Talk:Who Cares if You Listen?

Merge salvageable bits with Milton Babbitt, and delete
This article amounts to an original review of one single magazine article, and has pitifully skimpy reliable secondary sourcing. The verifiable parts can be merged into Milton Babbitt. With the author's Wikipedia page already mentioning the magazine article in context with a link to the text of the 1958 article, there is no reason to keep this page. Tagged for proposed deletion. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Who Cares if You Listen" is without question the single most well-known work by Milton Babbitt. As such, it deserves its own WP page. A simple Google search for "Who cares if you listen" will return far more hits than any other thing Babbitt wrote. I could propose deletion of the WP article on King Lear for exactly the same reasons you are attempting to delete this. In order for this WP article to be a review, original or otherwise, there needs to be an element of subjectivity. I took great pains to avoid this, however, if there is any element of the article that appears not to be logically demonstrated and therefore in the realm of opinion, please cite it specifically and I will attempt to correct it. Colbyhawkins (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to the above, I have added a link to the text of the article. I think it is a superior link to the one in the Babbitt article because there are errors in the latter, which is a page on a website that is very clearly anti-Babbitt.Colbyhawkins (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If anyone tried to "propose deletion of the WP article on King Lear for exactly the same reasons" they would not get very far with it. Are you seriously comparing this "off the cuff" article from a niche magazine to a dramatic work by Shakespeare? Whatever needs to be said about it will fit nicely into the Milton Babbitt page. "Logical demonstration" is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia; it is original research, which is explicitly not to be included. What is appropriate for inclusion is verifiable information from reliable secondary sources, which seem to be scarce on the ground here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My King Lear analogy was intended to refute your suggestion that deletion is warranted because WCIYL is "one, single magazine article" just as King Lear is one single play. Re "logical demonstration", yes, you are quite right. I hope I have removed any logical conclusions (I'm happy to leave them to the reader) and left only a digest of the article. Re secondary sources, I'm not sure where any are necessary. Would I need to confirm via a secondary source that Babbitt was a serial composer, for example, or that integral serialism is a highly technical mode of musical composition? Colbyhawkins (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kindly do not confuse the map with the territory. Just because two propositions may be stated in parallel language (i.e. "one single work of ") does not mean they refer to items of equivalent weight. Sourcing is needed for statements such as "it seems unlikely that the negative reaction to the article that Babbitt felt "pursued" by was caused by the title alone." While I can easily agree with that statement, given the contents of the 1958 article, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth or plausibility. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Babbitt vs. Shakespeare question is a qualitative vs. a quantitative one. I have comprehended your criticism and significantly modified the last statement. If you find the time, please let me know how you feel it reads now. Thanks. Colbyhawkins (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No matter how you slice it, without a source, that entire last sentence is still speculation, and does not belong in Wikipedia. The parenthesis at the end of the second paragraph looks like another piece of unsourced musing.
 * Without those bits, the article boils down to a quick paraphrase in the lead, some quotes strung together, and some scarcely convincing lines about the author's intent for the title of the piece. Once more: Whatever needs to be said about it will fit nicely into the Milton Babbitt page. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the pointless and unsupported speculation in the parenthesis at the end of the second paragraph. More charitably, I've merely tagged the end of the last paragraph on the off-chance that Babbitt may actually have said what is claimed (namely, "I don't care if anyone listens", or words close enough not to make any difference). A close perusal of his article is pending.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An electronic search of Babbitt's text finds the word "care" only in the High Fidelity editor's title, and no context where the words "listener", "listen", or "audience" are connected with the author's attitude toward them. Further, a careful reading of the entire (very short) article reveals nothing else that may be construed in the way the final sentence claims, let alone a "clear" statement at all about "not caring" about anything. Consequently, I have deleted the spurious claim. Is there any longer anything here worth keeping, beyond the précis of Babbitt's article? If not, then there really is no reason to retain this, separate from the main article on Babbitt.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What you say about caring is true, in spite of your apparent lack of comprehension of the article. (Evidence of this lack of comprehension is your request for a citation proving Babbitt analogizes advanced music with advanced mathematics and physics - he plainly states it in the article, so I removed the request.) A point I made on the talk page of the Babbitt article is that in fact Babbitt goes one step further in Who Cares than simply not caring if you listen - he actually recommends against you listening. So, in fact he does care in that he doesn't want you to listen. The point of the published title is, for those who cannot comprehend the article - "Who cares if you listen - you won't understand, anyway." I'll accept your deletion of the last sentence, not because it is unsupported (it is not only supported, it is the only possible conclusion to draw), but because it may be pointless - the dishonesty and insincerity of Babbitt's protest from the interview will be evident to any objective reader without my help. Regarding your other edits, sorry, you're not going to destroy this article like you did the article on Babbitt. You clearly have an agenda, and that coupled with your complete lack of decent writing style was making as much a travesty of this article as the others you've edited. I consider your edits nothing but childish harassment. Colbyhawkins (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Civility is expected of Wikipedia editors. Personal attacks are not welcome and may be grounds for blocking. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to "personal attacks". I followed it and read it. Have you? Here's what it says, in part: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack."
 * Did you notice the word "civil" in what you just quoted? Your tone here has been far from civil. You accuse an experienced Wikipedia editor of being "childish" in the same dramatic outburst that you accuse him of "destroying" an article, which is, in polite understated terms, an exaggeration. Drama on these talk pages may seem majestic in the heat of the moment, but in the long run such childishness does not improve Wikipedia. What does improve Wikipedia is the addition of verifiable, reliably sourced information to the main article space, and assuming good faith on the part of other editors. I see some of that has been happening, so carry on... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but who can take seriously someone who accuses an editor of "lack of decent writing style", but at the same time thinks "analogizing" is a word?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogize Colbyhawkins (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What is surprising is not your weak vocabulary, but rather your pride in it. Colbyhawkins (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, that one is in a class with "assumedly," which I once actually overheard in passing conversation. I haven't followed all this closely enough to tell who is trying to besmirch Mr Babbitt's name or who is trying to shine it up. To me it looks like this page is about a piece of bloviation that he would just as soon never have written, since it seems to have come back to bite him over and over again. Not sure it it overshadows his music or his pedagogy in the bigger picture, I am about ready to redirect this page to the author's article. Any worthwhile bits here will remain in the history to be fished out and pasted into that page. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's only a suggestion, but wouldn't it be helpful to sort this material into categories with headers such as "History" (that is, how the article came into being, its initial publication and subsequent reprints, etc.), "Summary" (or "Content"), and "Reception"? I know this seems a little elaborate for a piece on what is after all a very short article, but it might help keep straight where it is we are talking about what Babbitt is documented to have done, and where we are talking about documented responses to his writing. I think this might also be of use in helping to make clear where the line is between verifiable fact and Wiki-editorial interpretation (i.e., original research).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. I guess that sorta means I have to do it, right? Colbyhawkins (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave it a first approximation. Also some wordsmithing to get around "analogize" and "bisect" which have proven contentious. Is OK? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Better sourcing?
Whoa - I've just decided to view a recent edit to the article. I had to rub my eyes to make sure they weren't playing tricks on me. That edit said, "the article, which in the redaction by the High Fidelity editor begins, "This article might have been entitled 'The Composer as Specialist'",..." It is simply beyond belief that someone would have the incredible nerve to presume an editor "redacted" Babbitt's first sentence, and then to publish that presumption as if it were fact. The truth is that that fairytale "redaction" is the only way what Babbitt said can be reconciled with what he wrote.

Before breaking, I'd like to address the issue of Tommasini's quote. It was included in the first paragraph to illustrate the importance of the article in the overall history of contemporary music. Including the second sentence, as Jerry wants to do, not only ameliorates its effect, it distracts from that function. I have no problem including that sentence where it belongs, down at the bottom of the article where the "spin control" is discussed.Colbyhawkins (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, one more thing. Bill has determined that my sentence about Prokofiev, et al. is speculative. Since you did not dispute it, you must accept that Babbitt bisects music into "advanced" and music to eat by, read by, and dance by in the article. In order for the omission of Prokofiev, et al. to be speculative, there would have to be at least one alternate interpretation, and that interpretation would need to demonstrate that Babbitt did not omit them, i.e. that he included them into one of his two sections of music. Please let me know what that interpretation is - how does Babbitt's bisection account for Prokofiev, et al? In your view, is this music "advanced" or music to eat by, read by, and dance by?Colbyhawkins (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with it, the "speculation" label did not originate with me. Perhaps Professor Kohl first applied it; I called it "unsourced musing" above, if you care to look. The problem with what you just called "your" sentence is that it is an extrapolation from what Babbitt actually said, for which no source has been offered.
 * Colby, you say "In order for the omission of Prokofiev, et al. to be speculative, there would have to be at least one alternate interpretation..." say what? That makes so little sense that it is beyond wrong. If you are going to go around rebuking people for "weak vocabulary," then you had better have a solid grasp of what words mean your own self. There does not need to be any "alternate interpretation" for a tangential musing to be speculative.
 * My views regarding the music of Prokofiev and his ilk do not matter here. More to the point, it does not matter where that music fits in the false dichotomy, the bisection you just proposed. What would matter would be anything Babbitt said directly about that, or what a published commentator had to say. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to get into a silly semantic discussion. In this context, the definition of "speculate" is "to engage in conjectural thought". A conjecture is the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. I think you agree that there is only one possible conclusion because that conclusion is proven. (Definitions from dictionary.com.)Colbyhawkins (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC) You'll be happy to see I've removed my non-speculation. I admit the article's better without it. Colbyhawkins (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly so. Babbitt does in fact name Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and Lourié without saying on which side of this "bisection" they belong, and Anton Webern with the clear implication that he had been during his lifetime on one side but, since his death, had passed over to the other. He does not name any living composers at all (and I'm sure that Mr. Hawkins would agree that he cannot have intended to include long-dead ones, such as Guillaume de Machaut, Johannes Brahms, or two of those about whom Mr. Hawkins felt obliged to "unsourcedly muse" (what I euphemistically called "speculation" in order not to give offense, but is usually called "original research" in Wikipedia terms). This was why I substituted a random group of prominent at-that-time-living composers for the ones Mr. Hawkins named, since they seemed much more likely to be amongst those that Babbitt had in mind, on whichever side of the "bisection" they might fall. In any case, I agree that it is not merely contrary to Wikipedia policy to include such original research but, in this case, completely pointless.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

MB is quite clear - there are composers of "advanced" music, and those to whose music one can eat, dance, or read. There is no third category. Anyway, it's a moot point now that the offending line has been removed. Colbyhawkins (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You missed "music to be impressed by." Where does Babbitt explicitly say that other categories of music are excluded? Do you know what "metonymy" means? If you don't want to get involved in "silly semantic discussions" then don't come out with unsupportable malarkey. You have no idea what I agree to, and are still not making any sense when you say "there is only one possible conclusion because that conclusion is proven."
 * That being said, it appears some slight shreds of progress are being made. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If something is proven, no alternatives exist.

Re MB's bisection of music:

"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 indefensible. After all, the public does have its own music, its ubiquitous music: music to eat by, to read by, to dance by, and to be impressed by."

Music the layman can't understand (advanced music) vs. music to eat, read, and dance by (the public's "own" music). Two things.

"The unprecedented divergence between contemporary serious music and its listeners, on the one hand, and traditional music and its following, on the other, is not accidental and- most probably- not transitory. "

Contemporary vs. traditional - two things.

"And so, I dare suggest that 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"

Professional achievement (advanced music) vs. unprofessional compromise and exhibitionism (non-advanced music). Two things.

"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."

"This" (advanced) music vs. whistling repertory, the conspicuous consumer's concert-going activity. Two things. Colbyhawkins (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The "concert-going activity of the conspicuous consumer of musical culture " was still on the popular, accessible side of things. Audiences for serialist music were conspicuous by their absence, if I have read things right.
 * The piece which most closely supports "two things, and two things only" is
 * "the unprecedented divergence between contemporary serious music and its listeners, on the one hand, and traditional music and its following, on the other."
 * although numerous musical traditions exist beyond the subset mentioned by Babbitt, so "bisection" is still dubious. On the article page, I've put it in terms of "isolation" and "divergence," which hews closer to what he wrote. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone, btw, who imagines that Babbitt somehow had contempt for music unlike his own should read accounts of Stephen Sondheim’s studies with him. ELSchissel (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Confusion of concepts
Somewhere along the line, this article has confused Babbitt's category of "serious, advanced music" with serialism. This appears to have happened because K. Robert Schwarz made this assumption in his 1997 New York Times article. In turn, this has lead to a pointless meander about "serial dominance" in the 1960s—an argument which not only does not belong in this article, but which was also thoroughly demolished by Joseph Straus in 1999 ("The Myth of Serial 'Tyranny' in the 1950s and 1960s" The Musical Quarterly 83, no. 3:301–43). We have already established that Babbitt names only four composers, and three of them do not figure into his categorization at all. I think we can speculate here on this Talk page (though not in the article without a reliable source) that Babbitt plausibly may have had in mind, in addition to some serial composers, his New-York area colleagues Roger Sessions, Edgard Varèse, Elliott Carter, Stefan Wolpe, and Morton Feldman, as well as others further afield such as Harry Partch, Lou Harrison, and Ralph Shapey, none of whom were serialists in the usual sense of the word (though Sessions is often cited as such, and Wolpe occasionally used twelve-tone rows). It seems to me that either this whole relationship between "advanced" and "serial" needs to be clarified and the inclusion of the discussion of serialism's alleged rise and fall be justified in this context, or that it be moved to the Serialism article where it belongs.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Babbitt was not referring exclusively to serial music by the term "advanced". However, he certainly included serial music into advanced music, and the entire tone of the article makes it clear that what he is advocating is taken from his personal vantage point - a serial composer shunned by the public, supported by a university. I think you have clarified the point sufficiently in the article.

I've got a major issue:

"Finally, from the article we get a glimpse into how Babbitt viewed the future of music in 1958: "The unprecedented divergence between contemporary serious music and its listeners, on the one hand, and traditional music and its following, on the other, is not accidental and—most probably—not transitory." In this prediction, he was perfectly accurate. Two decades after the appearance of "Who Cares if You Listen", serialism was on the wane and "new music" was no longer synonymous with "advanced music"."

He predicts that the divergence of serious and traditional music is probably not transitory, meaning it would continue as music continued to "evolve". The article goes on to say, via the Schwartz quote, that that divergence is reversed two decades later with the advent of Minimalism and neo-Romanticism, so it in fact is transitory. Anyone in the least bit familiar with the recent history of concert music would agree that "advanced" composers who don't care to appeal to a general audience are much rarer than they were in the sixties and seventies, so that divergence is much less pervasive. So Babbitt's prediction was wrong. Yet you say that his prediction was perfectly accurate. Don't you find that bizarre? What's worse, the sentence following your pronouncement of accuracy holds a place that would, in normal semantic practice, expand on and explain how it was perfectly accurate. Of course, it does anything but. What can I say, except that I'm tempted to simply forget this whole WP nonsense so that I can stop participating in silly discussions such as this? Colbyhawkins (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidently we understand the word "divergence" differently. For me, it means "The action of diverging: moving off in different directions from the same point (called the point of divergence), so that the intervening distance continually increases. The opposite of convergence", or (transf. and fig.) "The departure from each other of two paths, courses, modes of action, or processes; continuous departure or deviation from a standard or norm" (OED).

I see you're into dictionaries since your "analogize" debacle. That's good! The fact that you felt compelled to cite a dictionary definition of a word that I gave no indication of not comprehending the meaning of is of secondary importance.


 * I fail to see how Babbitt's "serious, advanced" music has been caused to "converge" with "traditional" music by the rise of minimalism in the 1970s.

Of course you do. That's because it didn't happen. Minimalism and neo-Romanticism were reactions to the academic "advanced" music of which Babbitt was a prime exponent and that had so alienated audiences. We can only assume that they belong to what Babbitt calls the "traditional", exemplified by Barber, Britten, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, etc. Whatever they are, they are certainly "anti-advanced". There is no bold line between "advanced" and "traditional" anymore - that division has ceased to exist. Babbitt was an anachronism for at least the final two decades of his life. There are no longer two distinct attitudes, thus there can be no divergence. So MB was wrong, or, in your language, "perfectly accurate".


 * Much less do I see how it has brought (American) serialist composers into the mainstream.

This is difficult for me to read.


 * If what you are trying to say is that minimalist music is "serious", this is certainly a valid characterization (whether it is "traditional" is debatable),

I'm simply stunned. Who in their right mind would suggest that Minimalism falls into Babbitt's "serious" ("advanced") category?


 * but it is also true (as Joseph Straus conclusively demonstrates) that the "serious, traditional" music of the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., the music of Ned Rorem, William Schuman, or Walter Piston) was never displaced by serialism, either in American academic or in concert life.

????? This is bordering on the surreal. According to MB, there is serious (advanced) music and there is traditional music. By his definitions, we cannot have serious, traditional music. The composers you name wrote PRECISELY the music that MB suggests one can only eat by. Who in heaven's name has suggested that it was displaced by serialism?


 * So, especially if we equate Babbitt's "serious, advanced" music with serialism, it was and remans divergent from "traditional" music—probably more so today than it was in 1958.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There may be a few stragglers like Babbitt was in the last years of his life, but as a movement Serialism has been dead for decades. Something non-existent cannot diverge or converge. Babbitt clearly believed that academia would continue to support movements no one else cared about, and that those movements would grow more anti-traditional and anti-audience. He saw this as the way music evolved. He was wrong. You know what? Just leave your "perfectly accurate" in this article, with your name proudly beside it. I think it will do wonders for your reputation here. Colbyhawkins (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You still have not lost any of your courtesy or charm, I see. Despite this, you are perfectly correct on several points. The biggest issue is that word "serious", which clearly had a narrower meaning for Babbitt in 1958 than the way in which it is generally used (in the division of all music into the broad "serious" and "entertainment" categories). Babbitt does not consistently add the word "advanced" after "serious", though it is plain that he is never using "serious" in any other way. I don't know what you may mean by the expression "serious music",

What you or I may or may not consider serious is irrelevant. The word has meaning re this discussion only in how Babbitt used it.


 * but I believe that many minimalist composers (and certainly the ones I know personally) would take offense at the idea that their music was merely for "entertainment", and lacked the attributes of "serious", or "art" music ("implying advanced structural and theoretical considerations and a written musical tradition", to quote the Wikipedia article on the topic).

Of course they would. Irrelevant.


 * From previous discussion, you have amply demonstrated that you have no idea about the "few stragglers" to whom you vaguely refer, but if you were correct and serialism has been dead for decades, then of course it cannot any longer converge (though it might have done so at some earlier point after 1958);

Let me repeat. Babbitt predicted that the gulf that he saw and that no doubt existed between "serious" ("advanced") music and "non-advanced" art music in 1958 would widen. I doubt if there's another person with musical education besides yourself who thinks he was "perfectly correct". The fact is that there is no bold line anymore between his two categories - composers today use varied techniques that often don't fit into any particular school, and if a strict serial composer still exists who, like MB doesn't care if people listen, he's almost certainly tenured.


 * and, despite the fact that you are wrong about serialism's alleged demise,

Serialism is a school. Who are the current members of that school?


 * it still does not follow—as you yourself point out—that it (or other forms of "advanced music", whatever they might actually be) can have converged with "traditional" (or let us say, "non-advanced", but "serious-not-as-Babbitt-meant-it-but-in-the-way-the-word-is-commonly-understood" music).

What I said is that there is no longer a boundary - the dichotomy does not exist anymore, so speaking about divergence or convergence has no meaning anymore.


 * Assuming that Babbitt was wrong about an increasing anti-traditionalist trend in "advanced" music (and this is as good a definition of "avant-garde" as could be asked for), it is plain that academia does still support movements no one else cares about—and not just in the field of music composition. (Or am I wrong, and composers such as Brian Ferneyhough, Joël-François Durand, Jason Eckardt, Claus-Steffen Mahnkopf, Barry Truax, Tristan Murail, Joshua Fineberg, Jonty Harrison, Larry Polansky, Richard Karpen, or Hanspeter Kyburz are actually so extremely popular with audiences that they do not require university teaching posts to earn a living?)

The question is not whether there are a few composers still on faculties who make no attempt to write for "non-specialists". The question is whether that practice has increased or decreased since 1958. In the sixties and seventies, many composition faculties were mainly serialist, or at least 12 tone, the thought of hiring someone not of the fold was blasphemous, and there was a pervasive condescension towards the very idea of writing for a musically educated public. It was taught that the public would "come around". I repeat, that is simply not the case today, notwithstanding your "perfectly accurate".


 * But the biggest problem here is Schwarz's confusion of Babbitt's "advanced" music with serialism (which is a category simultaneously broader and narrower than what Babbitt appears to have meant by "advanced" music),

No, it's really not a problem at all. Neither you nor I in fact know whether Babbitt's haughtiness led him to believe that any non-serial music is by definition non-advanced.


 * and Schwarz's demonstrably erroneous claim that serialism ever dominated the American (or, to be more precise, the Northeast American) music scene.

Where were you in the seventies?


 * As I said to start with, this discussion really belongs in the Serialism article; it is not relevant here, and proves nothing about Babbitt's predictive powers in 1958. I am happy to leave "perfectly accurate" in place, but you seem to have forgotten that all editors on Wikipedia are anonymous, so no name can go beside anything, proudly or otherwise, except for citations from reliable sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's in the edit history. Colbyhawkins (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you'll enjoy this - more from the Schwartz article:

"Proponents of Serialism argued that its multiple layers of systematization were no more constraining than the conventions imposed by the tonal system. No one made more strident claims on its behalf than the French composer Pierre Boulez, for whom it had all the force of a historical imperative. Every musician who has not felt -- we do not say understood, but indeed felt -- the necessity of the Serial language is USELESS, he wrote in 1952.

The Two Histories Of 'One True Faith'

"Although Mr. Babbitt and his disciples were far less dogmatic, the underlying message was clear: if you wished to be taken seriously as a composer, you had better employ Serial technique. And it is here that the parallel histories of American music arise. Tonal composers recall an era of Serial control during which they were ridiculed and their music scorned. Serial composers recall a time in which they struggled for recognition and support, and could find it only in the university.

"Serialism's most publicly aggressive proponents, early and late, presented and still present it as the only true faith, said George Rochberg, who was entranced by Serialism in the 1950's but re-embraced tonality in the 60's. As such, they have proclaimed an orthodox cultural church, with its hierarchy, gospels, beliefs and anathemas. After the end of World War II it very quickly captured and dominated American academic circles, which it monstrously and bluntly politicized."

DOMINATED. Rochberg was correct.

"Dominated is the key word. Many now maintain that the Serialists took over academia, insuring that their quasi-scientific method, which was ideal for the university, was the only one encouraged. As they gained prestige, the argument continues, they took control of grant-giving bodies, new-music ensembles and competitions. Everyone else was shut out, especially those reactionary tonal composers."

"John Corigliano attended Columbia from 1955 to 1959, the same years as Mr. Wuorinen. But Mr. Corigliano recalls a university where Serialism had become the official academic manner: ''By the time I got to Columbia, this was already the case. It wasn't that I was prohibited from writing the way I felt. But the general mode of thought was certainly not in my direction."

"Moreover, the notion persists that young composers were made to feel that Serialism was their only viable option. And it may be true, if the first paragraph of Mr. Wuorinen's textbook Simple Composition, of 1979, is any indication.

"While the tonal system, in an atrophied or vestigial form, is still used today in popular and commercial music, and even occasionally in the works of backward-looking serious composers, it is no longer employed by serious composers of the mainstream, he writes. It has been replaced or succeeded by the 12-tone system."

Get the picture, Jerry?

"Those 'backward-looking' composers did not react charitably to such dismissals. "We were treated as if we didn't exist," Ned Rorem said of the atmosphere in the 1960's, when he returned to America after a decade in Paris. "I asked myself where I stood as a composer, am I doing something wrong? But I can't change horses in midstream, and I wouldn't even if I could."

Seems like you need to set Mr. Rochberg and Mr. Rorem straight, eh?

"Another tonal composer, William Mayer, concurs. To be a tonal composer in the 60's and 70's was a deeply dispiriting experience, he said. 'One was shunned as the last teen-aged virgin.'"

How could he possibly have felt that way if what you say is true? Colbyhawkins (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Advanced vs. retarded music
I'm drawing a line under this. Mr. Hawkins seems to want to debate his unsupported opinions, and this is not what Wikipedia Talk pages are for. If there is a plausible reason to draw Schwarz's (please note: no T in the name) long-discredited article into the discourse, let him offer it. Quoting it at length here is pointless—I can read it in the library or online, so can everyone else. Straus has amassed an impressive amount of statistical evidence against these preposterous claims, which are in any case not relevant to this present article. If Mr. Hawkins has some contrary evidence to offer from reliable sources, fine, he should put them into the Serialism article, not here. As for "Get the picture, Jerry?", do please call me Dr. Kohl. Familiarity only breeds contempt.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe have Mr. Straus set Mr. Rochberg and Mr. Rorem straight. Colbyhawkins (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I realize the above may be a bit subtle for you. Let me spell it out. The cites from the Schwarz article were mainly quotes from well-known composers that contradict your assertion. Your attempt to disparage them by referring to the article that contains them as "long-discredited" is so blatantly dishonest that only a child could imagine he'd pull it off. Colbyhawkins (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A circuitous route led me back here. I just reread the article: "Another interpretation was proposed by Joseph N. Straus (1999). Straus conducted a research study that considered five questions about American compositional activity from the 1950s and 1960s: (1) who controlled the academy? (2) whose music got published? (3) whose music got performed? (4) whose music got recorded? (5) who got the prizes, awards, and fellowships? (6) whose music got reviewed?" In the manner of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition, it is stated there are 5 questions, but in fact there are 6. I see a more important problem here. "From this evidence the author concluded, "As the period drew to a close, the American academy was dominated, as it had been throughout the 1950s and 1960s, by tonally oriented composers" The problem is that questions 2 through 6 are totally irrelevant to the academy, having to do with extra-academic aspects of being a composer. Only question 1 is relevant to the conclusion drawn, or, OK, maybe 1/3 of question 5.Colbyhawkins (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed Link
The link to the pdf of the article in the first line was dead, so I removed it. Yes, the pdf exists on other pages, but they often seem to be on university course pages that could just as easily disappear later on.

Plus, I haven't discovered if this 1958 article is still copyrighted or not, so it's possible that ANY online version could be taken down at one point or another. Until there's a sturdy link at a permanent spot (like archive.org), I say we just let people search for it on their own. Basementwall (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Question Mark in Title?
Every version I've found online shows a question mark in the title of the article--that is, it's called "Who Cares if You Listen?" and not "Who Cares if You Listen". Is there a reason the title of the page doesn't include the question mark? Basementwall (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

POV issues
Rename this article with a niche title like Anthony Tommasini’s opinions about Milton Babbitt and basically fine. As is, this article is full of unclear sourcing, opinion from a small number of sources in what should be an npov context, weasel words (could be seen as spinning), and other things that do not belong here. ELSchissel (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 13 sources with 16 citations in the article. Which statements do you suggest need further sources? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Let’s start with “ The article, which begins "This article might have been entitled 'The Composer as Specialist' ", does not refer to serialism at all, but rather takes the position that "serious", "advanced" music, like advanced mathematics, philosophy, and physics, is too complex for a "normally well-educated man without special preparation" to "understand".” Really? Babbitt’s article begins that way? (I see my suggested clarification was reverted, but it still makes no sense as stands.) POV is not just sourcing, btw. Point of view here is clear. ELSchissel (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(Assuming- assuming - “The article” means Tommasini’s- because clarity- Tommasini is wrong about math, philosophy and physics also, unless by “special preparation” he means concentration and putting in effort. In -this- sense, though, his complaint differs not significantly from Reichardt’s about Mozart or Hanslick’s about Liszt.) ELSchissel (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that only the first phrase, not the whole paragraph, is attributed to Babbitt, though his editor probably wrote part of that, as the article -was- so titled, not might have been. The rest could be more clearly separated; inclarity for its own sake would be my judgment were I paragraph editor. ELSchissel (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)