Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
From the very title of his article - added by an editor, but apropos - Milton
Babbitt has, at best, demonstrated that his field is not the one in which I work. At
worst, he shows an utter negligence for the fundamental purpose of his art.
What is the nature of music? What distinguishes it from the other arts? Unlike a
painting, a work of music cannot be perceived instantly as a whole. It is a
duration-sensitive art, and must be experienced through a given period of time.
Unlike literature or theatre, music is predominantly a nonverbal art. Language is,
inherently, a reduction of thought. To "put an idea into words" is to reduce it to a
process of reason. Music allows us to connect directly with human passion. This
statement will alienate all musicologists: analysis of music is also a reduction.
Once we return a piece to its compositional elements, we lose some of its
emotional power in favor of gaining intellectual power. True, understanding the
structure of a piece may allow us to "appreciate" it more. It may connect a piece
to its historical ancestry, showing the influence of previous work. It allows us to
know when a composer is deviating purposefully from a formula. It may even
allow us to rationalize that the complex structure of a piece compensates for its
lack of visceral impact, but it cannot replace that transcendent connection a
listener may have with the performance of a piece. A listener need not know the
root movement of a deceptive cadence or a German sixth chord to be surprised
by the deviation from harmonic expectations. The effect is the same with or
without the knowledge of why it works. Babbitt is wrong in touting the
advantages of being able to make "heavier demands upon the training of the
listener"- the emotional affect of music both precedes and transcends its analysis.
Furthermore, music is inherently a collaborative art. A composer is dependent
upon the performer as cocreator. Does a piece of music "exist" wholly on the
page? Music lives only in the duration of its performance. When a skilled
musician reads the music, they might "hear" it in their head- but they are still
providing an internal realization of the score. The experience of music is different
in each performance. In Japan, the Waki actor in a Noh play will have the
traditional lines, music and blocking memorized for a play, and present a given
piece with a given cast only once in their lifetime, predominantly unrehearsed,
for a given audience. They understand that each performance is truly unique, a
product of that gathering of people. Music is the same. Its effect is dependent
upon the performers and the audience as much as upon the composer. Even in
electronic music, where the composer and their medium may all be the creative
We face a world rapidly losing patience for new music. Orchestras rarely
program a premiere in their season. Those that do survive are small works:
overtures or even fanfares. Chamber groups have divided into the traditional and
the "new music" groups, with little meeting ground. The new-music procurers
deny, even scorn their roots; the traditionalists cannot fathom their descendants.
The audience has left us, retreating almost one hundred years to find music that
speaks to them. This is, at least in part, our own doing. Twelve-tonalists,
atonalists, serialists and multiserialists have treated their audience most
contemptuously, assuming that any disfavor is a shortcoming. They cry out for
music that moves them, surprises them, connects to their own passions. We must
return to them: they are our partners. We have lived far too long in the void.