# Question on Milton Babbitt claim



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

Hey

Can anybody enlighten maybe with an example what the metaphor _hypothesis_ in this claim by Babbitt could mean:

"every musical composition justifiably may be regarded as an experiment, the embodiment of hypotheses as to certain specific conditions of musical coherence."

I know what the word means of course.

Thanks in advance


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Although I don't necessarily agree with his metaphor or his argument here, I think he means something like the following:

A piece of music is expected to be complete in itself.
However, a new piece of music will always, in one way or another, be different from those compositions that preceded it.
Therefore, a new piece of music must use different ways of reaching a state of completion from those used in the past, whether these deviations are small or large.

The hypothesis in this case is the supposition that the ways used are commensurate to the task at hand.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

In the context of Babbitt's music, you could define "hypothesis" as "proposed ways in which serial technique can be extended." For example, Babbitt wanted to see if the serial concepts of retrograde, inversion, and retrograde inversion could be extended to rhythm. He developed one possible method for doing so, and this was his "hypothesis"; the Three Compositions for Piano were the "experiment" in which he tested this hypothesis. After that, he "hypothesized" a way for the serial concept of transposition to be applied to rhythm, and the Composition for Four Instruments was the "experiment" in which he tested this new hypothesis. And so on. For every new piece, he gave himself a compositional problem to be solved, and his "hypotheses" were possible solutions to these problems, to be worked out "experimentally" in music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm a little confused by one thing. When you test a hypothesis by experiment, you define in advance the result that will either support or disprove the hypothesis. It's difficult to see how that applies to music.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

I presume you're quoting from his paper on Twelve Tone Rhythmic Structure and the Electronic Medium.

It's not a metaphor, it's a statement of fact.

You take your (twelve) tone row, you compose based on that (possibly in a serial way). You orchestrate it. If you've got it "right", then it is "musically coherent" i.e. works. If you are using standard instruments, you get your players together, they play it and your Gedankenexperiment becomes "actual".

However, if you are using electronic instruments, you are limited by their capabilities. This means that therecan be a big difference between the Gedanken and the "actual". Even if you use an RCA synthesiser (big plug), then you still have the problem of testing whether your theories (hypotheses) about musical coherence - whether it works or not / sounds "right" or not - are correct.

Come back J S Bach - all is forgiven.

PS It doesn't help that Babbitt was a mathematician and brought the term Gedanken over from Physics.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Taggart said:


> You take your (twelve) tone row, you compose based on that (possibly in a serial way). You orchestrate it. If you've got it "right", then it is "musically coherent" i.e. works.


And what does "works" mean? It certainly has nothing to do with whether anybody likes it or not, given his writings elsewhere!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> And what does "works" mean? It certainly has nothing to do with whether anybody likes it or not, given his writings elsewhere!


"works" means it runs, and runs well, like a car


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> "works" means it runs, and runs well, like a car


Well, there's plenty of baroque and galante wallpaper music that does that! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Joris said:


> Hey
> 
> Can anybody enlighten maybe with an example what the metaphor _hypothesis_ in this claim by Babbitt could mean:
> 
> "every musical composition justifiably may be regarded as an experiment, the embodiment of hypotheses as to certain specific conditions of musical coherence."


It means that composing a piece of music "embodies" and articulates the ideas and assumptions which underlie and precede the act of composing.

Composing music is an "experiment" which may or may not succeed, depending on how effective the "embodiment" of the "certain specific conditions" are, and whether the composition succeeds in being "musically coherent."

coherent: logical, reasoned, reasonable, rational, sound, cogent, consistent, consilient; clear, lucid, articulate; intelligible, comprehensible.

antonym "muddled"

KenOC apparently disagrees with Babbitt's use of scientific language, and does not want it applied to music. His "question" or confusion is actually the acknowledgment that he does not wish to recognize this logical approach to art or music.

KenOC apparently sees music as being primarily entertainment, not as a self-directed logical endeavor which is primarily "self-absorbed" with finding solutions or articulations of purely musical ideas, and only secondarily as articulations of ideas for entertainment. Babbitt is trying to "expand the syntax of music" for primarily musical reasons.

KenOC doesn't acknowledge or wish to emphasize that music is part of the Greek Quadrivium, along with astronomy, arithmetic, and geometry, and that music has many "logical" elements which relate it to mathematics. This was one of Babbitt's main goals, was to bring "logic" and the mathematical aspects of music back to the forefront once more.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> coherent: logical, reasoned, reasonable, rational, sound, cogent, consistent,consilient; clear, lucid, articulate; intelligible, comprehensible.
> 
> antonym "muddled"


More exactly: incoherent: illogical, unreasonable, irrational, unsound, not cogent, inconsistent, inconslient; unclear, illucid, inarticulate, unintelligible, incomprehensible.

None mean exactly "muddled," but they seem to describe some music quite well.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> KenOC apparently disagrees with Babbitt's use of scientific language, and does not want it applied to music. His "question" or confusion is actually the acknowledgment that he does not wish to recognize this logical approach to art or music.
> 
> KenOC apparently sees music as being primarily entertainment, not as a self-directed logical endeavor which is primarily "self-absorbed" with finding solutions or articulations of purely musical ideas, and only secondarily as articulations of ideas for entertainment. Babbitt is trying to "expand the syntax of music" for primarily musical reasons.
> 
> KenOC doesn't acknowledge or wish to emphasize that music is part of the Greek Quadrivium, along with astronomy, arithmetic, and geometry, and that music has many "logical" elements which relate it to mathematics. This was one of Babbitt's main goals, was to bring "logic" and the mathematical aspects of music back to the forefront once more.


I think you are distorting what KenOC said. Of course, as you say, music has many "logical" elements and can be a self-directed logical endeavor, "self-absorbed" in finding solutions or articulations of purely musical ideas. And it would be preposterous to pretend it is a purely irrational thing.
But, on the other hand, it would be, also, preposterous to pretend it is a purely rational thing. And that was Ken's point. 
And fortunately it's in that way. The magic of music is that it can have rational and irrational components, a delight to all: the senses, the emotion, the brain and intellect, etc. The negation of _any_ of these aspects is a pathetic reductionism of the real potentials of music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> KenOC apparently disagrees with Babbitt's use of scientific language, and does not want it applied to music. His "question" or confusion is actually the acknowledgment that he does not wish to recognize this logical approach to art or music.


Since MR may have been a bit confused by my previous post, let me restate it hopefully more clearly. Babbitt claimed his music was an "experiment" intended to support or disprove a "hypothesis." Very scientific! Now Babbitt, if he was half a composer, knew exactly how his music would "work" for himself as (or probably even before) he wrote it down.

So any "proof" would have to come from the judgments of others. And yet he also wrote that people would not now and never would appreciate the type of music he wrote. He even proposed that composers of "his" type of music withdraw from public musical life entirely. So what possible "proof" could have any bearing at all on his hypothesis? It's one thing to try to sound scientific, but it's another to make any logical sense. Babbitt seems to have come up short in the latter department.

As for most of us, Babbitt dismisses us rather casually in his conclusion. After proposing that society support him and his fellows regardless of their music's value to society, he adds with an almost audible sneer: "Admittedly, if this music is not supported, the whistling repertory of the man in the street will be little affected, the concert-going activity of the conspicuous consumer of musical culture will be little disturbed." With that, I can agree.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> As for most of us, Babbitt dismisses us rather casually in his conclusion. After proposing that society support him and his fellows regardless of their music's value to society, he adds with an almost audible sneer: "Admittedly, if this music is not supported, the whistling repertory of the man in the street will be little affected, the concert-going activity of the conspicuous consumer of musical culture will be little disturbed." With that, I can agree.


I am baffled as to how you can continue to construe his article in this way. Are you just leading everyone on, because you want Babbitt to be saying this?

It isn't true. Not a single bit of what you said is true.

There is no call whatsoever for funding in the article. He describes the situation as it is, which is that composers of his type get jobs at Universities, where they can compose in peace.

Even the part you quoted doesn't have any sort of disparagement of "the man on the street". This is a man who was the proud teacher of Steven Sondheim, for crying out loud! A man whose face lit up at the very mention of Rogers and Hart.

You're asking us to believe that he just didn't care? Why would he sneer at the things he loves?

You're either lying, or you're intentionally blinding yourself.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I have often thought that musical composition is in some sense related to an experiment in that a composition is a new attempt to say something musical that can to some extent succeed or fail. The success or failure is presumably subjective and can be measured by the composer, the listeners, or any other group. I assume composers do not publish attempts that "fail". They presumably modify them until they "succeed" or else discard them. 

More interesting experiments might be methods rather than compositions. Do composers ever talk/write about musical attempts that failed? In science it is quite common to publish experiments that do not "find what they are looking for" so other scientists can learn from the attempt (One might say they failed although the experiments are not viewed that way). Do other composers learn from musical experiments that fail?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> You're either lying, or you're intentionally blinding yourself.


IMO, neither. Anybody who cares enough to wade through the faux-academese can read Babbitt's essay and judge for themselves.

http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> The success or failure is presumably subjective and can be measured by the composer, the listeners, or any other group. I assume composers do not publish attempts that "fail". They presumably modify them until they "succeed" or else discard them.


But what are "failure" or "success"? You seem to be assuming that they are related to acceptance or rejection by some broader group among the musical public. I agree with that as the only way that good music can be written. Babbitt rejects it, entirely, at least in his famous essay


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

KenOC said:


> So any "proof" would have to come from the judgments of others. And yet he also wrote that people would not now and never would appreciate the type of music he wrote. He even proposed that composers of "his" type of music withdraw from public musical life entirely. So what possible "proof" could have any bearing at all on his hypothesis? It's one thing to try to sound scientific, but it's another to make any logical sense. Babbitt seems to have come up short in the latter department.


Actually I think Babbitt might be consistent in these two views. Certainly scientific experiments are not evaluated by lay people. They are evaluated by other scientists mostly in universities. Couldn't Babbitt feel that composers' experiments ought to be evaluated by other composers who have extensive training? Obviously lay people could listen and give their own views just as lay people evaluate evolution or climate change, but Babbitt perhaps felt that lay people's views were not so useful for composers as they are not for scientists.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Actually that's pretty much true. I suppose I'm very off-put about art developing in a ivory tower among highly trained "experts," without regard to any value available to the unwashed outside those ivy-covered walls. It's hard to imagine a deader end for any art. In any event, even among the experts, the value of any piece of music remains an opinion and nothing more (unlike, say, global warming). The _vox populi _has historically been far more valuable!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> IMO, neither. Anybody who cares enough to wade through the faux-academese can read Babbitt's essay and judge for themselves.
> 
> http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html


I stand by what I've said. For all the times you've linked to that essay, I've practically memorized the damn thing. Why do you care so much about it? Milton Babbitt is dead. The entirety of "academic serialism" is a small niche that has continued to diminish, eclipsed by other modernist and anti-modernist approaches to composition, and it was only ever a small niche.

And you seem to be blissfully unaware of the article's content, mesmerized by the byline that neither represents Babbitt's position nor represents anything but an extremely small subset within a subset of 20th century modernist composition.



KenOC said:


> It's hard to imagine a deader end for any art. In any event, even among the experts, the value of any piece of music remains an opinion and nothing more (unlike, say, global warming). The vox populi has historically been far more valuable!


In the 16th century, madrigals were written for the satisfaction of composers and musicians alone. Italian madrigal-writing produced stunningly beautiful music that was daring and unfettered by any notion of popular taste. Was it a dead end? Who cares! The music is good, in and of itself, no matter how few or how many care to listen to it.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*I agree with Mahlerian.*



Mahlerian said:


> I am baffled as to how you can continue to construe his article in this way. Are you just leading everyone on, because you want Babbitt to be saying this?
> 
> It isn't true. Not a single bit of what you said is true.
> 
> ...


I have just reread Babbitt's essay again and I am with Mahlerian on this.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> KenOC apparently sees music as being primarily entertainment, not as a self-directed logical endeavor which is primarily "self-absorbed" with finding solutions or articulations of purely musical ideas, and only secondarily as articulations of ideas for entertainment. Babbitt is trying to "expand the syntax of music" for primarily musical reasons.


Do you think that most composers view compositions as primarily _not_ entertainment (whether for the masses or more knowledgeable listeners)? Every musician I have asked believes music is to be played as entertainment, but then I have only asked one student composer so composers could certainly have a different view than performers.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> I have just reread Babbitt's essay again and I am with Mahlerian on this.


Let me, if I may, give a short paraphrase of Babbitt's essay. "Well, of course nobody likes the music me and my buddies write. They don't have the training or understanding, and never will. Hey, we're SCIENTISTS, real smart guys, and not just composers!"

"So give us comfortable berths at universities, like those other scientists, at the expense of whatever states we land in. And don't be so unreasonable as to expect anything of value from us. Well, maybe we'll teach some kids to write music that, like ours, nobody will like. That's worth something, right? Meanwhile, you conspicuous consumers of music culture can just go and listen to Schubert with the old ladies!"

Well, Babbitt took a lot longer to say it... :lol:


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Let me, if I may, give a short paraphrase of Babbitt's essay. "Well, of course nobody likes the music me and my buddies write. They don't have the training or understanding, and never will. Hey, we're SCIENTISTS, real smart guys, and not just composers!"
> 
> "So give us comfortable berths at universities, like those other scientists, at the expense of whatever states we land in. And don't be so unreasonable as to expect anything of value from us. Well, maybe we'll teach some kids to write music that, like ours, nobody will like. That's worth something, right? Meanwhile, you conspicuous consumers of music culture can just go and listen to Schubert with the old ladies!"
> 
> Well, Babbitt took a lot longer to say it... :lol:


I still agree with Mahlerian's assessment. He is much more knowledgable than I am and is doing a better job of finding flaws in your observations than I can. I agree with him and and so far you have said nothing that has changed my mind.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> I still agree with Mahlerian's assessment. He is much more knowledgable than I am and is doing a better job of finding flaws in your observations than I can. I agree with him and and so far you have said nothing that has changed my mind.


I quite understand. But I'd be amused to read any summaries of paraphrases of Babbitt's essay offered in response to mine.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

aleazk said:


> I think you are distorting what KenOC said. Of course, as you say, music has many "logical" elements and can be a self-directed logical endeavor, "self-absorbed" in finding solutions or articulations of purely musical ideas. And it would be preposterous to pretend it is a purely irrational thing.
> But, on the other hand, it would be, also, preposterous to pretend it is a purely rational thing. And that was Ken's point.
> And fortunately it's in that way. The magic of music is that it can have rational and irrational components, a delight to all: the senses, the emotion, the brain and intellect, etc. The negation of _any_ of these aspects is a pathetic reductionism of the real potentials of music.


That's clever how you seem to side with KenOC while saying "I distort," yet claim to be in the middle of the road on the subject of "magic vs. logic" in music. I guess you've gotta take care of the personal things first, to make sure your affiliations are apparent to all.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> ...Babbitt claimed his music was an "experiment" intended to support or disprove a "hypothesis."...Babbitt, knew exactly how his music would "work" for himself as (or probably even before) he wrote it down.


The great Frank Zappa, when asked why he composed music, said "So I can hear what it sounds like." I'm sure the great Mr. Babbitt would have agreed. He was working with certain row forms called "all-interval rows," so he had some idea, but _hey!_ this is music, not science, so he intended these ideas to be "embodied" as sound.



KenOC said:


> So any "proof" would have to come from the judgments of others.


Not necessarily, he did have ears. You make it sound like he was groveling around for your personal approval.



KenOC said:


> And yet he also wrote that people would not now and never would appreciate the type of music he wrote. He even proposed that composers of "his" type of music withdraw from public musical life entirely.


I can see the truth in that, since Babbitt was exploring musical syntax; but you're distorting it by putting in your own context.



KenOC said:


> So what possible "proof" could have any bearing at all on his hypothesis? It's one thing to try to sound scientific, but it's another to make any logical sense. Babbitt seems to have come up short in the latter department.


Irrelevant; context (above). I think his music is very appealing. I'm probably in the minority, but I have an eye for beauty.



KenOC said:


> As for most of us, Babbitt dismisses us rather casually in his conclusion.


My feelings aren't hurt. I like Milton Babbitt just the way he was, and wouldn't have it any other way, because I respect his artistic integrity. If that does not involve catering to a lowest common denominator, so much the better for listeners like me.



KenOC said:


> After proposing that society support him and his fellows regardless of their music's value to society, he adds with an almost audible sneer: "Admittedly, if this music is not supported, the whistling repertory of the man in the street will be little affected, the concert-going activity of the conspicuous consumer of musical culture will be little disturbed."


It's the truth, though. He was a specialist, working in a specialized area of "music research."


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*I also agree with Millions assessment.*

I also agree with Millions assessment.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> Do you think that most composers view compositions as primarily _not_ entertainment (whether for the masses or more knowledgeable listeners)?


In Babbitt's case, he was trying to expand on the ideas of Schoenberg, by looking at "special case" rows that exhibited symmetry under inversion or retrograde. He was the most important 12-tone musical thinker in America, and was one of the first people Pierre Boulez contacted on his first visit. So this is clearly a case of "artists thinking about art," not a Broadway musical (apologies to Babbitt's student Steven Sondheim).



mmsbls said:


> Every musician I have asked believes music is to be played as entertainment, but then I have only asked one student composer so composers could certainly have a different view than performers.


It's fine if music is entertaining, but that isn't always its impetus. When Allan Lomax recorded McKinley Morganfield (Muddy Waters) playing his acoustic guitar and singing out on the Stovall Plantation, in his little shack, the songs were already there; Muddy Waters had already formed as an artist. (The Plantation Recordings)

I'm sure a few people heard him sing before that, and that probably pleased him, but sometimes music comes from a deeper place than merely "entertainment." It is done for higher, more artistic reasons, as an _artistic compulsion_. I'm sure Beethoven was creating from this _"compulsion"_ as well. If it became entertaining, and people liked it, so much the better.

But to assert, as KenOC has, that all music and art should be created in the service of "entertainment" seems to be putting the cart before the horse. I want to experience art which means something _deeper to the artist as well_, which comes from his _experience, knowledge, and interests,_ rather than just my _diversion_. If I want that, I'll go to a circus and watch a juggler, or turn on the TV set.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> But to assert, as KenOC has, that all music and art should be created in the service of "entertainment" seems to be putting the cart before the horse.


Did I say that? Must have slipped my mind! Please point out the spot where I made such an assertion. And thanks!

(In fact, I might well say it at some point, but not to my knowledge in this thread!)


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Is music "just" entertainment?.*

There was an entire thread devoted to this topic that was started by...: http://www.talkclassical.com/23009-music-just-entertainment.html#post396308


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> There was an entire thread devoted to this topic that was started by...: http://www.talkclassical.com/23009-music-just-entertainment.html#post396308


Yes indeed! Of course I have carefully steered clear of such controversial assertions in this thread, to protect the tender sensibilities of some of us. But you force me to ask: If music is not to be entertaining, then what should it be? Unentertaining?

Well, perhaps it should rip at the very roots of our soul! Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not covered by most medical insurance policies, so I can't recommend it. In any event, it's unlikely that Mr. Babbitt would cause such damage.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> It means that composing a piece of music "embodies" and articulates the ideas and assumptions which underlie and precede the act of composing.
> 
> Composing music is an "experiment" which may or may not succeed, depending on how effective the "embodiment" of the "certain specific conditions" are, and whether the composition succeeds in being "musically coherent."
> 
> ...


The OP made / brought his own soap-box.

The least any respondent who wants to deliver "The Talk," or perform _The Quadrivium Quadrille (c)_ should do is build / bring their own, too.

For that performance it might be better to bring a whole band-shell or a gazebo for that rousing rendition of _The Quadrivium Quadrille (c)_ as played by the local Civic Wind Ensemble 
in the park next Sunday afternoon.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Yes indeed! Of course I have carefully steered clear of such controversial assertions in this thread, to protect the tender sensibilities of some of us. But you force me to ask: If music is not to be entertaining, then what should it be? Unentertaining? Well, perhaps it should rip at the very roots of our soul! Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not covered by most medical insurance policies, so I can't recommend it. In any event, it's unlikely that Mr. Babbitt would cause such damage.


So now KenOC is interested in Milton Babbitt's _music?_ I thought it was Babbitt's _writings and attitude _as somewhat of an aloof "outsider" that was giving him irritation.



> Originally Posted by *millionrainbows:*
> But to assert, as KenOC has, that all music and art should be created in the service of "entertainment" seems to be putting the cart before the horse.





KenOC said:


> Did I say that? Must have slipped my mind! Please point out the spot where I made such an assertion. And thanks!
> 
> (In fact, I might well say it at some point, but not to my knowledge in this thread!)


Good! I just wanted to clarify where you stand on this issue of Milton Babbitt, which up to this point I had assumed concerned the issue of artistic freedom.

If it's not an issue of "artistic license" for you, KenOC, then what is it about Milton Babbitt that has you instigating all these noble defenses of him from myself, Mahlerian and perhaps others?

It seems that Babbitt is unique among composers, in that he is always criticized for reasons not directly concerning his actual music, but rather his writings and supposed stance on the composer's role in society...or perhaps other non-music related reasons. 

It appears that a composer in Amerika is not supposed to act as a scholar, researcher, or "priest" of art, but is expected to entertain us.

So what exactly is it about the person of Milton Babbitt that "bugs" you so much, KenOC? Is something bubbling up from the depths of your unconscious? 

Or is Babbitt's essay simply another example of the sort of thing discussed in that other thread, "Do I dare say.."?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> The OP made / brought his own soap-box.
> 
> The least any respondent who wants to deliver "The Talk," or perform _The Quadrivium Quadrille (c)_ should do is build / bring their own, too.
> 
> ...


I'll bring my clarinet. I'm always ready to do my civic duty. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

If it's any consolation to anyone, if it wasn't for Milton Babbitt's ground-breaking work in row form analysis, the George Perle would not have developed his "Twelve-tone Tonality" concept. Hey, at least Perle is trying to bridge the gap with "serial music that is tonal." Now, if I can just convince Steven Spielberg to use Perle's music in his next psychological thriller... :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm going to start a band using Marilyn Manson's idea for band-member names: first name is a movie star, last name is a serial killer; only I'll substitute _serial composers,_ not killers, for the last name. Some possibilities:

Bing Crosby: 'Bing' Stockhausen
Efram Zimbalist junior: Efram Babbitt
Paris Hilton: Paris Nono
Madonna: Madonna Schoenberg
Cher: Cher Dallapiccola
Sting: Sting Berg


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Some time ago I read Babbitt's infamous article. And I still maintain my opinion: it's one of the most pedantic and pretentious things I have ever read. So utterly wrong in its basis and analogies.
There's a particular section that made me laugh and, I think, reveals Babbitt's inner desires:

"_Comparably, in the realm of public music, the concertgoer is secure in the knowledge that the amenities of concert going protect his firmly stated "I didn't like it" from further scrutiny. Imagine, if you can, a layman chancing upon a lecture on "Pointwise Periodic Homeomorphisms." At the conclusion, he announces: "I didn't like it," Social conventions being what they are in such circles, someone might dare inquire: "Why not?" Under duress, our layman discloses precise reasons for his failure to enjoy himself; he found the hall chilly, the lecturer's voice unpleasant, and he was suffering the digestive aftermath of a poor dinner. His interlocutor understandably disqualifies these reasons as irrelevant to the content and value of the lecture, and the development of mathematics is left undisturbed. If the concertgoer is at all versed in the ways of musical lifesmanship, he also will offer reasons for his "I didn't like it" - in the form of assertions that the work in question is "inexpressive," "undramatic," "lacking in poetry," etc., etc., tapping that store of vacuous equivalents hallowed by time for: "I don't like it, and I cannot or will not state why." The concertgoer's critical authority is established beyond the possibility of further inquiry._"

Lets see, why I think that is wrong. 
Of course, in a lecture about topology (the branch of mathematics to which the term "Pointwise Periodic Homeomorphisms" belongs) the sentence "I don't like that demonstration" is irrelevant if it's not supplemented with an indication of an error in the logical sequence that led to the conclusion of the theorem. That's because mathematics has a well defined method for determining if something is true or not. Simply, if the logic is correct, then it is true.
Now, Babbitt makes an analogy between this and music, saying that the sentence "I don't like that composition" is irrelevant if it's not supplemented with an indication of an error in the logical sequence that led to the composition, implying in that way that the value of a work of art can, and must, be just evaluated in terms of its technical sufficiency.
I don't have a problem with Babbitt thinking that the opinion of that listener is wrong (or, in that case, that the composer should not be worried with the opinion of society). In fact, I would totally agree with that. I don't think Beethoven was worried about what society would think when he composed his Grosse fugue, for example. And thank god for that. I think he composed that piece just because he _had_ to. And I think that's one of the most pure ways of creating art. I'm sure Babbitt also composed his music because he felt the necessity to do it.
My problem is that Babbitt wants to suppress the possibility about music being judged in a non purely rational way. As I said, the magic of music is that it can have rational and irrational components, a delight to all: the senses, the emotion, the brain and intellect, etc. The negation of _any_ of these aspects is a _pathetic_ reductionism of the real potentials of music.
If you want to pursue a completely rational career, I would suggest you to pursue, like myself, a degree in physics and mathematics. If you have chosen art, sorry, you are in the wrong place...
The intellectual joy and technical nuances that you will find studying, say, the singularity theorems of general relativity are far, far, but far, more interesting and challenging than the most complicated piece of serialist music.
On the other hand, the feelings I have when I listen to my favorite pieces of serialism cannot be reproduced by any theorem of those I mentioned.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> In the 16th century, madrigals were written for the satisfaction of composers and musicians alone. Italian madrigal-writing produced stunningly beautiful music that was daring and unfettered by any notion of popular taste. Was it a dead end? Who cares! The music is good, in and of itself, no matter how few or how many care to listen to it.


And more than a few think of those "academic" madrigals as some seriously beautiful _(and intelligent)_ music....


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

aleazk said:


> Some time ago I read Babbitt's infamous article. And I still maintain my opinion: it's one of the most pedantic and pretentious things I have ever read. So utterly wrong in its basis and analogies.


As long as we're quoting Mr. Babbitt, here are the closing two sentences from his essay:

"Admittedly, if this music is not supported, the whistling repertory of the man in the street will be little affected, the concert-going activity of the conspicuous consumer of musical culture will be little disturbed. But music will cease to evolve, and, in that important sense, will cease to live."

Two comments:

1. "His" kind of music may cease to evolve, for sure. Other kinds of music continue to evolve quite nicely.

2. Scientist though he evidently considers himself, he has a rather hazy view of evolution. Half is growth and change, and half is extinction. Those branches that cannot compete for resources quite naturally cease to live and are pruned. Babbitt is merely trying to load the evolutionary dice by his special pleading.

It's not nice to fool with Mother Darwin!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> That's clever how you seem to side with KenOC while saying "I distort," yet claim to be in the middle of the road on the subject of "magic vs. logic" in music. I guess you've gotta take care of the personal things first, to make sure your affiliations are apparent to all.


:lol:, sorry, I refuse to participate in a war that only exists in your imagination... 
Again: :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Let me, if I may, give a short paraphrase of Babbitt's essay. "Well, of course nobody likes the music me and my buddies write. They don't have the training or understanding, and never will. Hey, we're SCIENTISTS, real smart guys, and not just composers!"
> 
> "So give us comfortable berths at universities, like those other scientists, at the expense of whatever states we land in. And don't be so unreasonable as to expect anything of value from us. Well, maybe we'll teach some kids to write music that, like ours, nobody will like. That's worth something, right? Meanwhile, you conspicuous consumers of music culture can just go and listen to Schubert with the old ladies!"
> 
> Well, Babbitt took a lot longer to say it... :lol:


Are you under some delusional notion that you were paying for this (according to you, non-serviceable) music by Babbitt? _*That outraged taxpayer whine is beyond having gotten very old the second time it slipped out via your keyboard.*_

You do know that title that still earns him animosity of his most famous "Who Cares if You Listen?" was not Babbitt's, but an editor who wanted to an attention pulling headline title to Babbitt's essay? I sometimes think that title, a maneuver not the author / composer's, is enough to keep vehement dislike alive in the general music audience sector for decades to come.

Are you actually riled because, subtext, Babbitt -- from the grave so to speak -- has directly called you a non-intellectual plebe?

Your perceived massive affront when a composer rather directly says they are not writing to entertain anyone (you) is hysterical, and I really can not think of how patently naive, combined with an aesthetic more fitting a capitalist venture model, one would have to be to believe all artists are out to entertain us.

Yes, it is stunning: artists will say and do just about anything to have the means to make what they want, while not caring a fig whether those who have supplied those means will ever be entertained by their work.

You've evidently forgotten all the horrible things Beethoven said about the general public -- or perhaps you may think that because you now like and get Beethoven he did not mean, rather exactly, people like your self?

All the popular audience / patron pleasing works cited from the past are moot, because those patrons were themselves "Ivory Tower" cognoscenti... not the plebes who would later emerge as a middle class audience buying seats and sheet music as emerged in Beethoven's lifetime.

So, in today's culture, evidently a Plebe takes HUGE exception to being called a Plebe? You might pluck back through a handful of Beethoven quotes to see what HE thought of great numbers of the general listening public.

...plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> ...doesn't acknowledge or wish to emphasize that music is part of the Greek Quadrivium, along with astronomy, arithmetic, and geometry, and that music has many "logical" elements which relate it to mathematics.
> This was one of Babbitt's main goals, was to bring "logic" and the mathematical aspects of music back to the forefront once more.


Where, please, do we have western "art music" repertoire, and from when, as manifesting the aesthetic and purpose of that Greek Quadrivium?

Gregorian Chant? Later? Later still? I just cannot think "what" fits that bill, and is littered throughout the eras and the literature (perhaps the wholly mistaken as _"Maths first_ Bach?") and then can only think of Pythagoras, a monochord, and all theory, no actual pieces.

Maybe you could do your pet theme a service and compile a list of works through the ages which fit the criteria....

_[I do have one direct challenge for you, though... assiduously avoid any use of the word "Quadrivium" in your next 400 posts ]_


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm sure a few people heard him sing before that, and that probably pleased him, but sometimes music comes from a deeper place than merely "entertainment." It is done for higher, more artistic reasons, as an _artistic compulsion_. I'm sure Beethoven was creating from this _"compulsion"_ as well. If it became entertaining, and people liked it, so much the better.
> 
> But to assert, as KenOC has, that all music and art should be created in the service of "entertainment" seems to be putting the cart before the horse. I want to experience art which means something _deeper to the artist as well_, which comes from his _experience, knowledge, and interests,_ rather than just my _diversion_. If I want that, I'll go to a circus and watch a juggler, or turn on the TV set.


Maybe entertainment can also be deeper, compulsive and necessary. Without those things the entertainment might be just too shallow and forgettable, and the things we come back to obviously last longer than that for us and so are more compulsive and lasting.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

> Originally Posted by millionrainbows
> KenOC doesn't acknowledge or wish to emphasize that music is part of the Greek Quadrivium, along with astronomy, arithmetic, and geometry, and that music has many "logical" elements which relate it to mathematics.
> This was one of Babbitt's main goals, was to bring "logic" and the mathematical aspects of music back to the forefront once more.





PetrB said:


> Where, please, do we have western "art music" repertoire, and from when, as manifesting the aesthetic and purpose of that Greek Quadrivium?
> 
> Gregorian Chant? Later? Later still? I just cannot think "what" fits that bill, an is littered throughout the eras and the literature (perhaps the wholly mistaken as _"Maths first_ Bach?") and only think of Pythagoras, a monochord, and all theory, no actual pieces.
> 
> ...


So you don't like that "Quadrivium" crap, do you? It makes music too logical, too inevitable, too "non-bubble-bath immersion experience."

Geometry is number in space; music is number in time; and cosmology expresses number in space and time. All music expresses this.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Geometry is number in space; music is number in time; and cosmology expresses number in space and time. All music expresses this.


Bullshi*t... , you don't have a clue what geometry is... "number in space and time", OMG, :lol:.
There's a chance you can define to me what a differentiable manifold with a metric is?. Then I will believe you know what geometry is...
I will apply Babbitt's philosophy to you. 
I'm a certificated professional in geometry (I have taken classes, past exams, approved them with excellent grades, etc.), so I will not tolerate that kind of loose speaking from a layman.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*To Babbitt or not to Babbitt*



aleazk said:


> My problem is that Babbitt wants to suppress the possibility about music being judged in a non purely rational way.


I reread the essay and I think I found the paragraph you were referring too.

After reading it carefully several times I did not get the feeling that he was trying to suppress anything.

It is interesting that we both read the same article and we both have totally different impressions of what Babbitt was trying to say. It appeared to me that he was more concerned about others trying to suppress the music he was trying to compose when they had no real foundation for their opposition.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

OH!, poor misunderstood (and quite elitist!) Babbitt!. At the end, he was just another victim... I don't think so...


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> In Babbitt's case, he was trying to expand on the ideas of Schoenberg, by looking at "special case" rows that exhibited symmetry under inversion or retrograde. He was the most important 12-tone musical thinker in America, and was one of the first people Pierre Boulez contacted on his first visit. So this is clearly a case of "artists thinking about art," not a Broadway musical (apologies to Babbitt's student Steven Sondheim).
> 
> It's fine if music is entertaining, but that isn't always its impetus. When Allan Lomax recorded McKinley Morganfield (Muddy Waters) playing his acoustic guitar and singing out on the Stovall Plantation, in his little shack, the songs were already there; Muddy Waters had already formed as an artist. (The Plantation Recordings)
> 
> ...


I totally agree with this!. See, we can be friends. . So, turn down that cannon and discuss art in a more relaxed way.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Are you actually riled because, subtext, Babbitt -- from the grave so to speak -- has directly called you a non-intellectual plebe?
> 
> Your perceived massive affront when a composer rather directly says they are not writing to entertain anyone (you) is hysterical, and I really can not think of how patently naive, combined with an aesthetic more fitting a capitalist venture model, one would have to be to believe all artists are out to entertain us.
> ...
> ...


Your post is just a bit offensive, an extended and nasty ad hominem attack. Do you often have this reaction when somebody disagrees with your views?

But since you brought up Beethoven: He was always concerned about public acceptance of his music. He boasted in a letter that "I can sell anything that I write."By this he meant, sell to publishers, who were in fact willing to pay very high prices because of the broad demand among the general public for his work. As his life went on, sales to publishers became more and more his main source of income.

His occasional dismissive comments were reserved for bad reviews, or for audiences who didn't like something he wrote (or at least didn't like it enough to suit his taste). Although he wrote a few "private" works, like the Serioso, he was generally dedicated to writing music for the broadest possible audience, even taking pains over sales to publishers in other countries, especially England.

If you truly believe that Beethoven held the general musical public in contempt, then perhaps learning a bit more about the subject might be helpful. I suggest starting with Cooper's excellent biography, which covers his relationships with his publishers and the musical public of the time in some detail.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Bullshi*t... , you don't have a clue what geometry is... "number in space and time", OMG, :lol:.
> There's a chance you can define to me what a differentiable manifold with a metric is?. Then I will believe you know what geometry is...
> I will apply Babbitt's philosophy to you.
> I'm a certificated professional in geometry (I have taken classes, past exams, approved them with excellent grades, etc.), so I will not tolerate that kind of loose speaking from a layman.


One can safely assume that in internet fora, at least one or more members will manifest an OCD (add one 'O' at the front -- OOCD-- for "overdrive) mentality securely affixed, latched & attached to music; the numbers and music theory the working base for their self-taught and isolated remarkable genius theories.

Guess that Schoenberg quip, "If I had wanted a Bb there I would have written one" rather escapes the mindset of those with the Quadrivium agendae, or like pets


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

This thread includes some rather interesting topics and some informative posts. Please let's keep the discussion focused on Babbitt's ideas rather than each other.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Observation which may or may not be correct.*



aleazk said:


> OH!, poor misunderstood (and quite elitist!) Babbitt!. At the end, he was just another victim... I don't think so...


Please do not attibute a negative against Babbitt because my post was badly written or inaccurate.

I was just making an observation which may or may not be correct.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> This thread includes some rather interesting topics and some informative posts. Please let's keep the discussion focused on Babbitt's ideas rather than each other.


I maintain the most brilliant verbal essay by a composer is of little if any importance when set next to their actual musical works.

[[ ADD: Time for some well-chosen links, then, and subsequent talk about them  ]]


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> One can safely assume that in internet fora, at least one or more members will manifest an OCD (add one 'O' at the front -- OOCD-- for "overdrive) mentality securely affixed, latched & attached to music; the numbers and music theory the working base for their self-taught and isolated remarkable genius theories.
> 
> Guess that Schoenberg quip, "If I had wanted a Bb there I would have written one" rather escapes the mindset of those with the Quadrivium agendae, or like pets


I agree with KenOC's experience: PetrB's post to me (above) is insulting.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

My last post here, I'm going to sleep. Anyway, I have stated my disagreement with Babbitt in the sense that I don't believe that this analogy between science and art is 100% accurate, and that it can lead to a rather dogmatic and elitist thinking that, at the end, is anti-art.
But, I think that the analogy does have an element of truth in it. I think Ligeti is a little more clear here (in the introduction):






Asking the composers to please a mediocre audience and not to experiment is also anti-art.


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

I feel a little left out.

Who has yet to be insulted in this thread? 

'Cause I want a turn.


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

Mitchell--


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kleinzeit said:


> Mitchell--
> 
> View attachment 19592


Is it warm enough for bums up there in Cape Breton? "I coulda been _somebody!_ I coulda been a _contender!_ *Stella! Stellaaaaa!!!"*


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

aleazk said:


> My last post here, I'm going to sleep. Anyway, I have stated my disagreement with Babbitt in the sense that I don't believe that this analogy between science and art is 100% accurate, and that it can lead to a rather dogmatic and elitist thinking that, at the end, is anti-art.
> But, I think that the analogy does have an element of truth in it. I think Ligeti is a little more clear here (in the introduction):
> 
> Asking the composers to please a mediocre audience and not to experiment is also anti-art.


Analogies never are 100% accurate. Though it's hard to tell how far Milton Babbitt intended his to be taken.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

apricissimus said:


> Analogies never are 100% accurate. Though it's hard to tell how far Milton Babbitt intended his to be taken.


Having read many texts and quotes of some hard serialists, I think that, at least in that epoch (the 50's), they intended that the analogy should have been read in quite literal terms. That's my interpretation of the passage I mentioned before. If Babbitt wanted to express something like what member @arpeggio said, he could have done it in very different, and far more clear terms, without forced and loose analogies.


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

Kleinzeit said:


> Mitchell--
> 
> View attachment 19592


Thank you!

Oh, that warm feeling of belonging


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Is it warm enough for bums up there in Cape Breton? "I coulda been _somebody!_ I coulda been a _contender!_ *Stella! Stellaaaaa!!!"*











plus with blackflies.

I realize we're hijacking a really good thread. I like subjecting myself to Babbitt, that's a recurring mood. The 'who cares if you listen?' was a journalistic stinger. rather like when Ernst Toch was asked his favourite food & replied 'steak tartar', this:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kleinzeit said:


> View attachment 19609
> 
> 
> plus with blackflies.
> ...


Such primitive eating habits for such a conservative modernist.... tsk, tsk. What is next, gentle vegans composing savage and uncompromising atonal music in the modes of the new complexity? Off the grid yurt-dwelling naturists composing harrowingly non-pitched electronic music? Where will it all end?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kleinzeit said:


> plus with blackflies.
> 
> I realize we're hijacking a really good thread. I like subjecting myself to Babbitt, that's a recurring mood. The 'who cares if you listen?' was a journalistic stinger.


I don't feel like we hijacked it, because I have no boundaries or sense of social decorum.


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Such primitive eating habits for such a conservative modernist.... tsk, tsk. What is next, gentle vegans composing savage and uncompromising atonal music in the modes of the new complexity? Off the grid yurt-dwelling naturists composing harrowingly non-pitched electronic music? Where will it all end?


Ah, memories of summer camp for sensitive but incorrigible boys & girls, with camp counsellor Uncle Karlheinz!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kleinzeit said:


> Ah, memories of summer camp for sensitive but incorrigible boys & girls, with camp counsellor Uncle Karlheinz!
> 
> View attachment 19641


That is Sirius.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Hello muddah, hello dadt-dadt
Here I am at Camp Darmstadt
Camp is very entertaining
And you know the little notes will not stop raining


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

Hello _Dada_









these shenanigans are rating the hairy eyeball


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kleinzeit said:


> Hello _Dada_
> 
> View attachment 19658
> 
> ...


Ha Ha! Actually, I blame the fact that Milton Babbitt was born & raised in Mississippi for the reason that he is the "perpetual outsider." Either that, or he came up with all those tone-row permutations while he was fishing!


----------



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

Talking about modernism, does anyone know what is meant with: 
The extensive *commerce* associated with musical life that had developed during the last quarter of the 19th century was held in the early 1900s as partially responsible for the prevalence of *debased listening habits*.

Now I can see the parallel between commerce and debased listening habits, but how did they see it back then?

From 'Modernism' in the Oxford Music Online


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kleinzeit said:


> Hello _Dada_
> 
> View attachment 19658


Merle Oppenheim says
Hello


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Merle Oppenheim says
> Hello
> View attachment 19868











if they mated


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

.................. connection waffle ..............


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kleinzeit said:


> View attachment 19872
> 
> 
> if they mated


_That is just *so* wrong!_


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Joris said:


> Talking about modernism, does anyone know what is meant with:
> The extensive *commerce* associated with musical life that had developed during the last quarter of the 19th century was held in the early 1900s as partially responsible for the prevalence of *debased listening habits*.
> 
> Now I can see the parallel between commerce and debased listening habits, but how did they see it back then?
> ...


My guess is that after the Enlightenment, a large middle-class began to arise, fueled by the industrial revolution. This is the era when concerts were invented, open to any paying customers. I see "debased listening habits" as elitist name-calling, in disdain of the new audience which had emerged.


----------

