SSC

..... Eh.

Ok, last time. Your definition is useless because it doesn't define anything specific to our argument. THAT IS, how does THAT definition translate into MUSICAL elements that I can actually see and hear.

I don't care if you think Mozart is a genius, I want you to tell me HOW in his scores and music you identify that "it's genius." Again, how does your definition apply to music itself. Neither of us have MET Mozart, and all we have is whatever is known of the history and the music left behind by him.

And, likewise, that definition given by the dictionary doesn't account for art which is in itself subjective.

If you instead wish to attempt mockery because you can't understand the simple principle that popularity != authority (and that indeed, WHO can claim to be an authority on something that changes from person to person with infinite different conclusions), then I'm afraid that it's impossible to continue the dialogue, if there ever was one.

In case you weren't aware, the composers you named as "authorities" on the matter of Mozart's genius were not aware of the entire output of Mozart as a composer by virtue of distribution of his lesser known works (single works were never published, and indeed, they were relatively unknown until the 20th century, though the exact date is obviously hard to pinpoint.)

The image of Mozart himself as a person has changed over time as more information and more research has been put into it. The same goes for Bach, we now know much more than Mozart or Brahms ever did about Bach.

So, any musicologist today can dismiss Brahm's or Beethoven's opinions as they clearly had limited knowledge from which to base their opinions. Not only this, but the world they lived in is entirely different from our world now, so what they perceived as impressive then today is nothing more than a footnote in a history book. It doesn't mean they can't be agreed with but it's good to remember that these are, after all, only opinions when related to the subject of "genius" or "talent" and they must be looked at within a specific frame of historical context for them to be properly understood.

Bach spoke wonders of Händel and admired Buxtehude, Couperin, Vivaldi, etc. Yet, why doesn't anyone admire those same composers with the same fervor they admire Bach? Clearly, Bach's work would not be what it is without those influences of the people he admired. Exactly like Mozart. Is Buxtehude "less genius" than Bach? Bach certainly didn't think so, so how does that explain Bach's popularity in contrast to Buxtehude's?

So really, with all that said, please do attempt to match up your definition of "Genius" with something that actually exists. Tell me how YOU judge genius because the dictionary definition is extremely poor for working with Music or Art.