BY Q UOTING in its entirety the second of Henry Weinberg's Three Songs (1959), and providing a twelve-count on the score, we relieve ourselves of the problems of talking usefully about unavailable music and of defining the sense in which such music is (or is not) twelve-tone.1 A cursory (if informed) inspection will be enough to identify it as postSchoenberg as opposed to post-Webern. Unlike most of Schoenberg's twelve-tone music, however, it does not use combinatoriality, does not always complete the row-form, and often allows one tone to represent elements of two or more forms (or segments of forms). The forms shown in our twelve-count are in fact only the main or most direct ones, and various indirect ones (which it would have been too complicated to show on the score) are also present. Thus, for example, the voice's F#-Bb which begins a section at m. 10 also completes a half-row beginning C#-G-F-E, which arises through alternation of adjacent tones and registral distinction of the C and Bb (themselves forming a previously emphasized motif). The alternations in mm. 8-9 of the vocal line even have the effect of making the entire six-tone content interpretable as based on the form M71, instead of the one shown in our count. More usually, such alternation is used to set up an interval in both directional senses, which then belongs to simultaneous forms containing that interval in the respective directional senses (e.g. the F#-Bb in m. 14). More in the Schoenberg tradition is the device of preparing a transpositional relation of simultaneous forms (itself predetermined by some other factor, usually combinatoriality with Schoenberg, but here, on the contrary, the appearance in different forms of identical-as opposed to complementary-content-groups) by prior motivic emphasis on associations of small groups of tones which will arise out of the combination when it arrives. This can be seen especially with the various special treatments of C, B, and Bb in the opening measures, preparing the combination at m. 5 of the forms beginning F#-Bb-C-B and E-C-Bb-B. I do not propose to attempt to analyze the whole piece in terms of this kind, partly because the interested reader can do it for himself, but more particularly because this kind of analysis, no matter how convincing its separate assertions, is particularly difficult to convert into a deductively explanatory form. Thus we cannot say that every specially treated motif (even supposing we give an exact sense to that phrase) turns out to prepare a combination of forms, nor the converse. If gen-