Who Cares if You Listen? by Milton Babbitt

[Prof. Madad]

Read Who Cares if You Listen? by Milton Babbitt and share your reaction to the piece. Do you identify or sympathize with Babbit's argument regarding serious music versus popular music — substitute (graphic) design for music. What are some of the themes or issues that resonate most with you? Do you struggle with anything articulated in the essay?

Minimum three paragraphs.
Due 11.06 by midnight.

[anne chiang]

Who cares if you listen? I personally think it's quite important to
listen, but it's up to you if you want to take it in or not, to
understand it, to accept it or to even care what it's trying to say.
"There is no such thing as serious or popular music. There is only
good or bad music." This can be referred to design as well. There is
either good or bad design, but I think that there is serious or
popular design, which is the personality of the design. I think it
doesn't really matter who listens to it, but just as long as the
viewer understands what you're trying to say thru the design because
after all, you're really designing it for yourself. Everyone's going
to judge the design based on their own opinion, some people can say
it's good or bad which is ultimately what everything comes down to,
but i think the importance of it is that people understand what you're
trying to say.

[Jessie Oh]

He takes note of a stark reality that often leaves a designer by trade
to defend himself. The public's passive acceptance is a guilty being
that cannot be denied. It's like a universal filter where its origins
cannot be accurately traced and its demise is guaranteed. But when its
presence is at peak the dominance is overwhelming thus creating a
golden opportunity for those who have compromised less. I could also
relate this essay to the fast food industry of the U.S. where mass
acceptance is achieved at the cost of integrity.
This dilemma is a fact that has existed beyond the emergence of
communication design as Babbit relates. It's hard to compare to the
life of a mathematician yet any profession that receives compensation
(in every sense of the word) is under a similar obligation.The
alternative would be to embrace isolation of private satisfaction. As
he suggests, progress is irreversible so to survive is to disregard
innocence as something to embrace. It seems ideal to stay between the
exhibitionist and the loner.
On Oct 31, 6:00 pm, "Prof. Madad" <ama...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Read *Who Cares if You Listen? *by Milton Babbitt and share your reaction

> to the piece. Do you identify or sympathize with Babbit's argument

> regarding *serious* music versus *popular* music — substitute (graphic)

> design for music. What are some of the themes or issues that resonate most
> with you? Do you struggle with anything articulated in the essay?
>
> Minimum three paragraphs.
> Due 11.06 by midnight.
>

>  1958. Who cares if you listen. Babbitt.pdf
> 222KViewDownload

[David Saunders]

After reading Babbitt's Who Cares if you Listen? I would identify with the majority of the points of his argument. However, the key element that I, not necessarily am in disagreement with but am hesitant about, is the overall point of view or purpose. Babbitt's entire argument seems centered around the idealogical goal of preservation rather than perception/outcome. Which begs the question: is the goal of design/music/composition to preserve culture, or rather to influence culture (ideally for the better)? Which then brings me to another timeless quandary: is it culture that defines the work or work that defines the culture?

As i was reading thru the article, I found myself making connections between Babbitt's analysis of contemporary music with the change of design from analog to digital. Like the "informed musician" (pg.1), designers had to reexamine and probe the foundations of art as the new technology made the standard processes easier and new ideas easier to create. Babbitt's reference to this as the "fall from innocence" seems drastic and overtly pessimistic (at least in his word choices). He also references the efficiency of this new approach, which I find hard to qualify as either positive or negative.

I don't believe Babbitt conveys the importance of "the theory that familiarity breeds passive acceptance" (pg.4). Which, in his defense, may not have been as influential when this article was published but has many implications in contemporary culture. The virus like ability of the unconscious popularity is becoming one of the more influential forms of social change. 

[NoraG]

Like one of our classmates, who said that since he views films in a very different way than most people since he has been behind the scenes, his experience in a movie theater is much different than would be for you or me. Its because he understands the "movie magic" that accounts for every scene, and sees through it. Like seeing a movie and imagining the 42 takes that the actors had to recite their lines, it cheapens the overall effect of the experience. I find the same phenomenon when explaining design to people who haven't studied design. Think, before we got to sophomore year in COMD, we never looked at ads, posters or anything with any analytical thought. It was just as the public is supposed to view it, passively, while still getting a message. Now, as designers in training, we dissect an ad not for its cleverness or for its product, but for the kearning, the message, the typefaces, the overall composition. Learning the fundamental "timbre, dynamic, duration," etc, of design has given us a deeper sense of what design SHOULD be, and what it SHOULDN'T be.
And yet its all up to each person's experience with viewing designs, or listening to music. And it also depends on the intention, the point of making this art. For these "serious" music advocates, it doesn't matter if the layman gets it or likes it. I'd assume through this article that these serious musicians have honed their craft, and have a reason to be proud of the intense work put into every element. Just as a designer would be proud of a meticulously designed advertisement, package or poster. But what are their intentions? It could be seen as selfish to not care what the laymen think, but a musician creates for himself in these situations. Like when Babbit says  that the composer would be better suited to isolate himself, create music just for himself and not are about the public's reaction. This brings up the question of what is music (design) for? To reach the masses, or to satisfy one's own need. I think this is where design differs...if you are in advertising, your goal is to reach a broad audience, and to communicate effectively, to reach an end. In Graphic design, the aim may be similiar, but to a more aesthetic degree.
So maybe a designer SHOULD isolate himself, and do work for himself. But what service does this do but for himself? Does he make money, or affect the outside world? Not every "layman" will understand, and they may indeed say "I don't like it" with no reason to back up his stance. This may be a challenge to the artist to MAKE them like it, or it may be a fruitless effort, one that should be replaced with an effort to impress those versed in "good" music. I think there can be bad or good design, but it depends on the viewer. There can be neutral design, which reaches a layman's brain as simply a commercial interrupting their favorite tv show. What does the designer/composer wish to communicate, what audience does he want to reach, for whom is he trying so hard to master his craft? There is a place for every kind of art, and an audience who will accept it. You may make your art for those who are well versed in your craft, or for yourself, or to communicate to someone who doesn't have any experience with it at all. Its a challenge to the designer in each scenario, so the work, if it is genuine and heartfelt, is worth it.

[michael]

After reading this article I felt the need to know more about the
author. I went to Youtube and found a reproduction of his composition
Lagniappe (1985) written on and for Piano. While listening I stared
reading what people had written about the piece. NYC11104 wrote,
"Look, let's just get real... This music is "interesting" from a
structural and theoretical perspective, but it made me ask myself --
Why do humans want and need music in the first place? And does this
fill that need? If our ears can't latch onto any sort of pulse, pitch
center, or consonant interval, what's the point????"In rebuttal,
John11inch wrote, "So the use of music to humans is that it is an
object to which one can "latch onto any sort of pulse, pitch center,
or constant interval"? Your life sounds boring."
Both 11104, and if a bit crude in his proclamations, 11inch make good
points. Their argument in finding a role for, and meaning in,
regardless of who represents the layman and who the informed exists as
it would amongst an audience's reaction to any work of musical art.
Milton Babbitt is known best as one of the most influential surrealist
composers to date. He created artistic statements that represented
experimentation, breaking boundaries and people's preconceived notions
about what is classically "right" in music, while simultaneously
tapping into his target audience's collective emotional psyche. His
music and the listeners responses that were generated in regard to in
can easily be compared and contrasted to that and those of fine art.
But graphic design as a means of communicating something other than
itself is a different process. It cannot be left to the same kind of
interpretation.

[Chris Kelsch]

I identify with Babbitt's argument. How one determines what is serious comes down to one's interpretation. A composer's idea of serious may be decided by the level of music theory executed in the piece; but an untrained listener may describe serious as the mood portrayed. With the expansion in the popularity of music over time, it has become less about the performer and more about the audience attracted. Popularity is seen as successful when the product is influenced by the masses. This can be related to how one critiques design. An experienced designer may detest a piece if an inappropriate typeface was chosen (i.e. Georgia for print); opposed to an uninfluenced observer who may be substantially influenced by it. From the advancement in technology, both music and design reach many more audiences at an overwhelmingly fast pace.
Music has evolved to a point in which it cannot be described without a vague definition. Sometimes in my own experiences my parents have described some of the music I listen to as 'noise music'. The same thing could be applied to design. The advance of such programs as photoshop and illustrator have made traditional processes of design that were considered crafts to be unnecessary. A level of craftsmanship is required to type set led lettering, but anyone with ms word can make a flyer and print it. So have we come to a state that 'noise design' is the most influential media on society?

[Sabrina]

"I don't like it, and I cannot or will not state why." I found this part of Babbit's essay most relatable to what we often experience in class when discussing work. In this instance Babbit states that a concertgoer is secure in the knowledge that by viewing the concert his opinion is securely protected and validated; I'd compare that to someone solely viewing a piece of art and forming an opinion on it. Is this enough? I believe so, but I think a good amount would argue you have to read the blurb of an artist statement, and review the history of the piece. While this often makes the work increasingly interesting and clear to understand, it should be accurately understood on its own. Similarly to the way we stay quiet when coming to our portion of the wall in class, retracting the explanation and just listen to the class's initial reaction. For some reason though, we always want to clarify what we produced. Does this make something unsuccessful? I'm not sure. If it did then artist statements wouldn't exist. I can say however, it's satisfying when we "get it right", for instance in the work David hung up last week - I'd say it's successful solely  in that we understood what he was trying to visually communicate to us.. even if aesthetically we "didn't like it" (even though we all did). That brings me back to the point of "I don't like it, and I cannot or will not state why". I'm on the fence about this critique that I'm sure we've all heard. Sometimes I feel like saying it, sometimes I'm not sure why I do or don't like something - I just do (or don't). But it is important to articulate why, at least if you'd like to be taken seriously. All too often do I feel, as Babbit points out, "it has been remarked that only in politics and the "arts" does the layman regard himself as an expert". Especially while in school, it comes with the territory that students will think of themselves as the knower of all, or an expert at interpretation. Yet it can often be the case, as Babbit also states, we see the viewer's opinion was formed only because, "he found the hall chilly, the lecturer's voice unpleasant, and he was suffering the digestive aftermath of a poor dinner." But circumstances like these should be expected - and ultimately in any instance of life, outside of any form of art entirely, it's important to look at the source that an opinion is coming from. Maybe that's a little judgmental for me to say. Regardless I must say, over "I don't like it just because", I think "oh that's cute" is worse. Ha. Nothing is worse than "it's cute", unless we're looking at something that is intentionally the most "it's so cute I could die" thing ever created. Like two kittens jumping over a rainbow while holding paws, and smiling, and singing.. and landing into my arms. Haha. I'm not so sure if that was just related at all, but I remember a critique I once was given by another student (at my previous school) and all she said was "I think it's cute", and I think we were looking at black helvetica on a white pice of paper, and I wanted to kill her. Okay.. The end.