I hope your teacher, Gavin, pointed out to you that the serialists, generally speaking, were political conservatives (Babbitt a Republican, at a university!) whereas some of the more famous neo-tonal composers were open or closet communists.

Without having read the essay, I imagine that the argument goes that the "equalization of tones" reflects a political disposition favoring economic homogenization. From a purely social standpoint, however, you have to consider that serialism, especially in the United States, was a tool for creating social-aesthetic stratification: those who "get it" and those who don't, an attitude inherently opposed to homogenization (i.e., "music for the people," the rallying cry of Copland and others).

My screed didn't fare so well, and probably contributed to my getting kicked out of the college. It's now something I rather regret; a childish rebellion against a probably misguided professor (also driven by emotional issues at the time).

The fundamental question that made me turn my mind was "Is music art?" If it is art, it must express something, and if so, it needs a vocabulary, and vocabularies are necessarily limiting. Read whatever the Church has said of the bombing of Hiroshima in 1945, then listen to the "Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima". Which one gets the idea through to you better? "New and fresh" are buzzwords better used for selling political commentators' books. What we must be after, as musicians, is an expanded vocabulary. I have my doubts as to what serialism can serve us (although is not service to the text a serialized component of form?), but to dismiss any musical innovation on the basis of its innovation is narrow-minded and not suited to the artist.

"A new style is different than a destruction of all previous styles in the name of doing something new, or a sense of 'throw it all out because it's old'."
I await Linda offering a composer who advocates destruction of all previous "styles". The general idea is a (perhaps overly fetishistic) veneration of the old: after Beethoven, what more can we do with sonata form? After Bach, what more can we do with counterpoint? Those who write in the style of Palestrina after Palestrina are writing garbage, those who write in the style of the French Romantic masters are now writing garbage. If one wishes to make a statement (and there are many to be made about our great Christian faith, and the beauty of the Catholic faith of this board), one cannot suffice to repeat poorly what others have said. Tournemire is a great example of one who used the chant melody with a modern harmonic language. Messiaen said, rather, that no more can be said than what was said 1300 years ago.

As for me, I throw out nothing. I am preparing a recital in which I will follow a two-year-old minimalist organ work with one of J.S. Bach's masterworks. Both have a place, because both successfully used the vocabulary of their time.

Relatively new to this forum, I found this thread when I searched on "octatonic" ... because my setting of Non vos relinquam orphanos is an octatonic modal piece (as is Andrew Carter's haunting "Wakefield Service" - Magnificat & Nunc dimittis). But, since this thread started out being concerned with Milton Babbitt, serialism, mathematics, numerology, etc., I really wish to remark on a connection I had with Babbitt that comes from my background as a mathematician.

Babbit was indeed brilliant and had no small knowledge of mathematics, although perhaps not the sort of mathematics you might think of (ie. not numerology), but rather the mathematics of theorems (there are indeed mathematical theorems and facts about music other than the simple harmonic overtone series that, in utilizing ratios amongst small numbers leads to just intonation). With serialism (and its antecedant twelve tone theory), it is not surprising that Babbitt concerned himself with equal temperament.

Indeed, Babbitt discovered and proved what is known as the Hexachord Theorem, that says if the twelve chromatic notes are divided into two equal groups of six notes each, then the the two groups are interval equivalent: eg. if the twelve notes are constrained to lie within an octave, then the total number of minor seconds and major sevenths in one six note set is the same as the total number of minor seconds and major sevenths in the complementary six note set; the total number of major seconds and minor sevenths in one set is the same as the total number in the other set; and so on for total numbers of minor thirds and major sixths, for total numbers of major thirds and minor sixths, for total numbers of perfect fourths and fifths, and for numbers of tritones. Thus, for example, if the twelve chromatic notes are partitioned into I = (C D D# E F# B) and II = (C# F G G# A A#), then we have in each six note set:

minor seconds and major sevenths = 3
major seconds and minor sevenths = 3
minor thirds and major sixths = 3
major thirds and minor sixths = 3
perfect fourths and fifths = 2
tritones = 1

The total number of intervals in each set has to be 15.

I learned of the Hexachord Theorem as a graduate student from my Ph.D. adviser, the mathematician (topologist) Ralph H. Fox, who had recently vetted Babbitt's rather elaborate proof of the Hexachord Theorem and subsequently found a simpler proof (that had further immediate mathematical generalizations). That Fox himself was an accomplished musician was an extra benefit for me. I was fortunate enough that Fox had me turn pages for him at one of his piano recitals, nice because Babbitt and Roger Sessions were both in attendance (actually I had lived across the street from Sessions for a couple of years, in the home of the late astrophysicist, Henry Norris Russell).

Thank you for your kind words and interest. The score Non vos relinquam orphanos is attached. Here is a synthesized MP3 of the piece.
Giffen-Non vos relinquam orphanos
You'll see (and hear) how the second verse and alleluia are the strict inversion of the first verse and alleluia. And the third verse is a double canon by inversion.

PDFs and sound files of all my published choral works may be found at my composer page at CPDL. Any feedback would be most welcome.

OMG!
Where have you been hiding, Dr. Giffen? This has been missing from real liturgical intercourse (pardon, but no other word suffices at this moment for me) since the early 70's with Bielewa of S.F. State and Vincent Persichetti.
There's tons of sacred texts set to innovative melodic, harmonic vocabularies that have crossed our paths, but few have "dwelt" from within the liturgy as seems does yours as represented here. Under Frank LaRocca at CSUEB I fiddled in the mid-80's trying to do my best Berg with serialism that tried to evoke the human voice with sacred text, arggh.
The heart and the ears, so entwined in this piece. And, for comparison purposes only, the voice leading is more accessible than Kevin Allen's (in, eg. "Tantum ergo.")
Bet your last dollar we're doing this in the fall.
Thank you, Charles
another Chaz

Francis, Charles, and Jackson ...

I am truly touched by your favorable comments. It is gratifying to know that others sense the Divine spirit the inspires my choral writing. It means that I must have been doing something worthwhile. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Now ... if only people might somehow find the awe and magnificent mystery of the Nativity in my O magnum mysterium for three choirs (SSAT - SATB - ATBB).