4th rate things might be underrated sometimes, and even if they are relegated with complete justice to the manure barns of our cultural space, I hope we can enjoy the sunshine a little on our way.


Agree entirely. There are other composers' music I love that maybe you, which you are entitled to in every way, might consider 10th or 20th rank. So what? Sunshine in my ears in my little way, but rest assured, my young blood pressure levels don't reach twilight levels.


----------



## SimonNZ

ArtMusic said:


> Of course MB has a presence. But he's poorly known even to classical music listners in general. That's a fact. Along with his contemporaries.


Poorly known by you doesn't equate to poorly known in general. With a little humility you may concede the possibility that many in the wider world are more familiar with, and accepting of, certain things than you currently are.

Could it be that you, like all of us really, are still learning and shouldn't rush to such absolute and unwavering judgements? I feel I may not be the first TC member to suggest this to you.


----------



## PetrB

ArtMusic said:


> Of course MB has a presence. But he's poorly known even to classical music listners in general. That's a fact. Along with his contemporaries.


And yet a number of those "Classical music listeners in general" all responded to the Milton Babbitt thread. Hmmm, maybe they are more musically literate than some younger listeners of more insulated mentality, yea, even some younger music students, or other 'general listeners.'


----------



## ArtMusic

Babbit did write one piece that caught my attention as mildly worthy, that was the _Fanfare For All_ for brass. I think this piece has a better chance than other pieces in reaching to a broader group of listeners. Good for Babbit on this account. (Only wished if he shared more accessible creativity with his other pieces.)


----------



## arpeggio

I am sure the spirit of Babbit is pleased that you approve of this one piece. Give me a break.


----------



## Neo Romanza

PetrB said:


> Your screen name very much defines the parameters of of your musical taste, as shown by your stated likes and OPs you have initiated. I don't see any reason to drop in on each specifically modern / contemporary thread to announce, yet again, how horrible you think music past the early to mid-20th century Late and neoRomantics is. "We get it."
> 
> As someone said, if you want to be negative, you could always start either a private group or a thread, "I hate Milton Babbitt's music." LOL.


You're still talking about this?!?!? My goodness just get over it! Move on. You're worse than my nagging sister who used to pester the hell out of me growing up.


----------



## Neo Romanza

millionrainbows said:


> This is saying more about the listener than it is about *Babbitt. Schoenberg* and* Berg *were overt Romantics, and used the same dramatic gestures, rhetoric, and forms. I don't think a comparison with* Babbitt *is productive. *Babbitt* was more concerned with permutations and unifying elements of symmetry, and was dabbling in electronic sound as well.* Schnittke *is a* Shostakovich *clone...*Dallapicolla *was a traditionalist as well. *Babbitt* needs to be put in a "special case" category because of the searching, syntax-expanding nature of his work. Not that he did not produce great works of art, like _*Philomel.
> 
> *_Okay, now I'm gonna go figure out what a "post 40s serialists' _Albrechtsberger"_ is.


I would hope my opinions reflected the view of the listener and not Babbitt since I am the listener giving the opinion.


----------



## moody

PetrB said:


> Patently disingenuous, my lad. It is not all about you _but what you said_.
> 
> We all know this is a discussion forum, and people can question both a comment and the qualifications of the one commenting, and that anything anyone has put up is fodder as a citation in a discussion.
> 
> I threw into question your ability to assess Babbitt as 3rd or 4rth rate because of your track record of near summarily dismissing so much of the atonal repertoire, and cited one of many of your statements as to what musical vocabulary would be better as per your taste and perhaps beliefs in "what music is and should be."
> 
> If you don't care to respond to that, it matters little to me. Lord knows there are comments in every thread that are not responded to at all. The forum is not a debate class, where if you do not respond to a post you lose points or some such.


I discovered that you cannot question the qualifications of the one commenting to my cost !!!


----------



## moody

ArtMusic said:


> There is no burden of proof. This isn't a court case. Nobody needs to prove why they dislike or like for that matter, any piece or composer. Opinions are free to come and go, as well founded or as stated plainly. Such is the "burden of freedom" composers like Babbit will have to accept from listeners free to express their opinion.


You are right,mind you we've been this way before. If I hear a piece and don't like it why on earth would I then try to persuade myself into liking the composer. What strange ideas are put into play by some here.


----------



## KenOC

Milton Babbitt famously suggested that his compadres be granted invisible and subsidized positions in academia (he already had one, for the most part). He was only following Harry Truman's advice from as early as 1942: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Today Babbitt is remembered for -- what?


----------



## SimonNZ

You know, I haven't heard a terribly great amount of Babbitt, though my appetite for more has been whetted by what I have.

But even if it hadn't...the views of the anti-Babbitt contingent here are so bereft of a structured polemic designed to persuade that I'd be thinking that there must be something to this chap and I should check him out.

Last night I listened to String Quartet No.6. Today I was reading a little about the use of twelve tone series in Quartet No.2. Tonight I plan to listen to Transfigured Notes.


----------



## KenOC

SimonNZ said:


> t...the views of the anti-Babbitt contingent here are so bereft of a structured polemic designed to persuade that I'd be thinking that there must be something to this chap and I should check him out.


Please do! I'm open to blandishment. Look forward to your report.


----------



## arpeggio

*Here we go again.*

It is inappropriate if anyone is trying force members to like Babbitt. If someone dislikes Babbitt I seriously doubt that anyone here has the wherewithal to convince them otherwise.

I feel silly reminding members that I dislike Babbitt. The only works I have in my collection by Babbitt are _Correspondences and Relata I_. The _Relata I_ shares the CD with a symphony of David Diamond and an orchestral work of Vincent Persichetti. When I listen to that CD I just skip the Babbitt. It is such a simple solution I have trouble understanding intelligent people who do not get it.

I have learned that if I dislike a composer it does not mean that his music is bad. No matter what their reputations, there are composers whose music we can not stand. I know I caught all sorts of grief from some members because I admitted that I never really appreciated the Schubert _Unfinished Symphony_ until I actually played it.

This thread is about members who appreciate the music of Babbitt. I also know that anyone who shows up dissing Babbitt will never convince any members that they should destroy their Babbitt CD's.

It is not a sign of ignorance if a person does not understand the music of Babbitt. By the same token a person does not establish the superiority of the their musical expertise by proving that Mozart is better than Babbitt.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Today Babbitt is remembered for -- what?


There was a new disc of his music released in December. He's still out there.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Milton Babbitt famously suggested that his compadres be granted invisible and subsidized positions in academia (he already had one, for the most part). He was only following Harry Truman's advice from as early as 1942: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
> 
> *Today Babbitt is remembered for -- what?*


For a couple of essays and a few pieces here and there. A bit like Johann Joachim Quantz, I suppose.
That Quantz treatise is essential reading for performers wanting to get into the techniques of HIP.


----------



## millionrainbows

Today, Babbitt is remembered for...his large body of great music, his work with the RCA synthesizer, and if you're a composer, many of the terms he coined for serial composition: all-interval sets, etc., plus, many innovations in serial thinking and row permutation. He was head of the Yale (or Princeton?) composition department, and is the most important American serialist.

He liked beer, too. Oh, yeah, and let's not forget that essay "Who Cares if You Listen?"


----------



## Romantic Geek

Neo Romanza said:


> Comparing a composer who continues to have a strong foothold in the 20th Century and certainly a major composer with someone like Babbitt who only appeals to a small group of listeners, doesn't seem like a fair comparison to me. Britten was criticized by academia for not going into serialism or writing in a pure atonal style. The fact that he was a tonal composer and believed in that kind of expression is one reason why I admire him. Babbitt could never be in the same class as Britten, but your comparison is apples and oranges really.


I think you'd be colored shocked to find out that Babbitt actually wrote several quite beautiful tonal works.

Also, as one that is a PhD student in music theory who just had the opportunity to study from one of the foremost Babbitt scholars (former friend and student of his), I firmly believe that his music is actually quite separate from his "theories." There are plenty of moments in his music that is even inexplicable in his complex theories of serialism and array structures.

I'm personally not a huge fan of Babbitt's music, but there are several pieces of his that I find incredibly moving regardless of whatever new-fangled theory he used to compose the piece. "Around the Horn" is a great piece. "My Ends are My Beginnings" is brilliantly written for the clarinet--maybe because Babbitt was a clarinetist. Our class spent a lot of time on a relatively late piece of his "Now Evening After Evening" which is a beautiful work for voice and piano.

Anyway, I came out of lurking mode because I honestly find your opinion to be supported by straw men. That's fine if you want to believe those things, but don't try to force your misinformation down other people's throats.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Today Babbitt is remembered for -- what?


I think most people will remember him for the essay, *Who cares if you listen, *his work in tone-row permutations and serialization of rhythmic elements, and for* Squink! Skrokk! Popp! Graaaahhh! Zoink!
*


----------



## millionrainbows

Today, Most people will remember *Mozart* for...that piano thing in C, you'd know it if you heard it...that real dainty, powder-puff thingy...I heard an ice-cream truck playing it. And that minor symphony...was it in G minor? And he wrote that "night music," I think I heard that somewhere at night...did he write Music Box Dancer?


----------



## Mahlerian

An article I stumbled across:
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/focus/milton-babbitt-assessed


----------



## millionrainbows

Milton Babbitt, as well as being an innovative serial thinker and important American musical thinker, wrote music that was appealing to the ear. This is common knowledge, that his work is 'very musical' and the work of a real artist. This is what all the critical essays say about him. Who are these retrograde critics here who have a problem with him? Ignore them theirs is a minority view. Buncha fringe traditionalists.


----------



## Morimur

I wonder if I'll live to see/hear a Babbitt box set.


----------



## randy woolf

I really like his early voice and tape pieces like philomel. after that, i think he has an original idea that supports maybe 3 pieces, but he kept milking it over and over for decades. i like partitions and some of his string quartets.


----------



## Blancrocher

This page includes recipients of the "Charles Homer Haskins Prize," each of whom provides his or her autobiographical reflections under the general title "A Life of Learning" (available for free as a pdf). Milton Babbitt is among them.

https://www.acls.org/pubs/haskins/

As always, Babbitt is worth reading. His essay is thoughtful, witty, acerbic, over the heads of his audience, and occasionally sincerely emotional (I think)--I found it especially endearing that he begins his autobiography with a life of Arnold Schoenberg!


----------



## Janspe

Had my first encounters with Babbitt's music today:

- String Quartet No. 2
- Piano Concerto No. 1

Phew, this stuff is kinda tough on my ears. The concerto was a bit more manageable than the quartet, though. Does anyone have any favourite pieces by Babbitt that could serve as a good introduction, so to speak? I'm still interested to explore his work further!


----------



## Mahlerian

Some of my favorites:

Correspondences, for string orchestra and tape
All Set, for jazz ensemble
Swan Song No. 1

The constant register-jumping of Babbitt's music is extremely disorienting at first, even for someone who knows the Second Viennese School's music well, but eventually his infectious rhythmic verve and witty interplay won me over...at least for occasional listening.

This year is Milton Babbitt's centenary, so it's a good time to discover his work.


----------



## KenOC

This may help to appreciate and enjoy Babbitt's music:

"Along with this increase of meaningful pitch materials, the number of functions associated with each component of the musical event also has been multiplied. In the simplest possible terms. Each such "atomic" event is located in a five-dimensional musical space determined by pitch-class, register, dynamic, duration, and timbre. These five components not only together define the single event, but, in the course of a work, the successive values of each component create an individually coherent structure, frequently in parallel with the corresponding structures created by each of the other components. Inability to perceive and remember precisely the values of any of these components results in a dislocation of the event in the work's musical space, an alternation of its relation to a other events in the work, and-thus-a falsification of the composition's total structure. For example, an incorrectly performed or perceived dynamic value results in destruction of the work's dynamic pattern, but also in false identification of other components of the event (of which this dynamic value is a part) with corresponding components of other events so creating incorrect pitch, registral, timbral, and durational associations.

"...musical compositions of the kind under discussion possess a high degree of contextuality and autonomy. That is, the structural characteristics of a given work are less representative of a general class of characteristics than they are unique to the individual work itself. Particularly, principles of relatedness, upon which depends immediate coherence of continuity, are more likely to evolve in the course of the work than to be derived from generalized assumptions. Here again greater and new demands are made upon the perceptual and conceptual abilities of the listener." --Milton Babbitt

There, isn't it all better now?


----------



## Janspe

Thanks for the suggestions, Mahlerian. I especially enjoyed All Set - surprisingly accessible, dare I say! I loved the choice of instruments, the sound world was varied and interesting. I must re-listen to this piece soon.



Mahlerian said:


> This year is Milton Babbitt's centenary, so it's a good time to discover his work.


I didn't even realize this! All the more reason now to dig into his work.


----------



## starthrower

Mahlerian said:


> Some of my favorites:
> 
> Correspondences, for string orchestra and tape
> All Set, for jazz ensemble
> Swan Song No. 1
> 
> The constant register-jumping of Babbitt's music is extremely disorienting at first, even for someone who knows the Second Viennese School's music well, but eventually his infectious rhythmic verve and witty interplay won me over...at least for occasional listening.
> 
> This year is Milton Babbitt's centenary, so it's a good time to discover his work.


I listened to the young musicians playing All Set, as well as the Boston ensemble playing the same piece. I applaud the kids for their efforts, but the BMOP performs this piece with a much greater degree of confidence and daring attitude. It sounds like an excellent CD to start off with!


----------



## Vasks

Morimur said:


> I wonder if I'll live to see/hear a Babbitt box set.


If there someday is one, it will be a difficult/complex process to get into the box :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

moody said:


> Is this becoming "kick Neo Romanza Week" ? Enough I say, he doesn't like Mr.Babbitt ,OK? As has been pointed out you might not care to listen or care about what is being said after reading his words. So leave him to his fate---ignorance is bliss ,is it not ?


In a low, menacing Darth Vader voice: DESTROY HIM! I REPEAT, DESTROY HIM! :lol:


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Janspe said:


> Thanks for the suggestions, Mahlerian. I especially enjoyed All Set - surprisingly accessible, dare I say!


Babbitt had a great deal of experience of jazz and "popular songs" as a young performer, and he remained fond of these genres. This heritage finds its clearest expression in works like _All Set_, but there's perhaps a hint of "jazziness" in the witty titles Babbitt gave to many of his more uncompromising works. Even these can be quite fun, like _Minute Waltz (or) "¾ ± ⅛"_, for example.

Personally, I adore his music.


----------



## Mahlerian

Happy 100th birthday, Milton.

The complete solo piano music can be found here: http://augustusarnone.com/journal/?cat=8

His classic setting of The Widow's Lament in Springtime:





And the loving documentary produced right after his death a few years ago:


----------



## Xenakiboy

I love Mr Babbitt and his music. And with the radio interviews I've heard and that documentary also, I could just listen to him talk for hours too haha.

Babbitt has some awesome music and it doesn't take a mathematician to love his work. Brilliant sound world and great man. 
That's what I have to say, without getting into admiration of his many works!


----------



## Xenakiboy

Also Milton, my dude. Can I buy you a coffee or a beer and we can have discussions for hours, then attended a performance of some of your chamber works such as Philomel, Three compositions, Composition for four instruments, String Quartet four, Semi-simple variations, All set, Transfigured Notes, etc. It'd be awesome!


----------



## millionrainbows

Babbitt is playful, and has humor in his music; I can hear it. His interest in certain permutations of tone rows makes him superior in serial composition, IMHO, to what Schoenberg was doing with rows. Not Webern, though. Babbitt's interest in electronics is also a plus. A very forward-thinking, progressive composer. Robert Taub's CD of the piano music is very good.


----------



## millionrainbows

Good news for Babbitt aficionados: His Ensembles for Synthesizer is available in this Sony box set:



Too bad they did not include the rest of the original LP (New Music from Leaders of the Avant Garde), with excellent Pousseur (a tape work) and Cage works (David Tudor scraping piano strings with a contact mike).

The Cage (Variations IV, 1961) is good for killing mosquitos or running off unwanted house guests.


----------



## Xenakiboy

millionrainbows said:


> Good news for Babbitt aficionados: His Ensembles for Synthesizer is available in this Sony box set:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad they did not include the rest of the original LP (New Music from Leaders of the Avant Garde), with excellent Pousseur (a tape work) and Cage works (David Tudor scraping piano strings with a contact mike).
> 
> The Cage (Variations IV, 1961) is good for killing mosquitos or running off unwanted house guests.


Since I joined this site I've seen that box set everywhere, another thing I should probably purchase!! :lol: :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

@Xenakiboy: I don't have it yet, either! I'm just acutely aware of its existence. As soon as I crawl out of my current debt, in a month or so, I will order it.


----------



## Scopitone

Reading the Stephen Sondheim article on wikipedia, I stumbled across this quote:

According to Sondheim, when he asked Milton Babbitt if he could study atonality, Babbitt replied: "You haven't exhausted tonal resources for yourself yet, so I'm not going to teach you atonal".​


----------



## millionrainbows

Scopitone said:


> Reading the Stephen Sondheim article on wikipedia, I stumbled across this quote:
> According to Sondheim, when he asked Milton Babbitt if he could study atonality, Babbitt replied: "You haven't exhausted tonal resources for yourself yet, so I'm not going to teach you atonal".​


Aww, shoot! We could have had a Stephen Sondheim serial musical!!


----------



## Xenakigirl

Babbitt is an amazing composer, probably too overlooked in general


----------



## Scopitone

I am trying out Babbitt this morning with this one:










Not exactly the Gluck I was listening to before it!


----------



## Pugg

Scopitone said:


> I am trying out Babbitt this morning with this one:
> 
> Not exactly the Gluck I was listening to before it!


Good that I am in my chair or else I was lying on the ground, laughing like mad .


----------



## millionrainbows

Scopitone said:


> I am trying out Babbitt this morning with this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly the Gluck I was listening to before it!


Yes, the use of the soprano voice makes this one of the most beautiful and accessible pieces by him. And this is the Bethany Beardslee version, as well.










I would think that this would be a very accessible work for someone who is into opera and singers. (hint, hint)


----------



## ZJovicic

I started a blog about contemporary classical music. The first piece that I wrote about is Milton Babbitt's "None but the Lonely Flute". BTW, I liked it. I'm not sure if it's tonal or atonal, but to me it sounds quite tonal.

https://ljtcc.music.blog/2019/02/16/1st-station-none-but-the-lonely-flute-by-milton-babbitt-1991/

Here's the piece:


----------



## millionrainbows

ZJovicic said:


> I'm not sure if it's tonal or atonal, but to me it sounds quite tonal.


I don't believe you, I think you're just saying that, and using the term "tonal" to mean "good." Atonal procedures are for all intents and purposes, invisible to us. 

On p. 43 of Paul Griffiths' book we read:

_...the process enacted in the music is a way of making it, not a way of hearing it. For the listener, *the process lies hidden, *and what is heard is a succession of instants, just as, for the observer of the world, elementary laws of physics and genetics - laws Stockhausen might have preferred to interpret as the purposes of God - are *concealed behind and within a seeming chaos of phenomena.

*_


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm reviving this thread just to remind everyone, mods included, that the sentiment against modern music and composers like Babbitt is indeed real, and requires a lot of moderation to control it.


----------



## flamencosketches

Is Babbitt the quintessential American Serialist composer? Can't say I've heard much of his music, but every day my tolerance for and appreciation of Modern music grows further along the timeline. By now I'm moving on to Boulez and Stockhausen, so someone like Babbitt should be easy listening for me. I've just never checked him out because he has kind of a silly name; almost as if it should be "Milton Babbitt, CPA". I also sometimes confuse him with Morton Feldman. Do the two have anything in common besides extremely boring names?

Anyway, this is a pretty interesting piece:






But I find myself more moved by, for example, Pierre Boulez's 2nd piano sonata.

What are some of Babbit's key works?

@millionrainbows, in the unlikely event you didn't realize this already, you resurrected this thread on Mr. Babbitt's birthday. :cheers:


----------



## Vasks

flamencosketches said:


> I I also sometimes confuse him with Morton Feldman. Do the two have anything in common besides extremely boring names?


Polar opposites


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> What are some of Babbit's key works?
> 
> :


I don't know about key works, but I have enjoyed very much quartets 2-6. I think they show a real genius composer actually.


----------



## philoctetes

millionrainbows said:


> I don't believe you, I think you're just saying that, and using the term "tonal" to mean "good." Atonal procedures are for all intents and purposes, invisible to us.
> 
> On p. 43 of Paul Griffiths' book we read:
> 
> _...the process enacted in the music is a way of making it, not a way of hearing it. For the listener, *the process lies hidden, *and what is heard is a succession of instants, just as, for the observer of the world, elementary laws of physics and genetics - laws Stockhausen might have preferred to interpret as the purposes of God - are *concealed behind and within a seeming chaos of phenomena.
> 
> *_


This "concealed process" implies that the music has entropy. Sounds cool but how concealed is it really? I should probably read Griffith's book, he's a good writer even when I disagree.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Is Babbitt the quintessential American Serialist composer?


Yes, along with George Perle. They developed the 12-tone syntax.



> What are some of Babbit's key works?


Philomel for soprano, tape & synthesizer (Bethany Beardslee); the piano works (Robert Taub); Ensembles for Synthesizer; Piano Concerto; six string quartets.

@millionrainbows, in the unlikely event you didn't realize this already, you resurrected this thread on Mr. Babbitt's birthday. :cheers:[/QUOTE]

Wow, that was total serendipity! Thanks for pointing this out!


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

flamencosketches said:


> I also sometimes confuse him with Morton Feldman.


Oddly enough, so do I.


----------



## Mandryka

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> View attachment 118400


That's brought some memories flooding back.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> That's brought some memories flooding back.


What, eating a carrot? :lol:


----------



## xjr15

Music, like all human symbolic activities, including all 'artistic' productions, can be defined as a transform into the human nervous system that happens in real time, as we listen or perceive the work of art. Music is a transform in which human-produced SOUND patterns evoke NON-AUDITORY memories, feelings, or often visual structures in our imaginations as we listen. The important thing about music is that it is a transform of SOUND patterns into NON-AURAL patterns or feelings in our imaginations as we listen, and that's the essence of it, what makes it music, as opposed to only sound.
But there is another way in which music can be defined, and this is the definition of music you will get from books and courses on 'music appreciation': the idea that music can be formalized in a 'musical notation', and that it is this formalism that makes music music. This view regards music as a transform also, but as a transform of the (notated) formal patterns into sound patterns. From this definition of music, the formalism, the 'notes', is where the music resides. Notice that the listener is conspicuous by his absence in this account. The listener, in this view, needs to understand the compositional procedures of the composer to fully appreciate the music. In addition, he needs to make AN EFFORT to discern the 'musical structure' (that the composer supposedly employed when he composed the music) while he is listening if he wants to truly 'understand' the music. Never mind that, as he struggles to perceive the 'sonata form' while listening to a classical-period symphony, he is not hearing, or responding to, the music as music. Knowing the process by which a chef creates his culinary masterpiece will not make it taste any better!
The view of music as residing in the formal notation has led to the serialist fiasco in 20th century music. This view led to the bizarre schism between musical notation and musical sound that resulted in, first, dodecaphony (Schoenberg), and later, serialism and total ('integral') serialism. The problem with this definition of music is that it gets the process backwards. The composer starts with the notation , the 'row', rather than the sound. The tacit assumption is that if it is notated, then it's music. The written score is taken 'to be' the music, and the embedding of all manner of formal, notational, patterns in the score becomes the central task of the 'composer'. Milton Babbitt believed that the more of these abstract, music-theory-driven structures you can get into your score, the more music you have composed. The only problem is, you need to study the score before listening to the 'music', and nobody really wants to listen to it OR to study the score to 'understand' it. And you have study the score according to the serialization rules defined by the composer, so you also have to read the composer's verbal analysis of his composition before you listen to it.
But the investigation of what people actually do when they listen to music shows that serialism (including dodecaphony) is NOT MUSIC. It is at best an auditory crossword puzzle which can only be 'appreciated' with reference to the written score. So on one side, we have the actual history of music, made and appreciated by humans for millennia, and long before formal musical notation was invented, versus this very recent idea that a kind of 'formalism über alles' compulsivity called 'serialism' is the highest form of the art of musical composition, to which all else is but a pale, and uninteresting shadow with little or no value. Never mind that, to most people, and even to most composers, listening to these sterile serial productions is a yawn- or headache-inducing form of torture. But, as Paul McCartney once unapologetically remarked, "I don't see music as dots on a page."
It turns out that most people, even those poor benighted souls who cannot 'read music' (like, e.g., Paul McCartney), have the correct understanding of music: that it consists in interesting sound patterns, made by some humans (composers) for the enjoyment of other humans (composers or not). What makes a sound pattern interesting enough to be regarded as 'music' is a totally subjective matter that cannot be and should not be the province of a priesthood of phony arbiters, looking down on, and condemning the true lovers of real music, to whom it gives solace and pleasure without any instruction or prescription from above.


----------



## millionrainbows

xjr15 said:


> Music, like all human symbolic activities, including all 'artistic' productions, can be defined as a transform into the human nervous system that happens in real time, as we listen or perceive the work of art. Music is a transform in which human-produced SOUND patterns evoke NON-AUDITORY memories, feelings, or often visual structures in our imaginations as we listen. The important thing about music is that it is a transform of SOUND patterns into NON-AURAL patterns or feelings in our imaginations as we listen, and that's the essence of it, what makes it music, as opposed to only sound.


I think there are NON-AUDITORY memories, feelings, or often visual structures in our imaginations as we listen to ANY kind of sound. These are based on human experience, and physical gesture.
Example: Generalization: big things make big sounds, usually low-pitched, like the growl of a bear. Little things make little sounds, like birds chirping, usually high-pitched.
The sound of a voice usually identifies its gender, even its nationality.



> But there is another way in which music can be defined, and this is the definition of music you will get from books and courses on 'music appreciation': the idea that music can be formalized in a 'musical notation', and that it is this formalism that makes music music. This view regards music as a transform also, but as a transform of the (notated) formal patterns into sound patterns. From this definition of music, the formalism, the 'notes', is where the music resides. Notice that the listener is conspicuous by his absence in this account.


I don't think notation pretends to replace sound itself; it is merely a set of instructions for controlling large numbers of musicians in a precise way.



> The listener, in this view, needs to understand the compositional procedures of the composer to fully appreciate the music.


This may be more true in serial music, but tonality is a self-referring system which is based on harmonic hearing.



> In addition, he needs to make AN EFFORT to discern the 'musical structure' (that the composer supposedly employed when he composed the music) while he is listening if he wants to truly 'understand' the music. Never mind that, as he struggles to perceive the 'sonata form' while listening to a classical-period symphony, he is not hearing, or responding to, the music as music. Knowing the process by which a chef creates his culinary masterpiece will not make it taste any better!


Knowing how sweet/sour/spicy/ contrasts work in a dish can add to the appreciation, since the senses are wired to the brain. Same with wine; knowledge is part of the experience.



> The view of music as residing in the formal notation has led to the serialist fiasco in 20th century music. This view led to the bizarre schism between musical notation and musical sound that resulted in, first, dodecaphony (Schoenberg), and later, serialism and total ('integral') serialism. The problem with this definition of music is that it gets the process backwards. The composer starts with the notation , the 'row', rather than the sound. The tacit assumption is that if it is notated, then it's music. The written score is taken 'to be' the music, and the embedding of all manner of formal, notational, patterns in the score becomes the central task of the 'composer'. Milton Babbitt believed that the more of these abstract, music-theory-driven structures you can get into your score, the more music you have composed.


Just because music is notated doesn't separate it from being sound. In serialism, and Babbitt, the main purpose of the music is to present the permutations of various tone sets, and their symmetries. Admittedly, this is a cerebral purpose; but it is still manifest as sensual phenomena.



> The only problem is, you need to study the score before listening to the 'music', and nobody really wants to listen to it OR to study the score to 'understand' it. And you have study the score according to the serialization rules defined by the composer, so you also have to read the composer's verbal analysis of his composition before you listen to it.


If you want to understand it cerebrally, the way it was created, then yes. But you can still experience it as music, regardless.



> But the investigation of what people actually do when they listen to music shows that serialism (including dodecaphony) is NOT MUSIC. It is at best an auditory crossword puzzle which can only be 'appreciated' with reference to the written score. So on one side, we have the actual history of music, made and appreciated by humans for millennia, and long before formal musical notation was invented, versus this very recent idea that a kind of 'formalism über alles' compulsivity called 'serialism' is the highest form of the art of musical composition, to which all else is but a pale, and uninteresting shadow with little or no value. Never mind that, to most people, and even to most composers, listening to these sterile serial productions is a yawn- or headache-inducing form of torture. But, as Paul McCartney once unapologetically remarked, "I don't see music as dots on a page."


It's certainly not your grandpa's music, although it's getting old enough to be. Formalism is just one aspect of it. Music is always ultimately SOUND.



> It turns out that most people, even those poor benighted souls who cannot 'read music' (like, e.g., Paul McCartney), have the correct understanding of music: that it consists in interesting sound patterns, made by some humans (composers) for the enjoyment of other humans (composers or not). What makes a sound pattern interesting enough to be regarded as 'music' is a totally subjective matter that cannot be and should not be the province of a priesthood of phony arbiters, looking down on, and condemning the true lovers of real music, to whom it gives solace and pleasure without any instruction or prescription from above.


Music is sound, and I have no qualms about abandoning theory if it gets in the way of the ear. Still, I can listen to Boulez or Barraque, and appreciate it on the "pure sound" level. It must be an acquired taste. :lol:


----------



## Bwv 1080

xjr15 said:


> Music, like all human symbolic activities, including all 'artistic' productions, can be defined as a transform into the human nervous system that happens in real time, as we listen or perceive the work of art. Music is a transform in which human-produced SOUND patterns evoke NON-AUDITORY memories, feelings, or often visual structures in our imaginations as we listen. The important thing about music is that it is a transform of SOUND patterns into NON-AURAL patterns or feelings in our imaginations as we listen, and that's the essence of it, what makes it music, as opposed to only sound.
> But there is another way in which music can be defined, and this is the definition of music you will get from books and courses on 'music appreciation': the idea that music can be formalized in a 'musical notation', and that it is this formalism that makes music music. This view regards music as a transform also, but as a transform of the (notated) formal patterns into sound patterns. From this definition of music, the formalism, the 'notes', is where the music resides. Notice that the listener is conspicuous by his absence in this account. The listener, in this view, needs to understand the compositional procedures of the composer to fully appreciate the music. In addition, he needs to make AN EFFORT to discern the 'musical structure' (that the composer supposedly employed when he composed the music) while he is listening if he wants to truly 'understand' the music. Never mind that, as he struggles to perceive the 'sonata form' while listening to a classical-period symphony, he is not hearing, or responding to, the music as music. Knowing the process by which a chef creates his culinary masterpiece will not make it taste any better!
> The view of music as residing in the formal notation has led to the serialist fiasco in 20th century music. This view led to the bizarre schism between musical notation and musical sound that resulted in, first, dodecaphony (Schoenberg), and later, serialism and total ('integral') serialism. The problem with this definition of music is that it gets the process backwards. The composer starts with the notation , the 'row', rather than the sound. The tacit assumption is that if it is notated, then it's music. The written score is taken 'to be' the music, and the embedding of all manner of formal, notational, patterns in the score becomes the central task of the 'composer'. Milton Babbitt believed that the more of these abstract, music-theory-driven structures you can get into your score, the more music you have composed. The only problem is, you need to study the score before listening to the 'music', and nobody really wants to listen to it OR to study the score to 'understand' it. And you have study the score according to the serialization rules defined by the composer, so you also have to read the composer's verbal analysis of his composition before you listen to it.
> But the investigation of what people actually do when they listen to music shows that serialism (including dodecaphony) is NOT MUSIC. It is at best an auditory crossword puzzle which can only be 'appreciated' with reference to the written score. So on one side, we have the actual history of music, made and appreciated by humans for millennia, and long before formal musical notation was invented, versus this very recent idea that a kind of 'formalism über alles' compulsivity called 'serialism' is the highest form of the art of musical composition, to which all else is but a pale, and uninteresting shadow with little or no value. Never mind that, to most people, and even to most composers, listening to these sterile serial productions is a yawn- or headache-inducing form of torture. But, as Paul McCartney once unapologetically remarked, "I don't see music as dots on a page."
> It turns out that most people, even those poor benighted souls who cannot 'read music' (like, e.g., Paul McCartney), have the correct understanding of music: that it consists in interesting sound patterns, made by some humans (composers) for the enjoyment of other humans (composers or not). What makes a sound pattern interesting enough to be regarded as 'music' is a totally subjective matter that cannot be and should not be the province of a priesthood of phony arbiters, looking down on, and condemning the true lovers of real music, to whom it gives solace and pleasure without any instruction or prescription from above.


Damn, I used to like to listen to Babbitt, but your manifesto there convinced me of the error of my ways and now, to atone (or is that word too offensive? maybe we should strike that from polite conversation, as it might trigger some folks) I have ordered a boxed set of Andre Rieu from Amazon


----------



## Guest

For all of its thorniness and complexity, I find his Transfigured Notes to be quite a beautiful work:


----------



## Opisthokont

Milton Babbitt is my favorite composer, all of his works are incredible - I've probably listened to Reflections more times than any other piece of music.

Now why am I reviving this thread? Because any babbitt fan deserves to hear this interpretation of semi-simple variations: 



. Schoenberg was right, in another century (or maybe two) we're all going to be jamming out to this in the clubs!

Another interpretation, this one by danny clay - the early chiptune sound may be enjoyed by the nostalgic millennials in this crowd.


----------



## Opisthokont

millionrainbows said:


> Babbitt is playful, and has humor in his music; I can hear it. His interest in certain permutations of tone rows makes him superior in serial composition, IMHO, to what Schoenberg was doing with rows. Not Webern, though. Babbitt's interest in electronics is also a plus. A very forward-thinking, progressive composer. Robert Taub's CD of the piano music is very good.


Milton babbitt seems like he was a genuinely lovely person to be around from all of the interviews and conversations I've seen. His music is certainly whimsical in a way people don't give him credit for. He apparently really loved the above bad plus cover of semi-simple variations. I found this article really interesting: https://music.arts.uci.edu/abauer/4.3/readings/Brody_Babbitt_Cold_War.pdf. The entire anecdote about his affialation with the new york trotskyists and his music for the mass is just hilarious - it sounds like something straight out of a pynchon novel.

I don't know how precise this is, but I always had this conception in my head:

Schoenberg:Beethoven :: Babbitt:Bach

Babbitt seems to genuinely see himself as an artisan with a sense of craft. He did not seem to share that grand romantic sensibility of the "great man of genius" which I think is also why he just comes off as a lovely person - there is a genuine modesty there which I think makes its way into the playfulness of his music. It's worth noting here that when JS Bach was alive he was criticized for making music that was "needlessly complex" - the same complaint used against Babbitt!

I think part of the reason Babbitt remains so controversial is his approach in this sense - its not a flat return back to Bach but rather a very different way of going about it. Whereas Bach as an artisan is reminiscent of a clockmaker, his work bringing glory to god - Babbitt's work is reminiscent of a rocket scientist, building engines taking us into the unknown landscape, glory to... music itself?


----------

