Beethoven’s Music was Simple, Rhythmic Modes, Automorphs and Middle Eastern Music

Originally Posted by almacg

I think the point was that solely theoretical ideas could never have produced Mozart's Requiem.
However, there are plenty of other 'masterful' pieces throughout history that could not have been written through a mathematical or entirely theoretical approach, including some very recent music.

You're right, that was probably the major point. However the way it was formulated sounded like he was saying two things: What you said and that music written today is inferior to Mozart and Beethoven. I replied to the latter, but it's quite possible that I simply misunderstood the point (as I also read it in context of his signature).

The way I see it, is that you don't have to be 'musically knowledgable' to be able to imagine incredibly complex music, but if you want to actually get it down on paper, then you do!

Well, if you truly can imagine this music in all detail, with every single voice, exact instrumentation etc. then you don't need much musical knowledge to write it down. You just need to be able to read/write notes, which you can learn rather quickly.

But such imagination is also something you can develop, partly through training (and this doesn't necessarily have to be "learning music theory"). I don't think anybody is born with an infinitely detailed and complex musical imagination.

Musical knowledge doesn't have to be verbal, or theoretical. If an ever so autistic guy is producing music that makes sense (writing or playing), I would say that he does "comprehend music theory"--he just doesn't know the terminology, and the concepts might be on a somewhat less conscious level. It's just a matter of nomenclature. I would say that you do need to be "musically knowledgeable" to make music--however, it doesn't necessarily matter if you get that knowledge from a book, from a teacher, from listening to stuff, or whatever; and it doesn't matter if you know the names of the concepts you know.

Take Johann Sebastian Bach, for instance. He learned his craft from studying scores, and from listening and occasionally talking to other musicians. It is perfectly conceivable (though I'm just speculating) that he couldn't name any of the concepts he would use in a fugue, nor pass the entrance exams for a modern conservatory. (Consider that of the fairly large amount of didactic material he produced, only the forewords are in German--the rest is music.) Yet would you say that he lacked knowledge of counterpoint? And a jazz musician of the old school (before jazz was accepted in educational institutions) may have no idea what the scales he's playing are called, but he still possesses a great deal of knowledge, even though he has no words for it.

Originally Posted by EldKatt

Musical knowledge doesn't have to be verbal, or theoretical.

HANDWORK,



AND PRACTICE.


That's all you need to write like Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, whoever you want to name. Or, well, more importantly? Yourself.


(I'm agreeing with you 100%, too. I was able to write fugues and general counterpoint-style pieces without being able to name anything I was using in "scholar" terms just by diligently studying scores and copying, copying and more copying until the thing just "clicked" after so much practice. I actually failed an entry exam in counterpoint (which shocked everyone!) but that's just one of the million flaws with institutions that "teach" music. Specially music theory.

Bach picked up everything he knew just like I did (I copied his method actually, lol) Copy, copy, copy, copy. You pick up all the "rules" just by virtue of repetition and, well, developing what I call the "handwork". It's the only way to really master a particular musical idiom in my opinion.)

Originally Posted by SSC

HANDWORK,



AND PRACTICE.


That's all you need to write like Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, whoever you want to name. Or, well, more importantly? Yourself.

No offense SSC but many have made the above claim yet no one has ever been able to prove it. Simulating the style is one thing, producing music that's genuinely inspired and moving is something else all together. There are combinations of patterns that these composers have produced that can only come from a mind that has the capacity to imagine on a scale that's simply beyond most of us. By analyzing such music we can determine most or all of those patterns but reverse engineering the feat through a step by step process has thus far proven impossible. Just ask Robert Levin. I'm sure he worked hard. I'm sure he practiced alot.

Having said that I do agree that one can learn a lot by copying. However knowing rules has nothing to do with being a good composer. There have been good composers who care nothing for rules yet countless others who know all the rules and produce pedantic garbage. Just because I know the rules and theories behind tennis doesnt mean I can win Wimbledon. Ultimately it just comes down to talent. This applies in just about every sphere of life, from sports to business to art.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

No offense SSC but many have made the above claim yet no one has ever been able to prove it.

Goes to show you probably never tried it yourself.

So, let's have this conversation in a couple of years after you've done it.

I think you're talking about different things. The way I read SSC's post (of course, SSC can correct me if I'm wrong), the point is that you don't need book smarts, as it were, just handwork and practice. Seraphim's point is that you also need creative talent. Is anyone really disagreeing with anyone?

Originally Posted by EldKatt

I think you're talking about different things. The way I read SSC's post (of course, SSC can correct me if I'm wrong), the point is that you don't need book smarts, as it were, just handwork and practice. Seraphim's point is that you also need creative talent. Is anyone really disagreeing with anyone?

I don't know if he actually understood what I said, honestly. It just seems to me that he's prone to discrediting any study what so ever in the name that "It's pointless unless you're a genius." :>

So, really. Dunno.

Without acquired knowledge and skills, even a genius is indistinguishable from any nobody. The difference is that the genius, once having begun to learn, has the capacity to go further.

While it's quite possible that "solely theoretical ideas could never have produced Mozart's Requiem", it is also clear that solely creative "genius" could never have produced it either. Immense technical skill was needed as well. Without "genius" qualities (whatever those are), not everyone may be capable of acquiring that amount of technique, but it's still technique.

Not even to mention that one person's "genius" is another person's "bleh". Respecting, loving, or admiring the quality of the output of those composers is one thing, worshipping them as supreme beings another. I find critical study and reflection much more worthwhile than a personality cult.

Originally Posted by EldKatt

Without acquired knowledge and skills, even a genius is indistinguishable from any nobody. The difference is that the genius, once having begun to learn, has the capacity to go further.

While it's quite possible that "solely theoretical ideas could never have produced Mozart's Requiem", it is also clear that solely creative "genius" could never have produced it either. Immense technical skill was needed as well. Without "genius" qualities (whatever those are), not everyone may be capable of acquiring that amount of technique, but it's still technique.

I wouldnt use the term "technique" because that implies something that can be taught. Imagination is not a technique. One either has it or one does not. No amount of teachable techniques can recreate the great works of a true genius.

Anyone who has has read the mathematician G.H. Hardy's description of his experience interacting with the math genius Ramanujam would begin to understand the difference between someone who is extremely skilled and a true genius. People with that kind of capacity are not born every day and few of them will ever have the opportunity to develop their genius.

My objection is to the claim that training can somehow create a capacity that did not exist before. Training can only maximize the potential that's already there. Often that's good enough. But between people like Mozart, Handel or Bach who have both genius and skill and someone who is highly skilled but lacks genius the gap in performance is vast and obvious.