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 <a writer>") 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)

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)