not quite on topic, but who cares if you . . .
Quick post, because I should be working on work-related work right now.
The questions of audience and market raised recently Gary, Ron, Jake, the Foetry wars, etc., all make me think of an almost universally-loathed article, titled Who Cares If You Listen?, by the almost universally loathed composer Milton Babbitt. In one of my past lives as an undergrad music major pursuing a degree in theory & composition, I read contemporary articles and participated in contemporary conversations that took passionate issue what Babbitt asserted in this article. Anyone eavesdropping would have thought it had been published in the last 5 or so years -- when, actually, it had first been published nearly forty years prior, in 1958. (Follow the link at the bottom of the article for an example of such a contemporary response).
In the article, Babbitt -- who composed (in my opinion, beautiful, lively, and compelling) music in which every controllable detail was determined by strict mathematical relationships -- made the following assertion:
. . . the composer would do himself and his music an immediate and eventual service by total, resolute, and voluntary withdrawal from this public world to one of private performance and electronic media, with its very real possibility of complete elimination of the public and social aspects of musical composition. By so doing, the separation between the domains would be defined beyond any possibility of confusion of categories, and the composer would be free to pursue a private life of professional achievement, as opposed to a public life of unprofessional compromise and exhibitionism.
There came a point, Babbitt claimed, when science became too complex to be understood by non-scientists. Similarly, musical composition could no longer be understood by anyone but highly-trained and specialized composers and musicians. And this was, for Babbit, no problem whatsoever.
I bring this up because I wonder what effect it would have, if any, on the "poetry world" if someone of Babbit's stature made a similar claim about poetry. What I find interesting is that I really can't imagine it happening. And what this unimaginability says, if anything, about the state of poetry in 2005 relative to the state of music in 1958, I don't know.
Certainly the reactionaries who wish to subject academia to market forces would cite a Babbitt-like figure as an example of degenerate excess: why, after all, should public dollars support the career of someone like Babbitt, who doesn't even care to communicate with that public? Such controversies existed in Babbitt's age as well as ours -- indeed, he apparently wrote the article in response to a trend of universities deciding to shift their musical funding toward more popular ends. Here's Babbitt's answer, which I think is at least worth considering, even if one vehemently disagrees with him:
Granting to music the position accorded other arts and sciences promises the sole substantial means of survival for the music I have been describing. 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.
3 Comments:
Thanks for this post, Jay. It's an important contribution to the discussion. It reminds me a bit of some of Glenn Gould's remarks about recording and live performance. The part where I think that argument fails, however, comes in, first, the comparison to science, and second, the connection to the man whistling on the street. I think he gets special science wrong here. After all, even the most highly specialized science is generally believed to have some, if very distant, relationship to real world applications, if sometimes off in the very distant future. So when he talks about music "evolving" but distinguishes this from the evolution of whistling repertoires and musical consumer culture, I think he forgets what musical evolution "affects". His specialized experimental genre(s) are valuable precisely because they are likely to affect everything from the popular music and whistling itself, to the acoustical spaces and backgrounds in which it goes on. What does "music evolving" mean, after all? It must mean that the rhythmic and harmonic subtratum of culture is evolving. And here specialized composition can be as useful as superstring theory (or at least the disciplinary contexts that support it). I guess I'm agreeing with Babbitt, but for reasons that still look a bit like the "market forces" gang.
Vivisection of art and science is popular, fun, and to some, deadly serious. Babbit asked: “Why refuse to recognize the possibility that contemporary music has reached a stage long since attained by other forms of activity? “ He follows that immediately with: “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.” The question and the statement represent, I think, a point of view that prevails even today. The irony is that this same dogma has not entirely worked for mathematics, philosophy or physics.
Music, in its nearly infinite forms, should not be subjected to the same caste system that has victimized the sciences. Sadly, by making the distinction between informed appreciation and uninformed critique, he supports something akin to the philosopher’s lament of criticism lacking critical authority; those without credential lack credibility, even if they agree. An exclusive approach, in my view.
I am not a critical authority by anyone’s measure, nor do I think “there’s only good music and bad music”. I believe, however, the discussion is enriched by all who choose to participate and simply by being discussed, appreciation of any art becomes richer. The true distinction being language; the challenge is making it accessable.
what makes you think babbitt is "almost universally loathed"? as a graduate student composer, i've yet to meet a professor or associate who didn't have the highest regards for babbitt. and if they didn't all agree with "who cares if you listen" i would dare say any of them "loathed" it.
Post a Comment
<< Home