Talk:Arnold Schoenberg
This article is cramping my style. --
TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 
00:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't know what's funny about this article, the same crap is written on real Wikipedia. How about some creativeness? -- 91.50.243.224 15:02, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I love the article. I think it's the combination of the objective, neutral tone and encyclopedic style of the article and the trashing of Schönberg's music that I like. Schamschi, 20:13, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
This article sounds exactely like the wikipedia article. How about a bit creativity? -- 88.73.92.103 22:54, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? Or do you think it's "funny" to repeat what the first Anon said? Superficial resemblance to Wikipedia is a good thing. The substance is very different. Spıke Ѧ 23:37 3-Jan-14
If You're Going To be Funny, Be Funny[edit]
This isn't clever enough. If you wish to make fun of Schoenberg, get right inside his art and choose the mots justes that ping his shortcomings. He was a most serious artist. I, too, decried his works until I studied them. I don't love his music, but I understand and revere them as Art, just as I do the efforts of painters and poets and others whose products don't please me, but whose sincerity and achievement is beyond serious question by those who delve, instead of adopting the sophomoric stance of sneering at anything beyond their understanding. A sound - and humorous - critique of Schoenberg's work would be welcome, even by the man himself. But not undergraduate yocks.121.44.172.222 10:07, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
- You are welcome to improve this article or work on a new one to replace it (if it gets voted to be deleted). This isn't a featured article so all users can work on any article. Registered users have more access rights than an I.P. number and others can talk to you if they agree or disagree with changes to an article. --
RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 10:55, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
