D. Stephen Heersink wrote:

>That fact that my edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't
>contain the word "duodecaphonic" or "twelve tone" further supports some
>people's perception that they are "outside" ordinary use -- both
>linguistically and musically.

Well, Mr. Heersink, MY version of the American Heritage Dictionary etc.
etc. (hard copy) on p. 1931, bottom of the left column, lists "twelve-tone
adj. Music. Relating to, consisting of, or based on an atonal arrangement
of the traditional 12 chromatic tones." This is also the Third Edition,
just like yours.

While this type of music is not always my very favorite, I can often
wring some pleasure from it.  Notice, please, that we are all IN a music
discussion group, and our moderator is allowing us to discuss atonal music,
serial music, modern music, doudecaphonic music, which does place this type
of composition clearly within the scope of "music" ... whether you think it
is not music or not.

You said in your previous paragraph:

>But "talking about" duodecaphonic compositions is not the same thing
>as believing they are "musical, harmonic, or melodic."  Talking about
>duodecaphonic compositions vis-a-vis agreeing that they fit the
>conventional definitions of music, melody, or harmony are distinctively
>different activities and modes of thought.

Would you therefore be surprised to discover the many conventional
compositional techniques used in 12-tone compositions? Rhythms in many of
these pieces that you dismiss are also conventional rhythms, and can even
be notated using standard notation.  Some of the "random" patterns of the
music actually sound quite pleasant to my ears, especially after a few
listenings.  And chromatic harmony had already been stretched (as many
folks have pointed out) by Wagner, so 12-tone was a very logical next step
in experimentation.  But my purpose is not to apologize for the genre.
My purpose is to encourage a discussion that will begin just where your
unhelpful objections must eventually stop.

Look, we are all arguing about a simple matter of taste, here.  I have
no idea why it causes so much rationalization, definition, hair-splitting
and discomfort.  I am very willing to admit atonal music into general
discussions of music.  The compositional techniques (especially
contrapuntal!), use of rhythm, harmony, form and melody certainly do follow
traditional pathways although the sounds are very different from, say,
Baroque or Classical composition.  Many of these compositions can even be
notated in conventional ways and played on genuine musical instruments.
What is the problem? if we do NOT call it music, what shall we call it? It
isn't knitting or bee-keeping.  It cannot be eaten or smoked.  It's MUSIC,
damnit.

It's a very silly discussion indeed that keeps going around and around
over "what is music" ... at some point I'd rather see people sharing their
favorite atonal compositions with me, and talking about how they came to
enjoy them.  I'd appreciate as much specific information as possible!
That way, perhaps my own musical life will be enriched.  But standing on a
battle-field with pitchfork in hand, making one's own plot of farmland an
"atonality-free zone" is hardly the way to expand musical knowledge.  It
also makes for tedium in message reading that far exceeds the time it takes
to hear and enjoy one little Weburn burst of color and understand it the
way one "understands" fireworks or a splash-sound of a pebble in a quiet
pool.

Let's focus on what's GREAT in music of all kinds.  Complaining about what
we hate is too simple and easy, and far too general to take seriously as
criticism.

Mimi Ezust <[log in to unmask]>