Does it matter if we care if you
listen?
In February of 1958, Milton Babbitt
wrote an article discussing the role of the composer in
society. It was originally titled "The Composer as
Specialist" which his editor apparently thought was a
snooze and changed it to "Who Cares If You Listen?" The
article seems much more reasonable in tone than that
title suggests, and brings up several good points, but
it is a troubling article from a troubled period
nonetheless. Babbitt came to the conclusion that it was
of no special concern whether or not composers of
'serious' or 'art' music got a hearing from more than a
few of their colleagues and that their music did not owe
anything to a larger public. There have been and of
course continue to be those who disagree. Indeed, much
of the musical discourse from the middle of the
twentieth century concerned whether or not music ought
to be (easily) comprehensible by the man on the street
or if the man on the street ought to apply himself to an
appreciation, even enjoyment, of whatever the composer
dished out. In the Soviet Union, composers like
Shostakovich and Prokoffiev got themselves in official
hot water for writing music that was too advanced and
difficult for their public--words like 'formalism' and
'insidious western influences' are, in some respects,
code for going their own way rather than seeing music as
primarily a tool for propaganda. Propaganda is only
effective if it works its charms on large numbers of
people without any specialized knowledge, and yet, like
curious specialists in any field, these composers would
often apply the latest musical ideas and experiment with
them in their works. Music that stayed simple and could
be whistled and hummed was more likely to serve the
interest of Soviet officials, and they made sure their
artists knew it. And in the United States, the gulf
between the composers who worked in academia and those
who were commercial successes was felt to be growing
wider. Any number of movies from the postwar period play
some variation on the theme that Chopin is okay and all,
but give me something I can dance to. Elitism is out and
populism is in (was it ever any different?). And yet
Milton Babbitt felt that there wasn't really any problem
with that. Unlike many composers who believed that the
public needed to get with their programs, Babbitt was of
the opinion that such a chasm was inevitable--even
desirable. Let's look in on a few paragraphs. We'll
start with this one, which sums up the situation in
which composers of the last century seem often to have
found themselves:
"I am concerned with stating an
attitude towards the indisputable facts of the status
and condition of the composer of what we will, for the
moment, designate as "serious," "advanced," contemporary
music....The general public is largely unaware of and
uninterested in his music....Towards this condition of
musical and societal "isolation," a variety of attitudes
has been expressed, usually with the purpose of
assigning blame....It is my contention that...this
condition is not only inevitable, but potentially
advantageous for the composer and his music. From my
point of view, the composer would do well to consider
means of realizing, consolidating and extending the
advantages."
Babbitt's tone is far less polemical
than many of his predecessors. Nowhere does he say 'damn
the public, full speed ahead!' In fact, he is going to
spend a good portion of the article letting the public
off the hook. There is a reason that music is not
understood or treasured by vast armies of ordinary
people these days, he says. In the previous
half-century, so many changes and innovations occurred
in music, "revolutions" as he calls them, that it is no
wonder the general layman can't keep up.
"Why should the layman be other than
bored and puzzled by what he is unable to understand,
music or anything else? It is only the translation of
this boredom and puzzlement into resentment and
denunciation that seems to me to be indefensible."
This, unfortunately, would deprive
much of humanity of its inalienable right to criticize
(without understanding). And it would rob the situation
of controversy, if, let us suppose, the two sides, the
specialist composers, and their uninterested public,
simply decided to go their separate ways. Even Babbitt's
editor, sensing he was making peace with the situation,
decided he had better fan the flames a bit by providing
a mocking title.
Babbitt could be content to allow this
apparent rupture to continue, however, for some
interesting reasons. While many were bemoaning the
'retreat to the ivory tower'--composers who taught at
universities, and whose music did not filter beyond
those outposts of thought and experimentation--Babbitt
was not only a university professor, he was a professor
of mathematics AND music. Which called to mind for him
this interesting parallel:
"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 undisturbed."
Then Babbitt wonders what would
happen if the same situation were to occur involving a
musical concert of similar difficulty to the average
mind. His layman again is unable to critique the
substance of the material presented, he is simply
displeased by the general effect of the experience he
has just had, and decides it is the fault of the
music. His example may seem petulant or condescending,
but Babbitt is not castigating the layman for his
failure to understand. Why should he? The music in
question represents some of the most advanced musical
thinking of human beings. In a field like mathematics
it is common, he observes, to come across statements
in newspapers to the effect that only a handful of
minds in the world are capable of comprehending what
is being discussed among its leading figures. But in
music, it is assumed that each new musical development
should be presentable, and intelligible, to
everyone. This is a double standard he finds
unacceptable.
If you are familiar with Babbitt and
his music, it might not be difficult to know why the
article had its critics. Babbitt's music is a kind of
highly developed atonality which is about the last
thing the public has any sympathy for. Some composers
were pushing back against it, too, among them a man
named George Rochberg. He believed Babbitt's position
was an extension of the idea of science for the sake
of science, and in a far more strident article, spoke
out against the consequences of pursuing knowledge
without worrying about where its application might
lead. Babbitt had suggested that composers ought to be
free to pursue their musical research without the
necessity of being able to immediately apply their
findings, much as the sciences are able to do. Being
divorced from the general public and the demands of a
profit motive, a composer would be free to pursue
original musical thinking which might, or might not,
be influential on the subsequent course of musical
history.
These ideas might also, in time,
filter down into more public channels. Babbitt does
not develop this theme, but it is fascinating to
observe how the ideas, musical and otherwise, of
original minds eventually become the common property
of large segments of humanity. A composer might use
harmony in a way never before heard, be denounced by
critics and shunned by the public, and yet, fifty or a
hundred years later, those ideas, usually in greatly
simplified and less concentrated form, are present in
the techniques of composers who write for more public
consumption.
For instance, cluster chords. I've
recently had two experiences where a choir of amateurs
has serenely ended a composition with a major chord
containing an added note which did not belong to the
chord--the second degree of the scale. They were
singing wrong notes in both cases--the composers had
not asked for the harmonic intrusion, but they seemed
unaware of this fact, so accustomed were their ears to
the phenomenon of these 'modern' chords. We have, in
the last few decades, come to accept harmonic
complexities that would have been unacceptable a short
time ago. I can go back to a time when any choir
guilty of singing what did not resemble a pure major
chord at the end of the piece would have immediately
corrected itself or stopped singing. But, having
finished pieces in this contemporary way on several
occasions, composers have trained their singers to
accept this more ambiguous ending. Perhaps a few of
them even enjoy it.
Other harmonic innovations have had a
rockier road. The modes give amateurs difficultly,
even though they are among the friendlier innovations.
The modes actually go back to antiquity, but, having
disappeared from the musical vocabulary in the 17th
and 18th centuries (and mostly from the 16th and 19th
as well), their reemergence over a hundred year ago
counts, in recent times, as an idea that was at first
the practice of only a few specialist composers. This
music with what sounds like altered notes in various
parts of the scale to most ears is most often
unconsciously refashioned into the more familiar major
or minor by an amateur singer, who seemingly has not
allowed their ubiquitous presence in movies and on
television to affect his or her music making habits.
Chromaticism has never really taken
hold, though it was perhaps the greatest project of
European composers in the 19th century. The half-step
is difficult for people to sing, and too many of them
together still seem to fill people with suspicion, or
dread. It is no accident that the Phantom of the
Opera's primary theme is a series of half-steps.
Unfortunately, this means that a whole order of
musical innovations and types is off limits to some
ears. What has become second year music theory to
students--all those lovely chords that allow us to
pass from one central pitch to another, that deepen
and broaden the emotional response to a melodic turn,
that give music a richer vocabulary--all those
wonderful harmonies are still unknown to the greater
bulk of mankind; perhaps they will have to wait their
turn to gain broader acceptance, like other 19th
century ideas (such as evolution). Most popular music
makes do without them.
Which means that, when composers
decided in the twentieth century that the tonal
system, rich and complex as it had become, was no
longer adequate, and forged ahead with an idea for a
music in which all tones were forcibly equal (along
with dynamic, rhythmic, and coloristic schemes), it
was like dabbling in differential calculus among a
people who were still not sure algebra was such a good
idea. No wonder that people were not interested. And,
given that we are a species that funnels vast amounts
of data through small filters (i.e., stereotyping) and
give our attention to those things which cause the
most controversy, it is not so surprising that when
people think of 'modern music,' as varied as it is,
they often think of the type that Babbitt and his
colleagues were exploring, and seek to have as little
to do with it as possible.
Babbitt did not choose the path of
the bully: others have, and whether or not they have
been successful in improving the musical diet among
their fellows is up for debate. It is never a popular
thing to tell some section of the public that they are
inadequate in some area. An influential critic named
Dwight tried it during the 19th century in Boston. He
was convinced that Beethoven and his ilk stood for
what was finest in music, and believed that the public
taste must be improved until they agreed with him. By
Gallup poll standards at least it didn't work, and he
had many enemies, some among professional musicians
(Gottschalk was one of them; somewhat like a 19th
century Liberace, he was too much matinee idol and not
enough explorer of the musical profundities for
Dwight, though he protested that he would play more
advanced music when the public was ready for it).
Hector Berlioz was another who dared
to tell the public that if they didn't like something
it wasn't necessarily the composer's fault. In a
famous review of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony he
suggested that the problem might with their own lack
of understanding. (he was impressed with the young
Gottschalk, by the way)
The fact that both of these fellows
come to us from the 19th century reminds us that the
strain between the advanced, specialist composer, and
the vast musically unlettered public is not very new;
and that the tension has been building since the end
of the 18th century. It seemed to most participants in
the mid-20ths century incarnation of the debate to
have reached a new strata, however. Part of that can
be traced to the new role of the composer as an
independent entity, and a public impresario. Before
the 19th century most composers worked for various
royal personages, who had their own private orchestras
and did not share its productions with the public. But
even then there were possibilities for conflict. Haydn
censored himself at least once while writing a
symphony, crossing out a modulation he decided was too
clever and writing: "This was for too learned ears!"
Bach, whose congregations would not be comprised of
musical cognoscenti, was sometimes on the receiving
end of complaints that his music was too complicated.
Most of the general public today still does not touch
the music of either of these with a ten foot pole,
though the musically literate class has decided they
are to be celebrated.
So when Babbitt suggests a retreat
behind the walls of the university, he is in some
respects suggesting a return to an earlier era, before
Mozart, who was largely supported by a small band of
rich and relatively knowledgeable patrons, but also
depended on the larger public for the success of his
operas. Mozart attempted to straddle these worlds,
once writing proudly to his father that a piano
concerto of his could be appreciated both by the
musically knowledgeable and the untutored layman.
Mozart needed public approval to thrive, if not to
survive. Once a politically changed Europe and America
created a class of people who could demand with their
money based on their own middle-class expectations,
the era of the commercially successful or unsuccessful
composer was born. Ever since most artists are faced
with a choice: be marketable or do something else.
This atmosphere has created the
diversity of attitudes that Babbitt mentions in his
article. When there is a lack of musical satisfaction
among the public, is it the fault of the composer? Or
the public? Or even the critics? Rather than assign
blame Babbitt advocates for the separation of public
and composer. Politically, it is impossible to return
to the days of powerful and theoretically
well-educated patrons among the ruling class, although
a quick glance at an orchestra program's list of
sponsors with show that they are still there, of a
fashion. Instead, it is the natural province of
intellectually advanced persons and their productions,
in music or anything else, to gather at the
university. There the composer can investigate
peacefully wherever his muse takes him, and the public
can breathe easily knowing they won't be bothered.
Case closed.
Is it? For some composers that would
never be an acceptable option. In whatever way and to
whatever extent, they are there among the public at
large, whether motivated by desire for fame, or money,
or the desire to communicate something of value to
more than a handful of brilliant colleagues. And it
can certainly be argued that the removal of the
musical brain trust does not do a favor for society.
Education is not something that is accepted without
struggle, and without possessing dissatisfaction about
our current level of knowledge, or being forced to
develop our minds in some way (how many children would
go to school if we didn't make them?) Perhaps we need
our bullies: someone has to hold up a yardstick and
tell us we aren't there yet. A few of us will listen,
anyway. The rest, determined that the customer is king
and that the royal realm is in no need of expansion,
will probably excuse themselves on the grounds that
their 'accusers' are just a bunch of pretentious,
cheerless souls who suck the joy out of life.
The practical results of this
collision are that advanced, or serious, music is
still, and probably always will be, a minority
interest: the concert hall is barely filled, and it
seats far fewer than the football stadium. But there
is a curious relationship between the serious composer
and the public: many of the ideas of the musically
bold, the original, the seekers after new methods, end
up in the public stream many years after their
discovery. Composers for movies and television seldom
make any innovations themselves, but they do study the
works of the 'investigators' in their field, and, to
some degree, appropriate their findings. It isn't any
accident that the music from Star Wars sounds in
places like Holst, or Prokofiev, or Mahler. (and not
just because Williams imitates his classical forebears
generally in his scores: in this instance George Lucas
played various classical pieces for him and told him
to imitate them, using his own "Star Wars" themes!) I
can hardly go to a movie without hearing the echoes of
'serious' composers of the past. Usually it takes
about 50 years or more for the composers who write for
the public and for money to begin sounding like those
pioneers whose busts adorn the halls of the
conservatory. But it is an almost inevitable process,
if a slow one.
Meanwhile, at a university or concert
hall near you, a small number of composers are
pursuing their musical researches, lending support to
the elite members of their guild in every generation,
the musical giants who are truly original and whose
musical gifts and discipline enables them to see
farther and to travel further than their colleagues.
Each of them contributes his or her own voice to the
musical discourse, one that sounds like no other,
while at the same time building on, and being indebted
to, the musical 'scholarship' of the past.
Eventually their 'findings' will translate into the
musical language of their fellows and make their way,
in filtered form, to the broad stream of the public,
which will slowly come to accept what was once too
radical for the common ear. This curious negotiation
is helped in part because the edges are softened, the
more cohesive elements are lost (meaning that less
careful listening is required to 'get the point'), and
the music does not demand lone billing but is mostly
part of a multimedia experience. Still, whether the
public knows it or not, it is, in some small way,
listening to Beethoven at the box office. In droves.
|