# New and improved insults



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I've been active here only a short time but have generally been impressed by the insults, specious characterizations, and various _ad hominems _in the tonal vs. atonal threads. However, there seems to be more and more repetition; only millionrainbows can be depended on for fresh material, and even he misses as often as he hits.

So let's skip the discussions and arguments entirely and cut straight to the insults. In accord with our fairness doctrine, you need to provide two insults, one for the tonalists and the other for the atonalists. I'll start with insults that should be easy to better.

To tonalists: "You're so stuck in the past that you wouldn't recognize great music if it chewed off both your legs and an arm."

To atonalists: "Yeah, I can see the black turtleneck, but how'd you get that beret on your pointy head?"

Anybody else?


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Tonalists: The 1800s called, they want their romanticism back.


Atonalism: I smell the air of other planets.. and it don't smell too nice.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'll do a visual version of this, if you don't mind KenOC:

For the tonalists, we've got a Romantic painting by Delacroix, symbolising the eternal struggle between the two foes -










For the atonalists, a more modern line drawing, with two mangy dogs fighting over a bone -










Or more depressing is a group of vultures feeding on a carcass, which is what many heated debates here degenerate to. & the result of this is the fish bowl effect, with people being paranoid to express their opinion for fear of being jumped on and eaten. How nice and intellectual. Not.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Some more images, this time historical cartoons/posters.

This one has Napoleon and an English guy (I think its Pitt?) carving up the world between them. Again, maybe like certain extreme cliques in classical. We in the middle are the world being carved up .










And this World War I poster has the message "Destroy this mad brute - Enlist"...in the war against [the music you don't like -atonal or tonal - as a fighter for something others on the other side of the fence should like, but they don't, no chance in the world]...but anyway, you gotta help the damsel in distress, NO MATTER WHAT!


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Do people who like atonal actually dislike tonal music?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

To tonalists: "nice baroque wig, is as fashionable now as your musical taste"

To atonalists: "(wife to husband) Argh!, those ******** of the construction site at the street did not let me sleep with their jackhammer... oh, you had your modern music on."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

To the tonalist: You're all theory and no heart.

To the atonalist: You're all theory and no heart.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

I guess this thread will be locked before long, but the humour is much appreciated. 

I'll just say: Who listens to classical anyway?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Seeing these, I prefer the old insults. Not all of them, but the quasi-subtle ones. Like, "A person less focused on the music of the romantic period...." That's pretty good. It's obvious, the person will certainly realize he's being insulted for not having as broad a knowledge of music, but it will not earn any unwanted attention from the moderators.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Cnote11 said:


> Do people who like atonal actually dislike tonal music?


Based on the scientific theory It Takes All Kinds, there must be such people. There are persistent rumors regarding the existence of people who like Country but dislike Bluegrass.

:guitar:


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

This whole debate is frankly a waste of good bandwidth and humour. It is an issue confined to those who have only a very narrow understanding of music. It's so "hobbyist" orientated. Its along the lines of another poll such as who is the better composer: Berg or Beethoven. 

This is a plea to have threads of more substance. Please!


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

KRoad said:


> This whole debate is frankly a waste of good bandwidth and humour. It is an issue confined to those who have only a very narrow understanding of music. It's so "hobbyist" orientated. Its along the lines of another poll such as who is the better composer: Berg or Beethoven.


Reminds me of this!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

crmoorhead said:


> Reminds me of this!
> 
> View attachment 9846


Wow! That is so _apropos_ that I feel the need to use the term apropos (which I am not at all sure is, ah, apropos.)


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Tonalist: Neanderthal
Atonalist: Cyborg


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

For tonalists:
Hitler: "I hate modern music!"
Stalin: "Me too, Adolf!"

For serialists:
"You say that your music is 'pure art' and has no utilitarian function; but I have found it to be quite useful during the summer months in killing mosquitoes!"


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I never insult anybody.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

To tonalists : I love tonal music !
To atonalists : I really love atonal music !


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Another visual one. Breugel's painting of the battle between Carnival and Lent. The fat guy is tonal, the skinny one atonal. One has lots of money and is a total sell out and throws big parties, he's popular with the masses and therefore cheap and lowbrow. The other one is dirt poor and lives on the smell of an oily rag (& government grants so his music can be performed for a bunch of pretentious intellectual academics), and he is very highbrow.

I'm pretty sure that's what Breugel meant with his painting. After all, neither tonal or atonal music had been invented then, but mere facts don't bother me anyways. My agenda is more important than those, of course!

But one thing is clear. Its just like these debates online. These guys aren't sitting on real horses. They're on fake 'hobby horses.' Get my drift?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

"I smell the air of other planets, and it don't smell too nice ". 





ROFLOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KRoad said:


> This whole debate is frankly a waste of good bandwidth and humour. It is an issue confined to those who have only a very narrow understanding of music. It's so "hobbyist" orientated. Its along the lines of another poll such as who is the better composer: Berg or Beethoven.
> 
> This is a plea to have threads of more substance. Please!


Fat chance.


----------



## Orpheus (Jul 15, 2012)

Tonalist: God-botherer.

Atonalist:



millionrainbows said:


> For tonalists:
> Hitler: "I hate modern music!"
> Stalin: "Me too, Adolf!"


GodWIN-botherer.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> Seeing these, I prefer the old insults. Not all of them, but the quasi-subtle ones. Like, "A person less focused on the music of the romantic period...." That's pretty good. It's obvious, the person will certainly realize he's being insulted for not having as broad a knowledge of music, but it will not earn any unwanted attention from the moderators.


Yeah, like what I've been insulted by a certain member today, and also in the last week or two by him and his fellow ideologues. Can't name names though. Here are some examples of the real, not joking, type of insult:

- You don't know what you're talking about
- You don't know your history
- You are a liar
- You are contradicting yourself

& it can go on. Of course mostly not said straight like that (these people are gutless) but with fancy weasel words.

This was in one post today, directed at me. So there you go! If I have an opinion that is equally valid and contradicts another persons, you get this rude bully behaviour. Or if I make a conclusion different to the mud-slinger's but based on similar or same facts, it all goes downhill from there.

My advice? Either ignore it or politely say that you don't put up with this rude behaviour, and get out of the discussion. Don't go down to their level. The people I hate are those that treat people on this forum according to whether such people agree with them or not. If I agree with you, you're in my good books. If I don't, you're in my bad books, and I flush you down the toilet.

Apartheid, anyone?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

You're presuming that they don't have some valid point in their criticism. I wouldn't know, as I haven't been following such arguments. I haven't since the second week I joined here; I learn quite quickly. I've far more important things to do than partake in endless tonal vs. atonal debates, as if they somehow matter. I do quite like the millionrainbows chap, though. I still haven't figured out what this "other forum" he keeps blabbering about is. Perhaps one could do with shooting me a private message...

But I just wanted to point out that those statements you listed aren't necessarily insults... perhaps you're aware of that. I do not mean to propose a lack of intelligent thought on your behalf.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^What I was talking about was not on any of the tonal vs. atonal debates threads. It was on another thread which did overlap with issues of the sort, but it was not exactly focused on that. But I like both those kinds of music and many other kinds. So the debate is not of great significance to me. I'm sorry I can't be more specific, but unfortunately this type of things has happened to me often when I just say my opinion. Or even if I back it up with what I've read, etc. Fortunately people who do these extreme tactics are a small minority here. But what a minority! That's why i compared it to Apartheid. The minority have a way of controlling the majority. So I have decided to stay away from any threads even vaguely controversial like that one. & not make any threads on potentially controversial issues myself. So many times these people have the nerve to question why I'm making a thread in the first place. Because I can, that's why. I don't need their approval, all I have to do is play by the rules (which they know very well, since they're experts in evading them). I have as much respect for them as used car salesmen, seriously.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> Do people who like atonal actually dislike tonal music?


Only the tragically hip


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> Reminds me of this!
> 
> View attachment 9846


One could hope that hobbyist and professional alike would have some skills in discussion, since all have signed up for a forum which is, uh, 'discussion.' I'm still somewhat naively surprised that anyone who claims to 'listen' to music lacks that very same skill when it comes to discussion. And if that skill is lacking, it always makes me wonder what they are actually hearing when they 'listen' to music


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> One could hope that hobbyist and professional alike would have some skills in discussion, since all have signed up for a forum which is, uh, 'discussion.' I'm still somewhat naively surprised that anyone who claims to 'listen' to music lacks that very same skill when it comes to discussion. And if that skill is lacking, it always makes me wonder what they are actually hearing when they 'listen' to music


The attribute 'good listener' has multiple meanings, covering considerable ground.

Skill in discussion requires a vocabulary good enough to express one's opinions, without immovability in those opinions or forgetting that vocabulary can be a tool for communication and not a bull whip. (That 'bull' was carefully chosen.)


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> One could hope that hobbyist and professional alike would have some skills in discussion, since all have signed up for a forum which is, uh, 'discussion.' I'm still somewhat naively surprised that anyone who claims to 'listen' to music lacks that very same skill when it comes to discussion. And if that skill is lacking, it always makes me wonder what they are actually hearing when they 'listen' to music


I agree. Sometimes it seems like those who have a great deal to contribute to discussions have very poor skills in doing so and those who are perhaps more eloquent (or participatory) lack the experience or knowledge to speak with authority. Not that I have anyone in specific in mind, but that the two are unfortunately entirely independent. I'm more cynical in that sometimes I think that the internet is dominated by those with access to a keyboard and wikipedia/google. Whoever has the time to type the most seems to set the agenda without ever having to make any sort of common sense whatseoever. Having worked for years in customer service, I don't really have any illusions that the general public, even that portion of which is supposedly educated, has a very high level of intelligence.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> I agree. Sometimes it seems like those who have a great deal to contribute to discussions have very poor skills in doing so and those who are perhaps more eloquent (or participatory) lack the experience or knowledge to speak with authority.


I question the way you've framed the issue of "skills."

"...those who are perhaps more *eloquent (?)*(or participatory) lack the experience or knowledge to speak with authority."

I can't agree with the descriptor "eloquent" since most of my effort in these discussions is in clearing-up crudely vague generalizations. To me, many of these are not "discussions" but simply empty rhetoric and ranting.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I never insult anybody.


On a personal member-to-member level, that's true.

But when it comes to insulting composers, that's a completely different thing....


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I question the way you've framed the issue of "skills."
> 
> "...those who are perhaps more *eloquent (?)*(or participatory) lack the experience or knowledge to speak with authority."
> 
> I can't agree with the descriptor "eloquent" since most of my effort in these discussions is in clearing-up crudely vague generalizations. To me, many of these are not "discussions" but simply empty rhetoric and ranting.


I would respectfully disagree.  My point is simply that discussions are often hampered by people having a lack of eloquence to the point that the debate degrades interminably into repetitions, misunderstandings, irrelevancies and revisions. Like a good clean kill, an eloquent argument does not require a series of bloody thrusts being made indiscriminately. Some people have a great deal of knowledge, but are poor at constructing a cohesive post. Others are very capable of being civil and to the point. Intelligent people, I find, can add to a conversation without necessarily being the most knowledgable in the subject at hand.

I was also making a slightly different point to PetrB, who was suggesting that if someone can't listen to what other people have to say then it somewhat undermines their critical ability when it comes to other areas vis a vis the music. An arguable point, but certainly one that is worth careful consideration. I take the view that listening to one another becomes much easier if people have the skills to communicate the knowledge they possess more efficiently.

You, as far as I understand it, are trying to say that (in your experience) the more tenacious arguments are not a result of miscommunication or diluting the original point by bringing in many irrelevant issues, but for some other reason. Since we are communicating with each other in textual form, often at length, I do see eloquence as the key ingredient to a successful debate. Once it starts to drag, it is an _unsuccessful_ debate in my opinion.

I'm also unsure how relevant this discussion, so I'll make it my final comment on the matter.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I question the association of 'eloquence' with 'empty rhetoric', because I associate eloquence with graceful economy, i.e. elegance - in the sense of craftsmanship.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

*This thread was not created for the purpose of discussing who insulted who, or what sparked a personal insult to another member. We are straying severely off topic here, and the thread will be closed if this continues. *

The original thread post is copied here:



KenOC said:


> I've been active here only a short time but have generally been impressed by the insults, specious characterizations, and various _ad hominems _in the tonal vs. atonal threads. However, there seems to be more and more repetition; only millionrainbows can be depended on for fresh material, and even he misses as often as he hits.
> 
> So let's skip the discussions and arguments entirely and cut straight to the insults. In accord with our fairness doctrine, you need to provide two insults, one for the tonalists and the other for the atonalists. I'll start with insults that should be easy to better.
> 
> ...


And now, we return you to our regularly scheduled broadcast ...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Not much point in keeping it open. It's been a while since anybody stuck to the thread topic. Just another failed attempt to substitute humor for vituperation, and probably the wrong strategy!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well yeah, and I'm the one who derailed it. My full apologies for that.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KRoad said:


> 1.) This whole debate is frankly a waste of good bandwidth and humour.
> 
> 2.) This is a plea to have threads of more substance. Please!


1.) This is minimal waste of column space compared to the tonalist vs. atonalist thread, imho.

2.) Many of us would be most pleased if you would start one


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

if they tore of his arms and legs he would be a great atonalist.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Atonalist: You insulted me by saying that John Cage is a fake.

Tonalist: Well, before I insulted you, you made some statements about why you think people in general don't like John Cage's "music" _(and I'm doing you a favor by calling it music)_, which I interpreted as insulting to me personally, as well as to non-atonalists as a whole. And why should you feel insulted about my John Cage statement? You're not John Cage.

Atonalist: True, but I like John Cage, and thus his public persona and his music are symbols of my extended personal space. Cage is the "symbolic center" of the group of people who like his music and atonalism generally; so if you insult Cage, you insult us.

Tonalist: That may be true generally, but not in this forum. Ad hominems must be personally directed. If I insult John Cage, that is perfectly alright. He is just a public persona, not a forum member. Besides, he's dead.

Atonalist: Okay, then let's keep this thread on-topic by pretending that music is not that important to us, and I'll start attacking Beethoven, who I really like, but since my tastes are more comprehensive, I can get away with, just so you can see how it feels.

Tonalist: Ouch, that hurts! But not as much as listening to John Cage man-handle large hanging rectangles of sheet metal. And are you saying my tastes are constricted?

Atonalist: You are obviously ignorant of the fact that the "sheet metal phase" occupies a very small part of Cage's output.

Tonalist: Are you calling me ignorant or stupid because I don't like noise? My two-year old could do that! In fact, my two-year old has already produced a full series of twenty "Jackson Pollock" paintings, each one 8' x 12', in which the Museum of Modern Art has shown interest. And what's wrong with Beethoven?

Atonalist: Beethoven is bearable from his "da-da-da-daaaah!" period and later, but only because his late works foreshadow the inevitable death of tonality.

Tonalist: Are you saying music "evolved" into that crap Schoenberg produced? No, the good music did not evolve, it sprang into existence by God's will, and remained there until Schoenberg destroyed it.

Atonalist: He did not! He was just the messenger! Tonality contained the seeds of its own demise.

Tonalist: Are you saying that tonality has an inherent "genetic flaw" which killed it? Heresy!

Atonalist: Yes, and the people who listen to it are retards.

Tonalist: Good, my bait worked! Now you can get banned for ad-hominems, and I can post "Banned posters are unpersons. They do not exist. They never existed. Their posts have not been deleted because there were never any posts from the beginning." Ha ha, I win!

Atonalist: [Deleted on May 15, 2012 1:25:57 PM PDT]


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Atonalist: You insulted me by saying that John Cage is a fake.
> 
> Tonalist: Well, before I insulted you, you made some statements about why you think people in general don't like John Cage's "music" _(and I'm doing you a favor by calling it music)_, which I interpreted as insulting to me personally, as well as to non-atonalists as a whole. And why should you feel insulted about my John Cage statement? You're not John Cage.
> 
> ...


This is the last post of this forum. The forum is complete everybody, we can all go home, its all been done now.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Tonalist: I'd rather you stifled me with chloroform first, now that would be a surprising development.
Atonalist: *An atonalist sits and stares at his friend listlessly for an hour and a half* So, how did you like my symphony? Remember that movement where I picked my nose? Yeah, that's my favorite, too. You can just hear the texture there. Oh, and I'm sorry I messed myself halfway through. My performance wasn't finished.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

"My two year old could do that."

"Well, no. Actually, your two year old could not do that."


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

PetrB said:


> "My two year old could do that."
> 
> "Well, no. Actually, your two year old could not do that."


But look, he's doing it right now! What did you say? He's not practicing theory, just doing it accidentally? And what's the difference with your music?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Uh-oh. This thread has gone nuclear. The only thing to do is close it, delete it, and ban everyone who has posted to it - - - for the good of mankind and all the little fishes.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Uh-oh. This thread has gone nuclear. The only thing to do is close it, delete it, and ban everyone who has posted to it - - - for the good of mankind and all the little fishes.


But that would include you too.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Atonalist: You wouldn't know a retrograde inversion if you were standing upside down looking into a mirror.

Tonalist: Oh, so this serial music is like those modern paintings that look the same if they're hung upside down?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Tonalist: Oh, so this serial music is like those modern paintings that look the same if they're hung upside down?


Well, Schumann complained that he liked Chopin well enough, but could never tell if the notes he was playing were those intended.  Plus ça change and all that.

Anyway, if you hung a serialist piece upside down, you'd simply have the same work in retrograde inversion, perfectly valid one would think!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Anyway, if you hung a serialist piece upside down, you'd simply have the same work in retrograde inversion, perfectly valid one would think!


I wonder what a Beethoven sonata would sound like in retrograde inversion? Probably atonal, since literal inversion changes chord qualities, etc.

This might be relatively easy to accomplish as a file in a MIDI editor. Hmmmm...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Tonalist: That's the worst bunch of crap I've ever heard!!draeh reve ev'I parc of hcnub tsrow eht s'tahT :tsilanotA


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Tonalist: That's the worst bunch of crap I've ever heard!!draeh reve ev'I parc of hcnub tsrow eht s'tahT :tsilanotA


Jeez-UM. I'm outa here.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Condescending Tonalist thread idea: "Contemporary Music Which Doesn't Suck"

Condescending Atonalist thread idea: "Symmetrical Set Elements Remaining Invariant Under Transformation"


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Atonalist: as long as one individual enjoys the music there is nothing wrong with the music even if everybody else does. the fault is with the listeners, NEVER the composers'. The composer is the god.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

A very wise man once said, *"Art, real art, is always going to stick out like a sore thumb". 
* 
This is my Lebensmotto from now on, which is why I'm devoting myself to death metal. _The sorer the thumb, the more real the artwork must be. _But I feel that death metal isn't enough for me, its intrusiveness has been absorbed into the bourgeois middle class indie culture of Pitchfork America. I seek something more grand, more intrusive, more sore, universally sore, something on the level of "Lucifer's greatest work of art", perhaps even grander, since that is also being gradually forgotten. I am seeking something that will be sore for all of eternity.

Is anyone on this forum familiar with nuclear physics? Better yet, I would like to know this wise man's favorite Wagner and Mahler conductor, or, better yet, his favorite Musetta.

Incidentally, the five year anniversary of the death of the wise man's wise approaches. He was a great composer & thinker who devoted his life to music. He was the first to create all-electronic music (Varése did his "Poeme Electronique" earlier, but it comprised real sounds as well as electronic ones). Stockhausen empoyed the laborious method of "additive synthesis" using the only sound-sources available at that time, sine-wave generators. Also, by "subtractive synthesis", using white and pink noise generators and filters, he created sounds. These methods led to modern-day synthesisers. 
Stockhausen's earlier written scores are notorious for their abundance of dynamic and tempo markings, and wide leaps. It may be that he was foreseeing a precision beyond human execution.
Stockhausen produced writings about time, tempo, and all aspects of music that explore very precisely the questions of music & perception. 
He was one of the first to produce "live" electronic music in concert settings, in which the performers actually played, without the use of tapes.
He is included on the cover of "Sgt. Pepper" next to W.C. Fields.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> A very wise man once said, *"Art, real art, is always going to stick out like a sore thumb".
> *
> This is my Lebensmotto from now on, which is why I'm devoting myself to death metal. _The sorer the thumb, the more real the artwork must be. _But I feel that death metal isn't enough for me, its intrusiveness has been absorbed into the bourgeois middle class indie culture of Pitchfork America. I seek something more grand, more intrusive, more sore, universally sore, something on the level of "Lucifer's greatest work of art", perhaps even grander, since that is also being gradually forgotten. I am seeking something that will be sore for all of eternity.


Who is being quoted here, Stockhausen? I suspect that this is sarcasm, because of the Death-metal slur, but may I remind everyone here that *sarcasm does not translate well on-line,* so the best policy is to just say what you mean.



brianwalker said:


> Is anyone on this forum familiar with nuclear physics? Better yet, I would like to know this wise man's favorite Wagner and Mahler conductor, or, better yet, his favorite Musetta.


What are you talking about?



brianwalker said:


> Incidentally, the five year anniversary of the death of the wise man's wise approaches. He was a great composer & thinker who devoted his life to music. He was the first to create all-electronic music (Varése did his "Poeme Electronique" earlier, but it comprised real sounds as well as electronic ones). Stockhausen empoyed the laborious method of "additive synthesis" using the only sound-sources available at that time, sine-wave generators. Also, by "subtractive synthesis", using white and pink noise generators and filters, he created sounds. These methods led to modern-day synthesisers.


Yes...BTW, one of the only consumer "additive synthesis" modules was the Kawai K5. The Yamaha DX7 used FM synthesis, which is a form of subtractive synthesis.



brianwalker said:


> Stockhausen's earlier written scores are notorious for their abundance of dynamic and tempo markings, and wide leaps. It may be that he was foreseeing a precision beyond human execution.


Or it might have been the German penchant for precision. I think all the leaps and markings were part of his serial process, personally.



brianwalker said:


> Stockhausen produced writings about time, tempo, and all aspects of music that explore very precisely the questions of music & perception.





brianwalker said:


> He was one of the first to produce "live" electronic music in concert settings, in which the performers actually played, without the use of tapes.


Yes, and these were all released on DG vinyl. Too bad that most are not available except on his German label, which does not accept PayPal, but only Deutschemarks, which you have to transfer through a bank. Expensive, too.
_**Recent edit: after a search, I discovered that Paypal can now be used! Hooray!*_



brianwalker said:


> He is included on the cover of "Sgt. Pepper" next to W.C. Fields.


Yeah, yeah. Yeah. We know. Should tonalists be insulted?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Who is being quoted here, Stockhausen?


I'm quoting Shakespeare now, and Wagner.

"_But break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue.

Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel? Methinks it is like a weasel. Or like a whale."_

- *William Shakespeare, Hamlet*



millionrainbows said:


> I suspect that this is sarcasm, because of the Death-metal slur, but may I remind everyone here that sarcasm does not translate well on-line, so the best policy is to just say what you mean.


_Das kann ich dir nicht sagen; und was du frägst, das kannst du nie erfahren._ - Act II, Tristan und Isolde.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Some of us know a guy (online) who enthusiastically identifies with King Lear. I identify with Falstaff, and consider it the only deeply ethical choice. But in the spirit of the thread: 

Tonalist to atonalist: In this conversation, I remind myself of Hamlet speaking to Polonius.

Atonalist to tonalist: In this conversation, you remind me of Polonius speaking to Hamlet.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Tonalist: "Waaaa!
Atonalist: "Awwww!"


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Tonalist: "I think Stockhausen is utter crap!"
Atonalist: "Sorry to hear about the temporary ban, dude."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> But look, he's doing it right now! What did you say? He's not practicing theory, just doing it accidentally? And what's the difference with your music?


Lol. Adults who are in no way related to me -- and don't even know me or what I look like -- find it holds their attention more than once.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

LordBlackudder said:


> if they tore of his arms and legs he would be a great atonalist.


Your posts make me laugh in a way that reminds me of laughing my 'bad influence friend's' jokes when I was 8 years old.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Atonalist: Who resurrected this old, forgotten thread?

Tonalist: I did, because I can't derive pleasure from simply listening to the music I like; I have to disparage other people in order to derive maximum pleasure.

Atonalist: What do you for a living?

Tonalist: I'm a prison guard, and my wife is a dominatrix. If you ever feel the need to be degraded, let me know, and I'll arrange a session.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Atonalist: Who resurrected this old, forgotten thread?
> 
> Tonalist: I did, because I can't derive pleasure from simply listening to the music I like; I have to disparage other people in order to derive maximum pleasure.
> 
> ...


There is nothing bad about liking them :angel:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

To an aspiring instrumental performer:

"The best thing for you to play is the radio."


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Ned Rorem calls the hated atonalists "serial killers ".


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Tonalist (Hershey's): "Hey! You got symmetrical rows in my tonality!"

Atonalist (Peanut butter): "Hey! You got harmonic outcomes in my atonality!"


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Tonalists: "Watch out! These serialists are going to drive music off a harmonic cliff!"

Atonalists: "No need to worry. Tonality is still intact."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/positive_music_test.asp

That site is an insult to anyone's intelligence, atonalist or tonalist!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Tonalists: what you used to call tonal is no longer such to modern standards, thus you are now outdated by definition!
Atonalist: sometimes you are like me...
(that is an insult)


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Modalist: you tonalists and atonalists are all a bunch of b**** a***** f*****


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

To Tonalist: I hear dead people...

To Atonalists: Have you tried Arrhythmia yet?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Medieval. I'm a fan of the torture, not the music. Or, are they the same?

quote hpowders


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Hey you atonalists masquerading as musicians: I'll rank you guys so low, you'll have to look up to look down!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Mozart never had a mustache... or did he sport one?


----------

