Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardener
First of all, this implies circular logic. You base the claim that certain composers are geniuses on the fact that other composers called them such. And the judgement of those latter composers is valid because they are geniuses themselves. You're basing your justification of genius status on genius status.
|
Reaching a bit aren't we? Where did I call all these composers geniuses? In fact, I provided an example contrasting Beethoven's obvious compositional struggles with the polish of Mozart's composition.
Quote:
|
Also, since you imply that everyone who is called a genius by somebody you acknowledge as a genius is actually a genius, that means for example composer A (say, Schumann) declares B a genius (say, Bach), who declares C a genius (Buxtehude), who again declares other people (maybe his teachers, no idea who they were) geniuses, etc. So everybody in this possibly huge line is by your definition a genius.
|
Rubbish based on the mistaken premise from your first paragraphs.
However, it is true that a genius is much better placed to judge someone else as a genius than a regular man or woman. The composers I listed aren't necessarily all outright geniuses but because, as I mentioned in an earlier post, at least as hard working, better trained, and far more accomplished than anyone one this forum they are better placed to judge the geniuses than any of us.
Quote:
|
But not only that: You imply that if a composer finds another composer a genius or better than themselves that they actually are, so Buxtehude must in fact be better than Bach and the people Buxtehude admired must in fact be better than Buxtehude and so on. I think, by that logic you'll eventually find that the first humans were the universally acknowledged greatest composers of all times and the ultimate geniuses and everybody else is nothing compared to them...
|
Bach had high regard for Buxtehude but obviously considered himself better otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to improve on Buxtehudes work, which he did. Bach had high regard for a lot of composers. He sometimes took entire passages from pergolesi, vivaldi and others then modified it for his own use. However, Bach always knew (justified or not) that he was greater. Those that came after him certainly thought he was and they are in a far better place to judge than you and I. People like Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven, Brahms, and Mendelssohn.
Quote:
|
Nice contradiction between those two paragraphs. First you say the work of a genius is something "you just see" and doesn't need to be defined theoretically. Then you say that recognizing a "non-genius work" withing the "genius work" by Mozart depends on your analytical methods. Shouldn't by your logic everybody just spot which parts of this expanded Requiem are written by a genius and which not, "just like porn"?
|
Actually I never say it depends on your analytical methods. I say that analytical methods (such as the stuff they teach in schools nowadays, something I've spoken of in earlier posts) are insuffucient to capture the workings of a true genius and are incapable of reproducing that method. Being able to describe an invention in great detail does not provide one with the ability to create it. My point is that analytical methods are just that, analytical methods. This is precisely what I've been saying in this thread and others. Just because you can analyze doesnt mean you can create anything worthwhile. The great modern example is Robert Levin who bravely put his music in the middle of Mozarts.