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

Then don't engage in anything at all if you feel it necassary to imply people doing nothing more than expressing THEIR opinion are 'lame and useless'!. Number 1 it's unbelievably rude and number 2 it's severely hypocritical for someone who believes in subjectivity of opinion. Please don't bother to do that in future.

Originally Posted by almacg

Then don't engage in anything at all if you feel it necassary to imply people doing nothing more than expressing THEIR opinion are 'lame and useless'!. Number 1 it's unbelievably rude and number 2 it's severely hypocritical for someone who believes in subjectivity of opinion. Please don't bother to do that in future.

First, I lol'd.

Second: the problem is, he don't really treat it as "his opinion" does he? Plus we keep asking the dude to define what he's saying or we can't even understand what his point is. He hasn't.

For all the claims and opinion, either you put your money where your mouth is and elaborate or explain what you mean, or dump into the "It's my opinion!" bin and we can all safely ignore/move on without thinking too much about it.

I don't see how it's rude to expect people to stand behind their opinions and explain what they mean with them. Otherwise, why bother stating them? Specially opinions which WILL gear a lot of criticism.

And I also don't see how it's hypocritical. I may have an opinion too, but I attempted to elaborate and explain what I meant with it, including how and why I disagreed with what he said.

The points I raised were not addressed and clearly he's avoided answering the simple "What do you mean with this?" questions. Specially when concerning "talent" and "genius" which are two terms that NEED to be defined CLEARLY in context with what is being said. Bringing up a dictionary definition which has no connection to what is being talked about doesn't work.

And, if you remember the other thread where this guy also went on about talent and shit, it was the exact same story. It's impossible to have any sort of communication when I have to assume half of what he's trying to say which obviously leads into problems.

So it's just a repeat from that time. Obviously, it's pointless to talk about it since he's unwilling to cooperate in at least trying to explain what he's talking about to a degree that is understandable.

But well. I guess I'm rude and hypocritical, LOL.

It does try my patience to invest in this nonsense, which is why I said I shouldn't have bothered.

Originally Posted by SSC

OH?

I said this before, I'll say it again. You're not defining genius in any concrete way as how it applies to music. Such as, for example: "Genius is anyone who can write 20 sonatas in 2 minutes!" Otherwise, well, none of your arguments hold water since "genius" is whatever you want, and conveniently you can also disqualify genius perceived by others by the same standard. Really lame!

On the contrary, I provide a very precise definition of what I mean by genius. I use the same definition as the oxford dictionary (or just about any brand of dictionary you choose).

And, who the hell cares if Schubert or Brahms thought X and Y were geniuses? That's still just an opinion even if the people saying it are famous.

Ah, well ... I'm sorry I didn't realize I was having a discussion with a composer who is so accomplished and knowledgeable in the art of music composition that they can summarily dismiss the opinions of Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Mendelssohn, and Beethoven.

Truly ... it's an honor to make your acquaintance.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

On the contrary, I provide a very precise definition of what I mean by genius. I use the same definition as the oxford dictionary (or just about any brand of dictionary you choose).



Ah, well ... I'm sorry I didn't realize I was having a discussion with a composer who is so accomplished and knowledgeable in the art of music composition that they can summarily dismiss the opinions of Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Mendelssohn, and Beethoven.

Truly ... it's an honor to make your acquaintance.

..... 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...Nope, not good enough. You still fail to answer what I asked, so I guess this ends here. :>

Originally Posted by SSC

...Nope, not good enough. You still fail to answer what I asked, so I guess this ends here. :>

This is surprisingly feeble rhetoric from who towers above Brahms, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Schubert, and Mendelssohn.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

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?

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.

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. 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...

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't see how you could say Mozart is a genius but Beethoven isn't. If the definition of musical genius is to be able to hold and improvise an entire orchestra in the mind (and it's up to you if you agree or disagree), then Beethoven was a genius. When he wrote his ninth symphony I believe he was deaf. How could he possibly write such a work without any external reference?

Also, the notion that Mozart's work was more polished than Beethoven's is subjective for one thing!