Zyla, your last post was a long one, but the response I just deleted, in which I answered each point, was even longer, hence the deletion. What follows is mercifully slight. Hopefully it does not seem slighting, as well.

Your point is that tonal music is superior because it's best at creating expectations, it's more subtle, it inspires emotion (illustrated by non-musical people crying at movies).

If all that is true, then the advocacy seems puzzlesome. If tonality is so obviously superior, then why does it need to be defended? Two things certainly happened in the 20th century--a lot of people concluded that tonality had been developed as far as was possible, so that different means of structuring pieces had to be found, and a lot of people continued to write tonal music, some of it very fine indeed. I don't see that there's much to say about either thing. People in the first group came up with some interesting ways to make music that didn't rely on tonality--people continue to do that. People in the second group had to constantly battle the inevitable: that their music was going to sound like it had already been done. As indeed it had. You can do good things in either case; the one that looks forward is likelier to continue doing good, though, I'd think. And with less despair. Why write like Brahms, for instance. One, Brahms has already done it. Two, you can't really do it, 'cause you're not Brahms. All you can do is pastiche. If you're Cage, better to be Cage and be done with it!

Otherwise, expectations and subtlety and emotion are all possible with new musics (nontonal ones) just as much as with tonal musics. The only way to prove that (if proving's what you want) is on yourself, by listening to more music. That's how you came to like what you like now, isn't it? Just keep doing that, I'd say. I can only repeat that I find all the things you find valuable in nontonal musics, and I find a lot of other, also valuable, things there that aren't in tonal music to the same extent, if at all.