I didn't write ego=disonance I gave it as an example of how some use it not for musical effect, but just for the sake of breaking the rules of harmony(where we are predisposed to react to)coz their big Ego feels they are more important than the music is(disonance is PART of music like harmony is, can you maybe think first next time?). The point I was making is that music should be a spiritual/transcedental experience and that to me is the antithesis of a huge ego.
That point is fine. However, you made claims that go far beyond that, which I find remarkably disrespectful to some very fine composers. Above all, you're trying to use extremely speculative concepts to prove something about Baroque music, that just doesn't add up. Have you never heard of Wagner's art-religion? You think only Baroque composers were spiritual? And look at Scriabin! Could there be any greater combination of spiritually AND extreme ego? It may be an antithesis to you, but history bears out the fact that it wasn't an antithesis to countless composers.
You're using speculative and assumptive justifications to try prove a uniqueness the Baroque period- for no other reason than to fit a preconceived theory that you hope to be true. When I point out that your reasoning implies something other than what your want it to suggest, you're not interested in less convenient implications. You only like the bits that seem to support what you wish to believe. So, if Baroque composers are spiritual that lead them to write purer music without dissonance. But the fact Messiaen composed atonally for God is left on the cutting-room floor, despite illustrating the former to be founded on weak ground. I am just illustrating that your reasoning does not add up, when you look at a wealth of counter-examples.
I as a listener don't care about personality of the musician, only the music. And I detest composers who want to leave their mark ruin the music with dissonance coz music has taken second place to their grotesquely huge ego
If we assume that there is no contradiction between the two sentences, obviously it's the dissonance you object to, not the ego? Not only did Bach involve some rather extreme dissonance, but so did Messiaen- to as great an extent as any composer. Messiaen regularly did atonal improvisations to God (breaking each and every rule of harmony ever put together), that nobody was around to listen it. Ego? If you dislike dissonance that's fine, but please do not try to portray your tastes as being founded upon objective reasoning. Your theories do not stand up.
but I've discovered that some people just don't want to understand, their stuck in their own little world and all they hope to accomplish is by spamming
the message with as much ridicule as possible they discredit the information they haven't even tried to understand.
A sense of discrimination is a positive and everyone has one. If I "want to understand" some magic beans that will supposedly give eternal life, I'm going to end up getting conned all over the place- unless I scrutinise what is being claimed. I look at things with an open mind. If they do not add up, I do not allow desire for them to do so to override common sense. If they add up, I have regularly changed my mind about things altogether.