Musical Geniuses!

[giovannimusica]

Hi acciaccatura,

How about Bach as a musical genius or Telemann?

When composers can be described in loving terms after their death then that can be used as a measure of their being a genius. Let me briefly expand: How does one want to be remembered - for one's selfless engagement to help the next generation be inspired by the masters, being a spokesperson for the necessity of everyone learning to play an instrument(besides singing) and musical composition(multiple-part harmony) during their formative years in the gymnasium(High-School) as a prerequisite to go onto college, or as a performer who ceaselessly engages his/her audience?

Carpe Diem,

Giovanni

[sondance]

Thought I would chime in on the latter direction of this topic.

The former direction being IMO "musicians whose music you like and or respect so much you would call them a musical genius."

The latter direction seems to be exploring a more literal definiton. I suspect that intellectual genius and musical interest/talent lie on two different rungs of the human genome. Maybe there is a geneticist out there who can speak to that.

An irony in this discussion is that we can only suggest familiar names. Who knows how many musical geniuses there have been that would fit anyone's definiton (perhaps one of Corno's "classics") whose work never blessed the ears of anyone beyond their village or their home, whose hands were forced to guide the plow, or whose voice was forced to teach the child, to eat.

Kind of makes you wanna go hug a starving musician (or artist) doesn't it?

[giovannimusica]

Hi sondance,

You make some very salient points. History, i'm afraid, has always been the judge - always above and beyond our own control - no matter how much we jump up and down on the tables, kicking and screaming, throwing hissy fits and temper-tantrums about how unfair everything and life is. Yes, there is also one's personal will - one's own volition, which can play a very big part.

Yes, we should embrace our starving musicians and artists - we are often far and few between. I, for one, always strive to do the best I can without any expectation of being remembered in the future. Give it one's all and then some more and let History be the judge - be honest in one's dealings - and love while it is still possible to love. We owe our children nothing less!

Peace Be With You,

Giovanni

[acciaccatura]

Well, what bothers me about the 'genius' concept is not so much the included, unquestionably great composers - including (and perhaps above all) Bach - but much rather how and where to draw the line. Your inquisitive suggestion,

When composers can be described in loving terms after their death then that can be used as a measure of their being a genius

does not have a premise I can agree with. Fame and mastery (maybe mastery is a more useful term though still subjective) are simply not the same thing. A genius can be perceived in any aspect of a personality - no one is complete, not even Bach. Was Bach a genius in his writing for the general population, as a street musician? Hardly, though he did write secular, even 'popular' music.

I think a genious needs to be evaluated in his core activities, the activities he does best. Sometimes a genius is recognized and popularized, sometimes not, and for me this brings genius into a class indistinguishable from intelligence, achievement, skill, etc. In science, revolutionary discovery is a part of genius - in music it is not. Perhaps genius is just an idea made up to simplify the way we look at history, or an easy way to dismiss the work of those who are more difficult to access.

To be able to compose music at all requires a certain level of intelligence - that is good enough for me. I will look at and listen to the music presented to me, and evaluate that for myself - I simply do not need a labeling of certain composers as 'genius' at the expense of 'lesser' composers. It is all a subjective consideration that prevents people from diving into the depths of musical composition.

[giovannimusica]

Acciaccatura,

Might you be in possession of the Philosopher's Stone?

You speak with a great conviction that can inform one that you have been studying and performing music for many years but in another thread, you shared that you have been playing piano only for a few years. I might full well be wrong in what you have shared in another thread and would be willing to retract my assumption forthwith. I admire your passionate elocution - my hope is that you base your missives not on feelings and emotions about this and that composer.

Cordially,

Giovanni

[acciaccatura]

It would be awesome if, in posts dealing with on-topic issues, people would concentrate on subject matter and refrain from misrepresenting and psychoanalyzing other members. The result will likely be mudslinging and other unpleasantries that we do not need. Thanks.

[giovannimusica]

Well, I seemed to have hit a nerve in someone's tooth

I retract my *misrepresenting* and *psychoanalysing*.

Hope you feel better soon.



Giovanni

[Thomas Dressler]

I've always thought of a genius as someone who is able to do something creative, unusual, and meaningful (sometimes profoundly so) with the materials at hand. These materials could be the rules of Renaissance counterpoint as in the case of Palestrina, or the rules of Baroque harmony and counterpoint as in the case of JS Bach, or the accepted norms of "pop" music as in the Beatles--or simple paint and canvas or the words of a particular language. . .In other words, to me, an artistic genius is one who can take the same materials available to anyone else, along with their inherent limitations, and having a strong inner vision, they are able to manipulate these materials in a way that is unusually good at drawing people into their vision.

According to my own definition of a genius, they might or might no be recognized by the public at large, especially at first. In his lifetime, Bach was recognized by some as a truly great genius, but by others, no. Some of Brahms' greatest works, like the 4th Symphony and his German Requiem, were greatly disliked at first. Often people have personal agendas that prevent them from recognizing genius in work that does not conform to their particular agenda. It seems that sometimes at first truly creative works of genius are seen as a threat by other artists, or sometimes they're just ahead of their time and it takes the world in general some time to catch up to the artist's vision and technique.

I would pragmatically argue, however, that for a work to be categorized as a work of genius, it has to have inherent meaning and relevance to people, and perhaps it has to be recognized eventually. (In other words, does a tree falling in the forest when no one is around make a sound?) There are experimental pieces of art from, say, the 1960s that I wonder about--I wonder if they will ever make it past the "just plain weird" stage into the "wow, what a vision" stage. To me, a work of genius cannot be simply different, it has to be based on a strong, clear vision, and be produced in a disciplined way where the medium is manipulated with the INTENTION of communicating that vision. It takes intelligence to do this, but to me, intelligence is only one factor in works of genius.

Notice that I'm not talking about any person as a complete genius. This, I believe, does not exist. A person may create works of genius and be a complete failure in other parts of his/her life. As a matter of fact, Bach took GREAT exception to being called a "musikant" or in a way, "street musician." He not only was not one, did not want to be one, but became angry at being called one.

I very much enjoy reading biographies of artists we generally consider to be "great" or "geniuses," because their stories show that they were great in only parts of their lives, and were like the rest of us in others. Kind of makes the musician in me feel less weird!

Thomas Dressler

[giovannimusica]

Tom,

You took the words right out of my mouth

You're a consummate spokesman for the art of music and I thank you for sharing some fascinating insights.

Peace Aplenty,

Giovanni

[acciaccatura]

Well, I seemed to have hit a nerve in someone's tooth

Giovanni

Well, misrepresentation (or spreading lies, if you like) does not reside in the tooth. I would rather place it below the belt line. Together with the rest of your nonsense.

[giovannimusica]

Hey acciaccatura,

Stick to the forum subjects instead of *projecting* to all forum denizens the *Dominance/Submission Issues* you seem to suffer from - Thank you!