RE: [tuning] re: costly "free" atonality

Carl Lumma wrote,

>>>I believe that worthwhile composition can also be done on large,
>>>microchromatic scales, where melodies are played locally, and the
>>>sense of a global source set is non-existent. In fact I believe
>>>this has been done with 12-tET in this century. Rothenberg's model
>>>still applies, to local events, but the usefulness of the model at
>>>this scale (ahem!) is questionable, IMO.

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

>>Isn't this "anti-procedure" what "free" atonality was all about at the
>>beginning of the 20th century?? -- Schoenberg and others?? Of course,
>>the "freedom" was costly, since there was a loss of organizing principle
>>leading to the "solution" of serialization... Yes??

Carl Lumma wrote,

>Many of those works may do it, but the movement is not about it, as far
>as I can tell. Rather, in Rothenberg's terms, the movement was about using
>proper inefficient scales. In fact, many of the serial methods are quite
>bent on treating the 12-tone scale as a single perceptual gestalt, wether
>90% of the population could hear it that way or not.

Carl, I think you're agreeing with Joseph rather than disagreeing with him.
He was talking about pre-serial "free" atonality, not the serial movement
which was a reaction to it. Read the above again!