"Technical mastery," exclaimed Dr. Goebbels, "is not an excuse but an obligation."
We can all agree with Dr. Goebbels there can we not.
"To misuse it for meaningless musical trifles," he continued, "is to besmirch true genius."
And we must admit that he was right there as well.
"Opportunity creates not only thieves," he went on - still with some justification - "but also atonal musicians who in order to make a sensation, befoul their works with the most atrocious dissonances of musical impotence."
I think he came off the rails rather with the word - disowned by Schönberg - "atonal." It is true that any composer who writes things - not only atonalities - just in order to "make a sensation" may be deprecated - we think of Shtrahfinski there do we not. But there is nothing inherently atrocious about atonality (whatever that is) or dissonance - both are legitimate opportunities.
And is "impotence" in the final phrase consistent with "mastery" in the opening one? Not if we are talking about the same thing, to wit, musical ability. But the phrase "merely technical" usually implies "unmusical," so I suppose that is all right. But in general we require more particulars.