[log in to unmask] writes:

>I was showing you that Debussy's decision to dismiss large-scale form in
>favor of motivic coherence was a major step toward the *evolution* of the
>12-tone system.  It wasn't *suddenly* invented as you imply over and over
>again.

First let me say that Long before Debussy....people were writing in the
cyclic fashion wherein the melodies and what not became as important to the
coherence to a work as the formal outline itself.  Schumann is one example
as well as Liszt.  You may comment on Debussy all you want....I really have
nothing to say about him.  However, I think it to be a big difference
between simply adhering to a style and setting guidelines or formulating
a system for that style.  Many works prior to Schoenberg have 12 tone-ish
moments and atonal suggestions.  Take the Overture to Egmont.  There is a
section..which uses several chromatic tones in a melody without repeating
any of them.  Some people have even analyzed some sections of Bach chorals
as being atonal.  Schumann often times used chromatic sequences which are
quite similar to tone row fashion.  These composers used similar tone
sequences in their music which point towards 12 tone music.  However,
someone decided to make a system of composition in this style.  That is
what I'm saying.  Surely someone didn't say "Hey...we have 12 tones all
together.....we can write music with all 12 tones and put it into a system"
before Schoenberg or whomever is truly credited with systemizing the 12
tone theory.  Or perhaps someone did......I think it to be rather that
people were writing increasingly chromatic music leaning ever closer to
12 tone music but someone hd to drive the first pin towards formalization.
Whatever the case.....noone can ever really know the inside details except
for those who took this information to the grave with them.  But I
appreciate your opinions as I hope mine can be appreciated as well.

>I am very aware that I combined two completely different statements--the
irony is that these statements came from the *same person*.

As far as this goes.....I don't really see any reasonable explanation for
combining two different statements of mine and turning them into something
I never said.  Regardless if they both came from me.....they are not
contradictory nor have I ever said them as one statement.  That's like
taking two hypothetical quotes of mine....."I like milk.......it is very
good."  "As far as Racism is concerned......I hope it ends sometime soon."
And turning it into..."As far as racism is concerned.....it is very good."
I never said that nor would I ever.  I think statements should be copied or
quoted clear and seperate.

Responding to my quote:

>>I found your posting to bea littel on the rude side and aimless.

John wrote:

>Rude? Maybe I should have inserted a little happy face here and
>there.Remember, I didn't tell poor Professor Chasen to quit his day job,
>(areyou ok, Prof.  Chasen?), or consider a major branch of 20th-Century
>musichog-vomit!  I know you were speaking tongue-in-cheek--I was too!

Yes..I thought your comment about the intellectual spanking was rather
unnecessary......I'm sorry you seem to feel that I "spank" people.  the
honorable Mr.  Chasen and I have communicated away from this mailing list
as well and all things are good.  perhaps you should ask him if his
feelings are hurt BEFORE you accuse me of hurting them.  Also.......  12
tone music is hog-vomit!  I never said this.  I said some music sounds to
me like hog-vomit.  I didn;t say this about 12 tone music in general or
about all 12 tone music.  I also didn;t say this about any particular 12
tone work or composer.  I honestly cannot fully remember what it was that
I said but I know for certain I didn't say flat out that 12 tone music is
hog-vomit.  That is just a throw away statement I would never make.  I mean
you no harm sir.....I don't mean anyone harm.  Noone has written me telling
me so.  I have only gotten some nice emails from some quite nice people on
here.I apologize if you were offended by my openness.

--Wes