Jeremy Wright:

>I think that atonality is thought...tonality is not thought, it is the
>natural form of things.

I believe that these are misconceptions.  Schoenberg is no more thought
or less emotion than Bach.  There are composers who are mainly cerebral,
composers who are mainly emotion, and most composers probably a balance
of the two.  It has nothing to do with tonality/atonality, but with the
composer's artistic personality.  Atonal dodecaphony is simply a tool of
expression, as is tonal species counterpoint.  If you can find a composer
more emotional than Berg, I'd like to know who it is.

As for the "naturalness" of tonality:  tonality is a construct, not
natural.  I know someone will bring up the overtone series and Pythagorean
ratios, but this is acoustics, not music.  Tonality as a construct has had
a run of about 400 years.  Since most of us are less than 400 years old,
it might seem "eternal," but it was definitely "built" and has historical
traces.  Tonality hasn't, of course, stood still for 400 years.  Composers
extend the concept all the time.  I would agree with Stirling Newberry,
however, that atonal serialism belongs mainly to a time at least twenty
years old.  I haven't seen any really significant, exploitable extensions
of it since then.  I also agree with Stirling that tonality vs.  atonality
is probably less significant for the future of music.  Minimalism, the Last
Big Thing, for example, can be tonal or atonal - that opposition is not
particularly relevant to the principles of the music.  We're both waiting
for (and in at least Stirling's case has achieved) something really new.

>I am not sure all about the struggles of atonal classical music..if
>anything, people don't like it becuase there usually is no catchy tune to
>atonal music.

There are few catchy tunes in the Rite of Spring as well, but that seems to
be a hit.

Steve Schwartz