The Genius Thread

[karlhenning]

Claiming anyone's works are equal to Bach's is probably a project doomed to failure.* But no one is doing that just because they say that Britten is a genius. In your mind perhaps, but not the people who say the words, nor the general community of scholars and the public that recieve them.


*note that this is not just because Bach is probably the greatest composer, but also because it's difficult to imagine how one might compare The Rite of Spring, The Goldberg Variations, Brahms' Fourth Symphony and Peter Grimes in terms of ranking them on some scale of genius - how could one even begin to do this meaningfully, other than by personal preference?

EDIT: this is going way way off topic now... maybe you should start a new thread?

Guido's right, and his suggestion is sound.

Problems of 'ranking' and 'weighting' are what render absurd, e.g., the 'denial' that Le sacre is a work of genius, because it is somehow "not equal to" some work or other of Bach's.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Karl,

Josquin never denied that 'Le Sacre' was a masterpiece. He simply believes it's on a par (maybe slightly lower) Beethoven's 'Eroica'

[karlhenning]

Karl,

Josquin never denied that 'Le Sacre' was a masterpiece.

I never claimed that Josq "denied that 'Le Sacre' was a masterpiece."  He denies that it is a work of genius (for which assessment there is some professional consensus).  I leave it to others to figure out what hairs he may be splitting there.

[Josquin des Prez]

I never claimed that Josq "denied that 'Le Sacre' was a masterpiece."  He denies that it is a work of genius (for which assessment there is some professional consensus).  I leave it to others to figure out what hairs he may be splitting there.

I didn't deny or confirm anything, i just declared myself agnostic about Stravinsky and his music. I then asked whether there is anything written by Stravinsky which approaches the same standard set by the Art of Fugue, or Beethoven's Op. 131, which would be a sure way for me to find out whether he is a genius or not (given that you can't get any higher than those pieces of music). What i extrapolated from your answer is that you believe the Rite to be a good candidate, to which i disagreed. That's all.

As for this thread, if you need a definition of genius, refer to Weininger.

[karlhenning]

I didn't deny or confirm anything, i just declared myself agnostic about Stravinsky and his music. I then asked whether there is anything written by Stravinsky which approaches the same standard set by the Art of Fugue, or Beethoven's Op. 131, which would be a sure way for me to find out whether he is a genius or not (given that you can't get any higher than those pieces of music). What i extrapolated from your answer is that you believe the Rite to be a good candidate, to which i disagreed. That's all.

If you need a definition of genius, refer to Weininger.

No, thanks;  not interested in references in the present discussion.  What is the criterion by which we judge Le sacre to be, or not to be, a work of genius?

Tell me, in musical terms, about the standard which the Art of Fugue and the Beethoven Opus 131 (a curious, arbitrary choice in the Beethoven catalogue), to which it is necessary for other musical works to apply.

I'm a musician;  I will understand musical terms.  General remarks like "approaches the same standard" are too general to be of any use.  For a great many musical professionals will say, yes, a great many pieces of Stravinsky's approach those standards;  and you'll just disagree, won't you?

[Kullervo]

Wasn't Weininger the philosopher from whom Hitler got his ideas of "racial purity"?

[Josquin des Prez]

No, thanks;  not interested in references in the present discussion.  What is the criterion by which we judge Le sacre to be, or not to be, a work of genius?

Tell me, in musical terms, about the standard which the Art of Fugue and the Beethoven Opus 131 (a curious, arbitrary choice in the Beethoven catalogue), to which it is necessary for other musical works to apply.

I'm a musician;  I will understand musical terms.  General remarks like "approaches the same standard" are too general to be of any use.  For a great many musical professionals will say, yes, a great many pieces of Stravinsky's approach those standards;  and you'll just disagree, won't you?

But Karl, there is no particular musical criterion. See, already here we find Weininger to be relevant:

"Universality is the distinguishing mark of genius. There is no such thing as a special genius, a genius for mathematics, or for music, or even for chess, but only a universal genius. The genius is a man who knows everything without having learned it."

All understanding of genius is self referential, and the means of it's assessment are purely ontological.

[Guido]

But most people don't accept that definition of genius JdP - the reason that your assertons are being met with such perplexed and bemused answers is that you are presenting it as a self evident fact that your definition of genius is the correct one, and the one used by everyone else. I will tell you now that both of these things are not true.

[Josquin des Prez]

Wasn't Weininger the philosopher from whom Hitler got his ideas of "racial purity"?

I don't think Hitler got his ideas of "racial purity" from anybody, but most of his notions of Aryan supremacy came from Houston Stewart Chamberlain. When Sex and Character was released, it was a wild fire hit among the intellectual circles of Vienna, and i'm sure some of the ideas contained in the book made their way to the Nazi as well, but it's doubtful whether Hitler himself would have drawn anything by reading Weininger directly, since Weininger was Jewish.

[Josquin des Prez]

I will tell you now that both of these things are not true.

How do you know that? I think it's a bit ironic that you are trying to accuse me of a particular fallacy then use the very same fallacy in the same breath yourself. 

[Guido]

see the many responses by people on this forum.

[PSmith08]

Having spaced on certain parts of the previous discussion, you'll have to bear with me. Since when is the Eroica not a work of "genius"? Bizarre, really bizarre.

Wasn't Weininger the philosopher from whom Hitler got his ideas of "racial purity"?

I'm fairly sure Alfred Rosenberg and Houston Stewart Chamberlain provided more of Hitler's odious racial theories than Weininger. The latter was, however, held out to be the "perfect Jew," I seem to recall, because he killed himself. Some of his theories, I'm sure, appealed to the denizens of the Weimar-era German nationalist, rightist fringe.

But Karl, there is no particular musical criterion. See, already here we find Weininger to be relevant:

"Universality is the distinguishing mark of genius. There is no such thing as a special genius, a genius for mathematics, or for music, or even for chess, but only a universal genius. The genius is a man who knows everything without having learned it."

All understand of genius is self referential, and the means of it's assessment are purely ontological.

A beguiling definition, if only because it drips with romanticism. Anyone having made the leap into modernity would have to admit, however grudgingly, that genius is, at best, merely the fortuitous difference in "wiring" between the brain of the "genius" and the "normal" person. That doesn't change many of the subsequent questions, but does recontextualize them. As for genius representing some sort of universality or pure, ideal form: I assert that there is no intellectual or philosophical isomorphism that can map an object out of that set onto the set that most can understand while preserving the structure. In other words, the minute we try to understand genius, we lose the essential character of genius. We can, at best, analogize and admit that we're losing something in translation. That turns the debate into a question of which analogy most pleases any interested person. That, then, is a matter of taste.

I'd fill out the rest of my argument, but I think its conclusions vis-à-vis music are fairly apparent.

[Josquin des Prez]

see the many responses by people on this forum.

If that's the argument you are going to use them i'm right by default, since history has proven that the majority has never been right about anything.

[Guido]

Please read my post again. I am not saying that you are definitely wrong, but as I said before you are:

presenting it as a self evident fact that your definition of genius is the correct one, and the one used by everyone else.

It is not true that it is self evident that your definition of genius is the correct one, and given the fact that we are arguing about this at all it must also be true that the definition of genius that you have is not the same as the one used by any one who is disagreeing with you. You may be right with your definition, but you have not yet convincingly made a case for that. Psmith's post above is very illuminating.

[karlhenning]

If that's the argument you are going to use them i'm right by default, since history has proven that the majority has never been right about anything.

It's also proved that many individuals who are convinced that they are absolutely right, have been much mistaken.

You are also mistaken in the exaggerative "that the majority has never been right about anything."

[ezodisy]

all you need is James to show up and you'll have them all under one roof

[Josquin des Prez]

It's also proved that many individuals who are convinced that they are absolutely right, have been much mistaken.

Maybe, maybe not. Theodore Kaczynski is probably considered by most to have been "wrong", by light of his madness, but i think a careful reading of his writings may reveal some of his ideas weren't that far fetched.  

You are also mistaken in the exaggerative "that the majority has never been right about anything."

I disagree. I think we are all hopelessly without a clue on just about anything. Well, except for the genius of course.

[karlhenning]

Maybe, maybe not.

Sorry, I don't understand how disagreement with my statement is . . . possible.

Anyway . . . genius.

I think there's a flaw in attaching to a specific 'definition' of genius;  it is one of many things in life, culture, experience which do not lend themselves to neat boxing.  One of the flaws involved, is a misunderstanding of the service of a definition.

Open a dictionary and you can find definitions for green and for blue, but those definitions are not much use to an artist (for only one instance).  Hard to say to whom they would be of use (and yet, a dictionary without those words, would be ridiculous).

And 'determining' that point on the color scale where blue ends and green begins, is not anything that will be universally agreed upon.

[karlhenning]

Not sure what could there be that's more important then a quest for genius, but i wouldn't need to be this insistent if people would be willing to simply give me a straight answer any now and then.

Got news for you, and I'm sorry this is how you had to find out.  A lot of the important things in life, are not a matter of 'a straight answer'.

This, I think, is part of the problem with your harping on narrow notions of genius.  You want the matter to be neater than it really can be.

[karlhenning]

"The genius is a man who knows everything without having learned it."

If this were remotely true, there would be no such thing as genius.  But it is not remotely true;  it's ridiculous at worst, a Romantification at best.