J CAGE

ows someone else to take the picture.:onventional instruments, the presentI it was before tape came into being.coming into being of something new'f its proper place. Each thing has itsthing else; and tle more things there

:ntal music may be mentioned. Sinceeconds of time, it has become moree rather than in s)..rnbols of quarter,i where on a page a note appears willr A stop watch is used to facilitate ah is a far cry from horse's hoofs and

playing of several separate tapes atThis fact has led some towards the

and machines with a correspondingho have accepted the sounds they do

'e requiring that many parts be played

rcurate representation of how thingsores, ald the parts may be courbinedeach performance of such a piece ofposer as to others listening. It is easyeven with leaves of the same tree, noi the sculpture with moving parts, the

s and noises are welcome in this new.ord if it happens to put in an appear-

nusic, whether for tape or for instru-veral loud-speakers or performers are:losely together For tiis music is not'ally understood, where the quality ofral elements. Here we are concemed:le central points where fusion occurs:rever they are. This disharmony, tosorder, is simply a harmony to which

. theatre. That arl more than musics ears, and it is our business while we

rusic? One is, of course, not dealilg

Who Cares if You Listen? 1305

ever, is an afffrmation of life-not an attempt to bring order out of chaos norto suggest improvements in creation, but simply a way of waking up to the veryIife we're living, which is so excellent once one gets one's mind and one'sdesires out of its way and lets it act of its own accord.

174Milton BabbittMilton Babbitt (b. i 916) represents the kind of rational, intellectually oriented,and technologically sophisticated musician that typified the first generation ofcomposers to reach artistic maturity following World War l l. This much-cited1958 article first appeared in a journal for record enthusiasts, whose editor,discarding Babbiffs original t it le "The Composer as Specialist," gave it the con-siderably more inflammatory "Who Cares if You Listen?" by which it subse-quently became known. Acknowledging the "musical and societal isolation" ofcontemporary music as an inevitable consequence of its increasing complexity,Babbitt recommends that composers simply accept this condition as a fact andact accordingly. This leads him to view serious music as an art that is necessarilyconceived for a small and elite public and that, l ike a pure science, requiresinstitutional supoort in order to flourish.

Who Cares if You Listen?(1958)

This article might have been entitled "The Composer as Specialist" o1 alter-natively, and perhaps less contentiously, "The Composer as Anachronism." ForI am concerned with stating an attitude towards the indisputable facts of thestatus and con&tion of the composer of what we will, for the moment, desig-nate as "serious," "advanced," contemporary music. This composer erpends aneno[nous amount of time and energ;z-and, usually, considerable money-onthe creation ofa commodity which has little, no, or negative commodity value.He is, in essence, a'vanity" composer The general public is largely unawareof and uninterested in his music. The majority ofperformers shun it and resentit. Consequendy, the music ts little per{ormed, and then primarily at poorlyattended concerts before an audience consisting in the main of fellow profes-sionals. At best, the music would appear to be for, of, and by specialists.

Jr the answer must take the form ofr a purposeless play. This play, how-

Te,\r, "l!ho Cares ifYo]ul.isten?" High Fidelit!, vol. 8, no. 2 (February 1956), pp. 3H0. Copy-dght @ Hachette Filipacchi Magazines, Inc. All rights resend. Repdnted with permission.

I306 174 MTLToN BABBtrr

Towards this condition of nusical and societal "isolation," a variety of atti-tudes has been erpressed, usually with the purpose of assigning blame, oftento the music itself, occasionally to critics or performers, and very occasionallyto the public. But to assign blame is to imply that this isolatiqn is unnecessaryand undesirable. It is my contention that, o[ the contrary this con&tion is notonly inevitable, but potentially advantageous for the composer and his music.From my point of view, the composer would do well to consider means ofrealizing, consolidating, and extending the advantages

The unprecedented divergence between contemPorar]'_serious music and itslisteners, on the one hand, and traditional music and its following, on dre other,is not accidental and-most probably-not transitory Rather, it is a result of ahalf-century of revolution in musical thought, a revolution whose nature andconsequences can be compared only with, and in many-respects are closelyanalogi.,s to, those of the mid-nineteenth-century revolution in theoreticalphysiis. The immediate and profound effect has been the necessity for theinformed musician to reexamine and probe the very foundations ofhis art Hehas been obliged to recognize the possibility, and actuality' of alternatives towhat were once regarded as musical absolutes, He lives no longer in a unitarymusical universe oi"common practice," but in a variety of universes of diverse

Pracnce.This fall from musical innocence is, understandably, as disquieting to some

as it is challenging to otlers, but in any event the process is irreversible; andthe music thatleflects the full impact of this revolution is, in many significantrespects, a truly "new" music. Apart from the often highly sophistinated andcoirplex constructive methods of any one composition, or group of composi-tions, the very minimal properties characterizing this body of music are thesources of its "difffcul$,,; "unintelligibility," and-isolation. In in&cating themost general of these properties, I ;ha make reference to no speciffc works.since I wish to avoid the independent issue of evaluation. The reader is atIibefty to supply his own instances; if he cannot (and, granted the con&tionond"i &r".,iior,, this is a very real possibility), let him be assured tiat suchmusic does exist.

First. This music employs a tonal vocabulary which is more "efffcient thanthat of tlie music of the past, or its derivatives This is not necessaril'r' a virtuein itself, but it does makJpossible a greatly increased number ofpitch simulta-neities, successions, and ielationshiis. This increase in e{ffciency necessarilyreduces the "redundancy" of the language, and as a result ihe intelligible com-munication of the work demands inc"reaied accuracy from the transmitter (theperformer) and activity from the receiver (the listener) Incidentally' it is thisii.comstance,

"-ong -uty

others, that has created the need for purely elec-tronic media of "peJotrn"n""." More impofiantly for us, it makes ever heavierd"mands upon the training of t lre l istener\ perceptual caPacil ies.

Second. 'Along with thiiincrease of meaningfuf pitch materials, the numberoffunctions assriiated with each component of the musical event also has been

Who Ca

rnuliiplied. In the simplest possibliin a five-dimensional musical s1dynamic, duration, and timbre. Th(the single event, but, in the councomponent create an individuallywith the corresponding structuresInabilily to perceive and remembe:nents results in a dislocation of thenation of its relation to all other er,of the composition's total structurperceived dlnamic value results inbut also in false identiffcation of otdynamic value is a part) with corrcreating incorect pitch, registral, thigh degree of "determinancy'' thrfrom, for example, a popular song.mined, since it would appear to retrerable alteration of register, rhythtimbre, and other qualities.

The preLiminary &fferentiationsonable and usable criterion of"de1it to be a deffnition of qualitativealways be. Curiously, their demurrsuch "democratic" counterdeffnitio'popular' music. There is only 'goome offer those who still patientll' arGood an altemative criterion whicland irrefutable applicability: "Thermusic. There is only music whosewhose tide does not."

Third. Musical compositions ofdegree of contextuality and autonoa given work are less representatirthey are unique to the individual 'edness, upon which depends imnIikely to evolve in t}re course of thtassumptions. Here again greater antual and conceptual abilities of the

Fourth, and finally. Although ir"new," it often also represents a vasderived from a considered and ex1ples. For, concomitant with the "re,aspect tlereof, has been the develcthe systematic formulation of such

BBITT

ietal "isolation," a variety of atti-)urpose of assigning blame, oftenlerformers, and very occasionallY

' that this isolation is unnecessary

the contrary, this condition is notfor the composer and his rnusic

ld do well to consider mearls oilvantages.ontemporary serious music and itsrsic and its following, on the othetransitory Rather, it is a result of art. a revolution whose nature andand in many resPects are closelY-century revolution in theo^reticalct has been the necessity lor thethe very foundations ofhis at He

0,, and actuality, of alternatives to,es. He lives no longer in a unitaryin a variety ofuniverses of diverse

;rstandably, as disquieting to some:ni the process is irreversible; andis revolution is, in many significantthe often highly sophisticated andromposition, or grouP of comPosi-erizing this body of music are the" anclisolation ln lndicating theake reference to no sPecific works,ue of evaluation The reader is atrannot (and, granted the conditionility), let him be assured that such

ian, rvhich is more "efffcient" thanives. This is not necessarily a virtueincreased number ofpitch simulta-

is increase in efffciency necessar yand as a result the intelligible com-

I accuracv from the transmitter (tie(the listener), Incidentally, it is thisrs creeled the need for purely elec-rrtantly for us. i l makes ever heaviers perceptual capacities.,ninefui pitch maLe.la]s. Lhe numbernt oT the musical e\enl a]so has been

Who Cares if You Listen? 1307

muluplied. In the simplest possible terms, each such "atomic" event is located,in a ffve-dimensional musical space determined by pitch-class, register,dynamic, duration, and timbre. These five components not only together deffnethe single event, but, in the course of a work, the successive values of eachcomponent create an individually coherent structure, frequently in parallelwith the corresponding structures created by each of the other components.Inability to perceive and remember precisely the values of any ofthese compo-nents results in a dislocation of the event in tle worki musical space, an alter-nation of its relation to all other events in the work, and-thus-a falsiffcationof the compositiont total structure, For example, an incorrectly performed orperceived dlmamic value results in destruction of the work's dynamic pattern,but also in false identiffcation ofother components of t}re event (ofwhich thisdlmamic value is a part) with corresponding components of other events, socreating incorrect pitch, registral, Umbral, and durational associations. It is thishigh degree of "determinancy" that most strikingly differentiates such musicfrom, for example, a popular song. A popular song is only very partially deter-mined, since it would appear to retain its germane characteristics under consid-erable alteration of register, rh)"thniic texture, dlnamics, harmonic stmcture,umbre, and other qualities,

The preliminary differentiation of musical categodes by means of this rea-sonable and usable criterion of"degree ofdeterminacy" offends those rvho takeit to be a deffnition of qualitative categories, which of course-it need rotalways be. Curiously, their demurrers usually take the familiar form of somesuch "democratic" counterdeffnition as: "There is no such dring as'serious'and'popular'music. There is only 'good' and 'bad' music." As a public seruice, letme offer those who still patientlv await the revelation ofthe criteria ofAbsoluteGood an altemative criterion which possesses, at least, the virtue of imme&ateand irrefutable applicabilitv: "There is no such thing as 'serious' and 'popular'music. There is only music whose title begins rvith the letter 'X,' and musicwhose title does not."

Third. Musical compositions of the hnd under &scussion possess a highdegree of contextuality and autonomy. That is, the structural characteristics ofa given work are less representative of a general class of characteristics thanthey are unique to the individual work itsell Particularly, principles of relat-edness, upon rvhich depends immediate coherence of continui$', are morelikely to evolve in the course of the work tllan to be derived from generalizedassumptions. Here again greater and new demands are made upon the percep-tual and conceptual abilities of the listener.

Fourth, and ffnally. Although in many fundamental respects this music is"new," it often also represents a vast extension of the methods of other musics,derived from a considered and extensive Lnowledge of their dr.namic princi-ples. For, concomitant with the "revolution in music," perhaps even an integralaspect thereof, has been the development of analytrcal theory concerned withthe systematic formulation of such principles to the end of greater efffciency,

1308 174 MTLToN BABBrrr

economy, and understanding. Compositions so rooted necessarily ask compara-ble knowledge and e4>erience from the listener Like all communication, thismusic presupposes a suitably equipped receptor. I am aware that "tradition"has it that the lay listener, by virtue of some undeffned, transcendental faculty,always is able to arrive at a musical judgment absolute in its wisdom if notalrvays permanent in its validity. I regret my inability to accord this declarationof faith the respect due its advanced age.

Deviation from this tradition is bound to dismiss the contemoorary music ofwhich I have been talking into "isolation. ' Nor do I see how oi why the situa-tion should be otherwise. Why should the la).tnan be other than bored andpuzzled by what he is unable to understand, music or anlthing else? It is onlythe translation ofthis boredom and puzzlement into resentment and denuncia-tion that seems to me indefensible. After all. the public does have ns ownmusic, its ubiquitous musicr music to eat by. to read ty. to dance by. and to beimpressed by. Why refuse to recognize the possibility that contemporary musichas reached a stage long since attained by other forms of activity? The timehas passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparationcould understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, phi-losophy, and physics. Advanced music, to the extent that it refects the knowl-edge and originality of the informed composer, scarcely can be e4pected toappear more intelligible than these arts and sciences to the person whose musi-cal education usually has been even less extensive than his background in otherffelds. But to tlis, a double standard is invoked, with the words "musrc rsmusic," implying also that "music is jrst music." Why not, then, equate theactivities of the radio repairman with those of the theoretical physicist, on thebasis ofthe &ctum that "physics is physics"? It is not di{ffcult to ffnd statementsIike tlre following, from fite Neu York Tirnes of September 8, 1957: "The scien-tiflc level of the conference is so high . . . that tlere are in the world only120 mathematicians specializing in the ffeld who could contribute." Specializedmusic on the other hand, far from signii'ing "height" of musical level, has beencharged witl "decadence," even as evidence of an insi&ous "conspiracy."

It often has been remarked that only in politics and the "arts" does the lay-man regard himself as an erpert, with the right to have his opinion heard. Inthe realm of politics he knows that this right, in the form of a vote, is guaran-teed by ffat. Comparably, in the realm of public music, the concertgoer issecure in t}re knowledge that the amenities of concert going protect his ffrmlystated "I didn't like it" from further scrutiny. Imagine, if you can, a la)ananchancing upon a lecture on "Pointwise Periodic Homeomolphisms." At theconclusion, he announcesr "I didnt like it." Social conventions being what theyare in such circles, someone might dare inquire: "Why not?" Under duress,our la).,man discloses precise reasons for his failure to enjoy himself; he foundthe hall chilly, the lecturer's voice unpleasant, and he was suffering tle diges-tive aftermath of a poor dinner His interlocutor understandably disqualiffesthese reasons as irrelevant to tl.re content and value of the lecture. and the

l

II

-*

Who t

development of mathematics isversed in the ways of musical lifdidnt Like it"-in tle form of asrsive," "undramatic," "lachng in 1equivalents hallowed by time fowhy." The concertgoer's criticalof further inquiry Certainly hemusical discourse is a never-ne\'place of all those verbal and fobeen banished from rational &ssulted and respected book on d(Tchaikovsly) the 'modem Ruspatently neither modem nor R"nonanalltic" philosopher: "Theis bom in the singular roots of tand the spirit. . . ." How unexcelconcertgoer appear beside thes"real" authority, he has acquirements of offfcially "eminent" colargely upon just such assertionsThis cycle is of slight moment irof criticism. Composers (and nthe character of "talented childrthem, are singularly adept at tprinciples. Music they do not lildo not like are "not composers.'

In search ofwhat to think andpers and magazines. Here he ffn"music is music." The science e(straightforward reporting, usuaarticles not intended for popularreason, such matters are left tono comparable differentiation.which presents itself in the markitself to public approval or &sa1that to omit the erpected criticilcomposer an injustice in his asrand "professional recognition."victim of the leveljng of categor.

Here, then, are some of theworld of music. Perhaps we s"power" where prizes, awards, aadjudged guilty, not only withouwithout the right to be confroni

N BAB B ITT

ions so rooted necessarily ask compara_r listener Like all communication, thisreceptor. I am awa.re that ..tradition',

me undefined, transcendental faculty,dgment absolute in its wisdom if not,

my inability to accord this declaration

to dismiss the contemporary music ofr," Nor do I see how oi why the situa_the lalman be other than'bored andand, music or anlthing else? It is onlylement into resentment and denuncia_ter all, the public does have its oy,n: by, to read by, to dance by, and to bere possibility that contemporary musicby other forms of activity? TLe timeated man wlthout special preparahonrK In. ror example, mathematjcs, phi_) the extent that it refects the lqrowl_.mposer, scarcely can be e:,pected told sciences to tie person whose musi_xtensive than his background in other, invoked. with the words..music rs' music." Why not. tlen. equate these of tie theoretical physicist, on ther"? lt is not difffcult to ffnd statementsras of September 8, 1957r ..The scien_-._.

that there are in the world onlyld who could contribute." Specializedng "height" of musical levellhas beenrce of an insi&ous "conspiracy.,,r politics and the "arts" ioes'the lay-r right to have his opinion heard. inght, in the form of a vote, is guaran-o[ p-ublic music, the concert-goer isls ot conced going protect his ffrmlyrtiny. Imagine, if you can, a layman.)eriodic Homeomorphisms. At the'' Social conventions ieing what theyinquire: Why not?" Under duress.,is failure to enjoy hinself; he foundant. and he was suffering the diges-rlocutor understandably disqualifiest and value of the leciure, and the

Who Cares if you Listen?

tTl+trttj#$*#*,fd;T,"tf :t.'#,,:d;T"""T5:$j:f :{sive," "undramatic," .lu"krrn iJi:Tons

that the work in question is "r]reryres-

;q$l5*qi{ #+TTff,,'j *ffi l'.,,rhTm }i; ,"il*]l;3"'l#"J,[Xll3;l"f::1"5":,:r ie.sponsibre ro,. *,J

"i,i'-,t^n." rr'itprace,or ail 'h;; ;;;r ;;i;"fif?ffi:,::,:iH ,#ru*lt;tlgbeen,bani-shed from rational *:""i:r. p.rh"p, he lrrrlJaili",

" "no"ty "on_#fl f "",$h##*T:.{3""?_:iiJ.,r*jlilt**;;:.n1ru;l*imlh:l*;*-,m:*:=f;m$#;m::::*:j tl: spinr = u"* "^"_""'"i",iftfri:iT+fii[*:::u;iH,_:li:1-1ilffi qffi 'hffi iln:tlu::l';:;H'j"*l;i::t"l"F,T-":t.:l:m:tnt

..emineni'. compo_sers, whose eminence, in turn, is fbunded$fli:'!-,:i?ull'ff f :TT*ilffi :['t{t}it"r*l*:ru*;:r;

3{,3r{,it1,!i;g:i,:;xxff;;g;:/65:["r";:nl:i*,ffi #15r;*ni y"tr{"t*t_- ;:xxx.tl*i:*, m*xs*t:$r"il"TfffSjii';*:T"tir9:::ii1rr{e.rarninmavtumtonewspa-;ru;,*;; ffi ;;i$r*: tr nlli;* *iidnipndi fiiF:: ifi l.i"ri# H ::fl "J;::?::H"l ;:ffi nk*l{xr::*no.comparable differentiation. iffi1tiTl;HflT"1flT*"fi '#'""ff: #'*ffi #*h$:il;athattoomitthe;il; a;;|fl'"J[fi f; :lf;lff 1ffil,Tffi r;:t:composer an injustice in his assurn1;tmn:J::ru*;:f :"1T':Ji:;:iilt'l-":l*,:lT'xl:ffi !,!,,:' 1::ffi Ji*f::,fi.'"::.i:Tj,':x:,ff _""l-ff :,:, J**:f i;Power" where prizes. awards. and;tt:r*,*lr ni n t**:r jm *":il#l,:t *Jinr#tr

1310 174 MTLToN BABBITT Who C

tJ-re large majority of foundationsof survival. I do not wish to appeamusical composition and scholarl.these &fferences are no more frvarious ffelds of study. I do questi