Talk:Milton Babbitt

Philistine!

I don't get it... what's the point of a humor article if the humor itself is completely indecipherable? I can understand the symmetry and all that technical work, and even almost appreciate it, but I just don't understand what the point of this is. Humor is supposed to be laughed at, not quietly admired by so-called "Hilarity Academics" for its technical proficiency and subsequent obtuseness. I demand you replace its current abomidable state with my tasteful rewrite. -- User:Comic Purist

But what is the point of humor if we cannot advance and elevate it? I know your type, Comic Purist; you and your type just think you're just a bunch of comic purists, ordering people around about what they can and cannot laugh at. Well you know what? Who cares if you laugh? This article is not designed for laughter. The construction of its jokes may be abstract to the point of being "obtuse" and "academic," but we must not forget that humor is still a science, like mathematics. Like the sciences, humor would stagnate if it stayed in place. This article, and others like it, are constructed for the sake of advancement, pure and simple. As we advance humor with articles like mine, which arrange the jokes in serial order to ensure that no joke is said the same way twice, we can increase the efficiency of our articles to levels we've never imagined. -- User:SuddenlySerial

So then why constrict it with this completely unreadable, garbled mishmash? True humor is about leaving space for improvisation, alterations and moments of inspired genius! Not only is this article unfunny, but it is damnably damaging to the state of humor as a whole. -- User:Comic Purist

Putter forth to your own dead ends if you want, my articles will be precisely better than yours for the own reasons you describe as damnable. By organizing each character down to the smallest non-breaking space, I have created a state in which each joke the article contains is completely unique. Altering just a single point on this page would create a completely different article entirely, rife with whole new avenues for silent laughter. -- User:SuddenlySerial

But each article you describe will just be equally unfunny, despite their uniqueness! The layman's ears cannot appreciate such hyperoganized poppycock! It is a humorist's suicide to follow your approach. -- User:Comic Purist

So what if you get baffled by its hyperorganization? If you don't find it funny, then you can suck a dick. --User:SuddenlySerial

I was ready to write a lengthy, well-argued rebuttal to your "points" until I got to the point where you told me to suck a dick. To that, sir, I say that you should suck two dicks. Then three dicks, then four dicks, and all the way up to eleven dicks. Then, just as you get to twelve dicks, you only suck two dicks again. -- User:Comic Purist

You... you... heartless bastard! --User:SuddenlySerial

wtf is this shit

fuck im

what the fuck is goin on here i dont understan a single w3rd of dis shit fck yu milton rabbit whoever the fuck you are... n fuck milton freedman too,,, yeah i dont give a shit abot economics either, dooshes. suk on the rocks and shit, its all junk..... --76.24.29.178 03:09, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Told you so! Told you so! -- User:ComicPurist

Dude, you just don't get the point. -- User:SuddenlySerial

No you don't get the point. -- User:ComicPurist

Hey guys what's going on over here? -- User:John Cage

Ugh, go away Cage. You understand humor less than the other guy. -- User:SuddenlySerial

  -- User:John Cage

Smartass... -- User:SuddenlySerial

Featured Article (read another featured article)

Featured version: 19 March 2011

This article has been featured on the front page. You can vote for or nominate your favourite articles at Uncyclopedia:VFH.Template:FA/19 March 2011Template:FA/2011Template:FQ/19 March 2011Template:FQ/2011

As Milton Babbitt would say, "What the fuck?"

Hey asshole, SuddenlySerial or whatever the username is, we already have an article on Philip Glass, and now this article has been made repeating words and phrases somewhat like the Philip Glass article, giving us the impression that some aspects of Babbitt's output involve repeating over and over and over again in accordance to those Glass antics, as opposed to reality, where Babbitt's music vehemently resists repetition, at least any kind of repetition (including repetition of strings of sounds either forwards or backwards, which was really a feature of composers of the past before Babbitt) which produces meaning like the words repeated in this article. Either way I deem this article in its present state to fit the class of "stupid not funny". I'd appreciated if at least you had attempted anagrams, but going beyond that and making it into satire would require more than just that, such as relating to the technicality or dryness of Uncle Milty's speech, to his perceived elitism and kind of an unfunniness, and to the computer which he used to compose sounds, or which used him to compose sounds, whichever way that was. ~~elitist_asshole

All of the factors you list are right there inside the words you, with your lowly eyes, perceive as "repetitive." In fact, the article's starting phrase does not repeat a single time throughout the article, spare the exact center of it. What you can only fathom as "words" and "phrases" in fact encompass a multitude of ideas and jokes, just within a single character or sound. Octaves jump and reverse, get twisted and turned inside out, played with an oboe and colored a deep bloody crimson. Even the ancillary characters, such as spaces, punctuation, and additional wiki formatting are highly serialized. And all is told without breaking the tone row. This may make it seem like there is very little ostensible humor amongst the complex cloud of words, but wouldn't that just exact to the dry obtuseness that would make "Uncle Milty" proud? Even your contradictions render themselves immutable. Each one of your criticisms were right there before your very eyes, but now that I've had to explain the joke to a faux-elitist commoner as you, the academic value of the music might have just been bled drier than Claude Debussy's dusty old bones. -- User:SuddenlySerial

"Highly serialized"! Hah hah. Now that is funny. That you should care to express your desire to preserve the "tone row" is funny, too; stupid but funny, considering that tone rows are usually not heard (or, in the case of sheet music, seen) in any dimension or layer of the music, and increasingly less so as the composer's output matures. Nothing is musically said or told without breaking (e. g. partitioning) the tone row. The text would rather belong in an article on Schoenberg, in whose music tone rows are actually heard across the dimensions of the music. I wouldn't mind some prose, but some of us don't necessarily like to hear what we already know; we don't necessarily like to hear that Babbitt's music is obtusively dry; we don't like to hear that he is serious and unfunny and we don't necessarily like to hear that he's unpopular either. That's for Wikipedia or, if we prefer a more direct source, the music and words of Milton Babbitt. We came here for "Uncle Milty", who isn't more dry and serious or less fun and popular than his nickname implies. ~~elitist_asshole