Now that this thread has re-opened, here's what I'd have posted to it had it not been closed earlier.
I believe the gentleman concerned has done a magnificent job of painting himself into a corner, all by himself - he doesn't need any help from us, and there seems no need to rehash his views any further here
I see that, having previously poured scorn on a particular person, you now refer to him as a "gentleman"; that said, whatever he may have done and however magnificent you may perceive it to be, it is certainly not painting himself into a corner, as what I have read of his writings clearly reveals someone whose widely divergent interests in all manner of musics would alone ensure that he would not even fit into one.
To sum up my own views (as a performer who has performed Schoenberg works as a soloist at the St Petersburg Philharmonia...)... it seems to me that the case cannot be made for Schoenberg as the Prometheus, or Janus, of C20th music.
I would be genuinely interested to have details of the AS works that you have performed. However, I am not aware that anyone has sought in the first place to make out a case for him as the "Prometheus, or Janus, of C20th music"; the fact that he was a figure of great importance in the music of the first half of that century does not of itself make him either of those things, particularly given that - as I wrote earlier - there have been numerous other musical "turning-points" during the time that Schönberg/Schoenberg worked and none had in any case sought to overthrow tradition or the music of the past. This last is perhaps of especial importance in relation to Schönberg/Schoenberg in the light of the fact that he spent far more of his time teaching about Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Wagner, Brahms et al than he did in expounding his dodecaphonic methodologies in composition classes.
Serial composition was an intellectual affectation which quickly fizzled out, and which has had no influence whatsoever on the music of the C20th. It has not just died out - it's been actively jettisoned. Composers have instead taken greater interest in aspects of music which are not pitch-related - rhythm, duration, tempo, timbre, colour, overtone, instrumentation. In these areas, Schoenberg contributed nothing . . .
To begin with, serial composition was no more of an "intellectual affectation" than were the disciplines of species counterpoint which, it could be argued, really did largely "fizzle out", albeit over a longer timescale, because Western musical language was developing away from it; on the contrary, it was just one means to an end whose incipit and history paralelled those of many other compositional persuasions during the past century.
There is a order issue with the first six words of your second sentence (a verbal hexachord? perish the thought!); it should have read "it has just not died out". It holds sway nowadays rather less - and rather less widely - than once it did, for sure, but it has certainly not bitten the dust altogether, let alone been "actively jettisoned"; had either been the case, dyn would have been unable to cite dodecaphonic works by sixteen composers chosen (I imagine) more or less at random without any intention to present them as a comprehensive list - and the fact that most of them span the final three quarters of the past century demonstrates clearly that it survived at least that long, albeit without attaing any kind of primacy.
David Matthews, for example - fine composer as I believe him to be - has not "actively jettisoned it"; he has simply not espoused in in the first place because he has not found it conducive to what he wants to express or the ways in which he wants to do it and I have no doubt that other composers could say the same (of whom one is writing here now).
Your closing gambit about composers having prioritised "rhythm, duration, tempo, timbre, colour, overtone, instrumentation" is both misleadingly disproportionate and unclear; do you mean that composers have only in more recent times (i.e. post-Schoenberg) abandoned dodecaphony in favour of music whose principal thrust is less pitch-related? I would disagree even with that in general terms, but your lack of clarity here is also in the "when" of this, by reason of your observation that Schönberg himself had "contributed nothing" to those six aspects of musical creation (presumably at any time during his creative career), a remark so bizarre as to cast all credibility into oblivion!
