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

Read my post again. When I say "technique", what I mean is technique, not imagination. I agree that imagination is needed as well, but that's a different thing. Or are you saying that Mozart's or Bach's music could have been written with imagination alone?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

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.

Too bad that, like Gardener pointed out, unless you strictly define what "genius" is, your objection means nothing. One person's genius can be another's trash.

I personally don't think Mozart or Bach were geniuses, just people who had training and ideas. Anyone can come up with ideas and practice. The extent of what they do shouldn't be measured against anything existing, since nobody can be Mozart or Bach. They're already dead and gone. Likewise, comparing is for children. Art isn't a competition and treating it like one is counter productive.

People who talk so much of talent clearly have no idea what talent means, or they simply want to view the world in a light where unless you just "got lucky" and were born with whatever definition of talent is in fashion you're fucked to being forever "mediocre" and living in the shadow of the monoliths people make certain composers to be.

Lame and useless.

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.

Absolutely! Without theoretical training there is no way Mozart could even have begun to get his ideas down on paper.

The problem I find with Seraphim's argument is that he makes the assumption that everyone holds Mozart as an absolute, unquestioned genius. What about guys like me who just really never enjoyed Mozart's music or saw what the big deal was? I understand he had a lot of original ideas for the time and he was an innovator but when it really comes down to it, I just don't enjoy his music very much.

I'm not trying to put Mozart down or anyone who does enjoy his music. I simply am saying that I find arguments that are entirely based on assumed points just aren't very good. Technically speaking, there is no "good" art and there is no "bad" art. One piece of art can't be better than another from an objective point of view. If I made a group of people listen to Mozart's first piano sonata in C Major and then Berio's piano sequenza, most people would probably choose the former. Most people would probably not even call it "music" and just banging on the piano. But there is no objective, unbiased way to argue that Berio's piano sequenza is any less musical than Mozart's piano sonata.

Originally Posted by Nirvana69

If I made a group of people listen to Mozart's first piano sonata in C Major and then Berio's piano sequenza, most people would probably choose the former. Most people would probably not even call it "music" and just banging on the piano. But there is no objective, unbiased way to argue that Berio's piano sequenza is any less musical than Mozart's piano sonata.

the problem with this particular example, is that it is at its root, subjective and biassed.

"most people" are not equipped to understand the subtleties required to truly judge music at anything more than a perfectly superficial level.

therefore, you would be creating a flawed demonstration were you to use this particular group of people.

They would not be basing their evaluation of the Mozart and the Berio on anything more than their own previous experience with music, which in most cases will not have included any contemporary music. Add to that, "most people" have the misguided belief that "I like it, therefore it is good". And the corollary "I don't like this, therefore it is bad".

On the other hand, people with the requisite training in music, will be able to differentiate between which aspects of their initial reaction is subjective and based on personal experience, and which are based on analytical process.

If your only goal is to say "people LIKE this better than that", then you succeed with your example.

If you are looking for some objective quantifiable evaluation of the qualities/faults inherant in both of the works proposed, then you are establishing an experimental environment that is biassed and doomed to failure.

Originally Posted by SSC

Too bad that, like Gardener pointed out, unless you strictly define what "genius" is, your objection means nothing. One person's genius can be another's trash.

I personally don't think Mozart or Bach were geniuses, just people who had training and ideas. Anyone can come up with ideas and practice. The extent of what they do shouldn't be measured against anything existing, since nobody can be Mozart or Bach. They're already dead and gone. Likewise, comparing is for children. Art isn't a competition and treating it like one is counter productive.

People who talk so much of talent clearly have no idea what talent means, or they simply want to view the world in a light where unless you just "got lucky" and were born with whatever definition of talent is in fashion you're fucked to being forever "mediocre" and living in the shadow of the monoliths people make certain composers to be.

Lame and useless.

Yes, and people who are thinking along that same paradigm are purposely limiting their development in music. (or ANYTHING) "Gee.. I can't write counterpoint for shit, wish I was Bach."

Why do some people insist on making gods out of composers/musicians? "Well.. he's no Mozart." Yeah, he's no Mozart because he's NOT Mozart, Mozart died a long time ago and isn't coming back any time soon. Why is it as a guitar player gets older, there are less and less posters on his wall? Is it "maturation"? or is he just realizing the people he idolized for so long are just as human as he is, and what seemed so unattainable before is now almost at his fingertips.

Writing in any style requires some kind of natural ability, otherwise composers would only be able to quite literally copy other people's work. However, as Mozart could write music as a 'sow pisses' by hearing it all in his head and transcribing it perfectly you have to admit that not just anybody would ever be able to achieve this regardless of training.

I find a lot of Mozart's work to be quite boring save from a few pieces, but the fact remains that he had it all in his head and he got it down. Also in regards to the video I posted earlier, Derek Paravacini can listen to a piece of very complicated music he has never heard before and play it all back note for note. I know for a fact that I will never be able to do this, nor would I be able to do this if I was taught to be a brilliant pianist from a young age. If I was to deny that Derek's musical memory was greater than my own I would be quite literally delusional. Aside from his memory, his ear is almost perfect. Are you telling me you could teach a tone deaf person to improvise on a piano like he does?

Originally Posted by Nirvana69

The problem I find with Seraphim's argument is that he makes the assumption that everyone holds Mozart as an absolute, unquestioned genius. What about guys like me who just really never enjoyed Mozart's music or saw what the big deal was? I understand he had a lot of original ideas for the time and he was an innovator but when it really comes down to it, I just don't enjoy his music very much.

Genius is not a product. Music is a product and there are a million different reasons why we like or dislike certain products.

Genius is a mental capacity. To imagine the kinds of things that Mozart, Bach, Handel, Beethoven, etc were able to imagine one needs a kind of mental capacity (genius) that is truly extraordinary. Those composers would not have been able to produce what we see as their best music if they lacked that seemingly superhuman capacity a math genius mght be able to calculate a cube root faster than a calculator.

Music is such a subjective thing, you could never say the above composers you mentioned Serephim were the 'best', but their mental musical capacity is certainly measurable to an extent. Consider the fact that Bach used to regularly improvise fugues. To be able to do this - even if you don't like the sound of fugues - is surely unbelievably impressive by anybodies standards. Unless there are people who can improvise 2 seperate fugues in different keys at once ?

There are countless examples of organists who regularly improvise fugues at the organ. It's nothing absolutely stupendous, it's part and parcel of the training.

I've met quite a few church organists for whom improvising a fugue, on the fly, is nothing any more complicated than sight reading any piano score is for me. So training and skill ARE important factors.

Let's try and not confuse "things that *I* can't do" with "things that only super-humans can do".