Dave Lampson writes on "Atonal" music and the origins of derisiveness:

>It's my belief that if we can get some idea where we are,
>we might be able to start looking to the future of this music - we have
>to know where we are before we can know where we're going sort of thing.
>Perhaps this is not necessary.  Perhaps in the end it will work itself out,
>whatever that might mean.  Right now it's a bit confusing.

As I am coming to believe, labels and definitions, (means of describing
where we're at at one point in time, where we're going, and where we've
been and why), can unintentionally cause derisiveness--right now I think
we're supposed to be Neo-Romanticists.  (As absurd as my being a
neo-stethovore.)

A concurrent thread discusses the possibility that modern orchestras are
possibly shying away from programming Baroque and Classical music because
such music has become the property of HIP-sters.  I find the phrase HIP
a perfect example of a label that unintentionally invites derision:
Any performance that is *not* Historically Informed, must be, well,
Historically *Un*informed--and what a bummer for those who might prefer
their Bach by the Philadelphia.  By it's very definition, the phrase HIP
draws people into either the right camp or the wrong camp, as opposed to
accommodating the idea of alternative camps.  Unsurprisingly, heat is
generated in discussion.

So what is it about "atonality," that generates such heat as to divide
people into derisive camps, when in actuality the word shouldn't suggest
anything more than an aesthetic alternative? The word itself is certainly
objective enough.  So it must be a matter of association.  It's my
Friday-night-glass-of-wine-feeling that atonality somehow had to became
the proverbial candle in the dark.  (How many critics had to eat their hats
after maligning Berlioz, Wagner, Debussy? The music sounds so wrong, it has
to be right.) But if atonality is the light, then tonality has to be the
dark.

Bummer, 'cause I like the dark.

John Smyth