John Bell Young wrote:

>...  Certainly, it would have been far more prudent (and accurate) to say:
>
>"...in one of the unpredictable and incomprehensible sea changes of
>history, tonality has again become the preferred means, among composers
>whose principle interest is to pay lip service to the status quo, of
>compositional procedure".

Which status quo - the status quo in many places is certainly not tonal
composition.  It has been noted by many observers how uncomfortable it
is to be in the "wrong" camp at an institution.  Writing in a style
reminiscent of Carter is a sin in an institution that makes much of
pseudo-Schostakovich vocabulary as writing tonal music is in a city
where old serialists go to die.

>Now that would have summed up the situation neatly, and without
>misleading anyone.  The only thing that I see is unavoidable is the
>ludicrous suggestion from ill-informed quarters that tonality has some kind
>of monopoly on truth content.

Come now, there are equally ludicrous assertions from the other camp that
tonality is also devoid of interest having been replaced by more advanced
procedures.

>Indeed, I have noticed in recent years this trend at the NY Times; its
>prose is becoming increasingly sloppy, and the thoughts behind it even
>sloppier.

If by "recent" you mean the last 20 years...

Stirling S Newberry [log in to unmask]