Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
Don't take my word for it, take the word of people who are much better placed to make such judgements, like Beethoven, Schubert, etc... Why do they feel those composers were geniuses? Perhaps because Beethoven, Schubert, etc felt incapable of writing music as high in quality (in fact they said so) as that of those they deified. If those composers felt Mozart's music was the work of a genius then who are we to disagree?
In fact, anyone who listens carefully can easily hear the compositional struggles of Beethoven in his music when played on the same program with Mozart. I once had the opportunity to hear Beethoven's 7th played (by the superb Boston Baroque) immediately after an unplanned performance of Mozart's 29th (which substituted an aria when singer had called off at the last minute) and the contrast in quality was incredible. I'm not saying Mozart's 29th is better music (it's certainly less ambitious) but it certainly had a level of polish and cohesiveness that Beethoven's 7th lacked in comparison. It was like stepping out of a Rolls Royce and into a rickshaw.
You request a simplistic analysis of musical elements as if music is nothing more than a sewage diagram from the city planning office. In reality, the work of an artistic genius is much like porn ... you know it when you see it.
Hard work and training can only get one so far if they lack genius. Just look at poor Robert Levin who bravely put his music right in the middle of Mozart's Requiem. Can you, using your analytical methods identify which is the work of genius? If not, it's not because Levin is as capable as Mozart but because your analytical methods are lacking.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You really need to stop confusing products with people. Works of music are never themselves "genius" but when they are the product of a genius it's quite apparent. Someone with a good ear and mind upon hearing a similar work of Haydn and Mozart back to back would know which is Mozarts. There is a range of expression, a freedom and sophistication in the melody and counterpoint that is uniquely Mozart's. If you ever watched tennis, you can immediately identify who's got the most natural ability. Technique is great but there's no substitute for natural ability.
Quote:
|
And, likewise, that definition given by the dictionary doesn't account for art which is in itself subjective.
|
No work of art is a genius because only people can be geniuses. What you like or dont like is subjective. However it's perfectly easy to identify a piece of music or work of art as something only a genius could have produced.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You are now further attempting to prove that you and your cohorts represent a higher authority than the composers I listed. There really are absolutes in this world. Some people really are more capable than others, sometimes to such an extent that no amount of training an hardwork will help someone else catch up.
Quote:
|
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.)
|
One does not need to know the entire output. If mrs x leaps over an elephant unassisted on her first attempt and dies of a joy upon landing on the other side the fact that she had an incredible talent for jumping elephants is as indisputable as if she had been jumping elephants all her life.
Quote:
|
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.
|
We've certainly accumulated a mountain of facts and theories, none of which has helped anyone produce anything as intricate and sublime as Bach's best and most complex works.
Quote:
|
So, any musicologist today can dismiss Brahm's or Beethoven's opinions as they clearly had limited knowledge from which to base their opinions.
|
Musicologists who cannot compose music as sophisticated as that of Brahms or Beethoven will not be able to understand Mozart and Bach as well as Brahms and Beethoven no matter how many facts and theories they have accumulated. It takes a genius to truly understand one. The same is true in sports. For all the training people get nowadays, the only ones who can hit like Babe Ruth are the ones taking steroids.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Not at all. Genius has nothing to do with time. A person who can outrun a Cheetah in 10,000 BC is just as much a physical genius as someone who can outrun a Cheetah in 2008, perhaps more, since that person would not have had access to modern training methods, coaches, physiotherapists, sports psychologist, and Gatorade.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Since when does popularity determine genius? Your implication that there should be such a link pays too high a tribute to Britney Spears.
It's also silly to imply that a genius cannot be influenced by someone less talented.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The dictionary definition is often misapplied to products (a piece of music or art) and therefore can seem to work poorly but when correctly applied to a person then it works exceedingly well.