Listening to Babbitt: Perception and Analysis Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LISTENING TO BABBITT: PERCEPTION AND ANALYSIS OF MILTON BABBITT’S DU FOR SOPRANO AND PIANO by ERIN L. SULLIVAN (Under the Direction of Adrian Childs and Susan Thomas) ABSTRACT This paper explores the ways in which scholars can approach and meaningfully discuss the music of Milton Babbitt. Critics argue that the standard discourse constructs a binary division between how Babbitt’s music works and how it sounds—that is, the system-based analytical approach engenders an attitude that the only elements of Babbitt’s music warranting serious consideration are theoretical conceptions, not aural perceptions. An examination of Babbitt’s writings will reveal the motivations for, and importance of, this system-based discourse in the analysis of “contextual” musical languages. However, this rhetoric has its limitations as well, thus the second part of this paper offers an alternative, listening-based approach to Babbitt’s music by exploring the vivid interplay of compositional structures, poetic text, and perceived meaning of musical gestures in Babbitt’s song cycle, Du (1951). This paper concludes by suggesting possible means of reconciling aural perceptions and compositional structures within a larger framework of serial poetics. INDEX WORDS: Milton Babbitt, Serialism, Music Theory, Music Analysis, Music Discourse, Du, Song Cycle, American Music LISTENING TO BABBITT: PERCEPTION AND ANALYSIS OF MILTON BABBITT’S DU FOR SOPRANO AND PIANO by ERIN L. SULLIVAN B.S., Mary Washington College, 2003 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2005 © 2005 Erin L. Sullivan All Rights Reserved LISTENING TO BABBITT: PERCEPTION AND ANALYSIS OF MILTON BABBITT’S DU FOR SOPRANO AND PIANO by ERIN L. SULLIVAN Major Professors: Adrian Childs Susan Thomas Committee: David Schiller John Turci-Escobar Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to convey my sincere gratitude to my major advisors and committee for their unflagging encouragement and guidance throughout the thesis-writing process. Susan Thomas was the first person to convince me that I had a topic worth pursuing, and her direction over the past year and a half has significantly broadened my thinking on musical discourse and contemporary musical scholarship. Adrian Childs has been an impeccable editor, and his insightful comments have shaped this current project and inspired me to pursue future research. Patiently serving as my sounding board for new ideas, John Turci-Escobar has provided me with more books to read and thoughts to ponder than can possibly be addressed in this paper. His contributions have been invaluable. Finally, since my first semester at The University of Georgia, David Schiller has played an active role in helping me formulate arguments for this thesis, and also contributed much to the poetic analysis in Chapter Two. In addition, this project has benefited greatly from conversations over the past year with Joseph Dubiel, Marion Guck, and Christopher Hasty, among others. Their genuine interest in my work and constructive suggestions are most appreciated. Lastly, I wish to thank my friends and professors at The University of Georgia and The University of Mary Washington for their ongoing support. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................iv LIST OF EXAMPLES..............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................viii INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER ONE: The Musical Discourse of/on Milton Babbitt ..................................................6 I. Theory and Analysis........................................................................................................7 II. Music Criticism.............................................................................................................19 III. Words about Music .......................................................................................................26 IV. Analytical Alternatives..................................................................................................33 CHAPTER TWO: Views of Du ................................................................................................41 I. Wiedersehen – See Again.............................................................................................. 47 II. Wankelmut – Fickleness................................................................................................51 III. Begegnung – Encounter.................................................................................................55 IV. Verzweifelt – Desperate ................................................................................................57 V. Allmacht – Omnipotence............................................................................................... 60 VI. Traum – Dream .............................................................................................................62 VII. Schwermut – Melancholy.............................................................................................. 64 v CHAPTER THREE: Perception and Analysis...........................................................................67 I. Comparing Analyses ..................................................................................................... 68 II. Future Research.............................................................................................................77 BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................80 vi LIST OF EXAMPLES Page Example 1: “Wiedersehen,” mm. 1-2 ........................................................................................48 Example 2: “Wiedersehen,” mm. 4-8 ........................................................................................49 Example 3: “Wankelmut,” mm. 20-24 ......................................................................................53 Example 4: “Wankelmut,” mm. 24-27 ......................................................................................54 Example 5: “Begegnung,” mm. 39-40.......................................................................................56 Example 6: “Begegnung,” mm. 44-46.......................................................................................57 Example 7: “Verzweifelt,” mm. 53-56 ......................................................................................59 Example 8: “Allmacht,” mm. 75-77 ..........................................................................................62 Example 9: “Traum,” mm. 78-80 ..............................................................................................63 Example 10: “Traum,” mm. 90-92 ............................................................................................64 Example 11: “Schwermut,” mm. 103-105 .................................................................................66 Example 12: “Schwermut,” mm. 99-100...................................................................................72 Example 13: “Verzweifelt,” mm. 49-53 ....................................................................................73 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: Trichordal Array, “Wiedersehen,” mm. 1-5................................................................69 Figure 2: Vertically Sounding Trichords, “Wiedersehen,” mm. 1-2...........................................69 Figure 3: Trichordal Array, “Wankelmut,” mm. 25-28..............................................................70 viii INTRODUCTION The standard discourse1 associated with the music of Milton Babbitt has received considerable attention from critics, arguably more attention than the music itself. The aspersions wielded at Babbitt and like-minded theorists—cries of “musical parsing,” “academicism,” and even “fanatical scientism”—suggest that this discourse, like his music, is widely perceived as being “for, of, and by specialists.”2 However, despite their distaste for these recondite analyses, many of the same critics consistently acknowledge the overall appeal—or at least the historical 1 As will become clearer over the course of this paper, the “standard discourse” I am examining forms a tenuous category; it has incorporated a plurality of discursive styles and approaches over the years. Yet the received view of traditional post-tonal theory and analysis, particularly as traced to its chief polemicist, Milton Babbitt, is consistently criticized. Thus my discussion of the “standard discourse” equates to an investigation of what this discourse has come to represent, for better or for worse. 2 The quote is extracted from Milton Babbitt’s infamous 1958 article, “The Composer as Specialist,” assigned the more inflammatory title “Who Cares if You Listen?” and reprinted in The Collected Essays of Milton Babbitt, ed. Stephen Peles with Stephen Dembski, Andrew Mead, and Joseph N. Straus (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2003), 48-54. (Hereafter all citations of Babbitt’s articles will refer to this collection.)