Re: [crazy_music] The arrogant incomepetent ignoramus Arnold Schoenberg

> From: <xed@...>
> To: <crazy_music@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 11:45 PM
> Subject: [crazy_music] The arrogant
> incomepetent ignoramus Arnold Schoenberg
>
>
> Joe Monzo agreed not discuss Schoenberg on this list.
> Alas, he proved unable to keep his promise, since he
> has now posted 2 more discussions of Schoenberg.
> Obviously I can't let that go unanswered, so here are...
> wasting our goddamn time again.
> What a completely worthless way to use the
> internet.

Wow, what a coincidence. I've just spent the entire day
and night responding to the accusations you made to me
in your post of Sunday, July 15, 2001 12:45 PM, and came
to exactly the same conclusion.

I still haven't finished that one, and now here is another
one from you which requires a response. This one will be
very brief. Then I'll send the other one and _sayonara_.

------

> Joe Monzo has admitted that he has a problem with
> internet addiction. I have watched Joe Monzo sit in
> a closet (where his computer is located) typing
> mathematical minutiae for the Alternative Wanking List
> for hour after hour after hour after hour after hour
> while his girlfriend called out to him to come to
> bed. "In a minute," Joe replied...and then continued
> typing, and typing, and typing...and typing...and
> typing. I had to leave -- and when I left Joe's
> apartment, he was still typing, and his girlfriend
> was still calling out to him to come to bed.

Brian, I spent all day on a response to you because
I felt that it was necessary to reply to your false
accusations about me. But in truth, I really don't
give a damn what's said in public or private about me,
because I know what and who I am and and have enough
confidence in my value to society to not care.

But you've really crossed the line here. Revealing
these aspects of my private life which you witnessed,
in an archived public forum, is an outright violation
of my ex-girlfriend's right to privacy. She values
her privacy far, far more than I care about mine, and
I have been very careful on my website to reveal only
the tiniest bit of information about her and our life
together.

This was a blatantly wrong thing for you to do.

--------

As for Schoenberg, read this and tell me what the hell
is different about what *you* wrote *against him*, because
I don't see one bit of difference, especially the third
paragraph [this all came from one paragraph - I broke it
up for easier reading]:

>> Perhaps it is indefensible to try to derive everything
>> that constitutes the physics of harmony from one of the
>> components, say, just from the tone.
>>
>> Some characteristics can be derived from the tone, however,
>> for the very reason that the constitution of the ear, the
>> organ predetermined to receive tone, at least relates to the
>> constitution of the tone somewhat as do well-fitting concave
>> to convex parts.
>>
>> One of the three factors, however, the world of our feelings,
>> so completely eludes precisely controlled investigation that
>> it would be folly to place the same confidence in the few
>> conjectures permitted by observation in this sphere that we
>> place in those conjectures that in other matters are called
>> "science".
>>
>> In this sense it is of little consequence whether one starts
>> with a correct hypothesis or a false one.
>>
>> Sooner or later the one as well as the other will certainly be refuted.
>>
>> Thus, we can only base our thought on such conjectures as
>> will satisfy our formal necessity for sense and coherence
>> without their being considered natural laws.

He's saying here exactly the same things you've been saying.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> From: monz <joemonz@...>
> To: <crazy_music@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 2:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [crazy_music] The arrogant incomepetent ignoramus Arnold
Schoenberg
>
>
>> Perhaps it is indefensible to try to derive everything
>> that constitutes the physics of harmony from one of the
>> components, say, just from the tone.

That and its sequel should have had the citation:

Schoenberg, Arnold. 1911. _Harmonielehre_, p 16-17.
English translation: Roy Carter, 1978, _Theory of Harmony_, p 19.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

[Monz wrote:]
>But you've really crossed the line here. Revealing
>these aspects of my private life which you witnessed,
>in an archived public forum, is an outright violation
>of my ex-girlfriend's right to privacy. She values
>her privacy far, far more than I care about mine, and
>I have been very careful on my website to reveal only
>the tiniest bit of information about her and our life
>together.

>This was a blatantly wrong thing for you to do.

Mclaren, this is very unfortunate. Please leave Monz's girlfriend out
of your posts.

As far as Schoenberg goes, now that it's clear that you and Monz
disagree, why not agree to disagree? If you are determined to have
the last word, why not say, "Fine: you'll never comprehend my pearls
of wisdom, so I'm going to quit trying," or words to that effect?

In any event, I ask you again _please_ use more courteous language.
No matter what point you're making, insults add no light, only heat.
I don't doubt that you love music passionately, but writing
multi-hundred line diatribes won't help spread the word; it'll only make
people delete your posts without reading them (as some have already
hinted they're doing), or drop off this list (as some have already
done). Even if you think insults are fully warranted, won't you
consider that they obscure the message you're trying to get across?

I find it helpful, when I'm really hot, to write a nasty screed, read it
back to myself with satisfaction, then start over. I usually end up
with something a lot shorter, more courteous, and more to the actual
point at hand.

JdL