Unpleasant personalities

[knight66]

Complete bullshit.  What's being described here is an asshole, not a genius.  Genius is not "imposing of one's own individual point of view over others."   It is creating something that is so compelling that others accept it (sometimes not immediately).  

Yep, I am absolutely with you there. I think that to the extent some geniuses become anti-social, it is to do with the obsession of their work pushing normal life aside. But you can also find lots of very ordinary people who excel in being antisocial. I have glimpsed a few on this site.

Mike

[Dana]

Genius to me is the imposing of one's own individual point of view over that of others, therefore, genius is in a way synonymous to individuality in its extreme manifestation. Because the genius is the supreme individual, he is a complete universe within himself, a universe from which other people are excluded. Genius does not herd, he does not "share" with others, he does not care for you or me, though he may feel for humanity as a whole. To be a genius is to be infinitely alone, which is perhaps why so few are able to carrying the burden. This doesn't necessarily translate into unpleasant behavior, but it does make intercourse with the man of genius an unsettling experience. Whether he is polite or rude, there is a level of otherness about him that makes us queasy, makes us feel insignificant. Pleasantness is about yielding ones ego and threat others as equal. The genius cannot do that.

      I'd agree with that... sometimes. It's only one side of the equation. Certainly, it was true of Wagner, but there's also Schumann to consider - who founded and a magazine purely for the purpose of promoting other people's music. Schumann was definitely a genius in his own rite. I think that the common ground that we'll find amongst most composers is their ego and confidence - and that's the thing that makes them seem 'unpleasant.' After all, if you think you know better than everyone else in the room, how much are you honestly going to respect them? Of course there's always Tchaikovsky... Sigh...

[knight66]

Anyone who has a singular view, for instance in music, will have to find the inner resources to put it before the public and the rest of the musical community. Depending on the personality, self confidence, subtifuge, charm, co-dependency, extroverted or introverted learning styles, family background, childhood nourishment or otherwise etc, etc, the composer will cope as they can in order to produce what they feel have to produce.That may be at least sometimes uncomfortable for other people to encounter.

Mike

[Egebedieff]

Yep, I am absolutely with you there. I think that to the extent some geniuses become anti-social, it is to do with the obsession of their work pushing normal life aside. But you can also find lots of very ordinary people who excel in being antisocial. I have glimpsed a few on this site.

Mike

Ironic that, for some, being antisocial loves company as much as misery does.
Sometimes this place resembles an antisocial networking site.'

[jlaurson]

I think we're talking in circles here... but can gather this much:

1.) It is neither necessary nor sufficient to be "unpleasant" (in whatever form) to be a genius.

2.) There is a correlation between ability ("genius"?) and some forms of unpleasantness.

In short: being a d_ck [not a duck] doesn't make you Wagner. Being Wagner wouldn't necessarily have to make you a d_ck [not a deck].
But Wagner had his reasons to be who he was (I'm talking about the swagger, grandeur, and sense of entitlement--not other aspects of his personality that most people focus on in all-too-easy anti-Wagnerian ad hominems). And those reasons are related to the greatness of his artistic vision and execution.

I haven't met Liszt personally, but the stories told about him (at least those from when he had become an éminence grise) are of a man who went out of his way to help all that he deemed worthy artists... and dis no one, who he did not necessarily understand, artistically. (Unlike Brahms, who did champion a composer or two, but could be incredibly curt, too. Fuchs & Rott being only two recipients of his cutting put-downs.)

3.) Does--or should--personality matter to us in our perception of the composer's art?

Emphatically: No. Quick litmus test: Would you find a politician admirable for having had a pleasant personality over his deeds? Would you find a politician reproachable for having had a nasty personality over his deed? Of course not, because the results could, from all we know about the participants of WW II, for example, utterly perverse. An alcoholic, choleric bulldog of a man, feared by some even in his own family, turned out to be one of the most noble men in the history of the 20th century while a disciplined vegetarian animal-rights champion, adored and loved by seemingly all children of all his acquaintances and friends, was one of the most tragic occurrences in the history of modern man.

I don't care if Beethoven spooned warm cat brain at night, his Eroica Symphony is pure greatness. And if Edward MacDowell was twice as kind as Tom Hanks, it still don't lift his music above mediocrity.

There is a (German) romantic strain that has colored our vision of the "artist". It's an image of constant struggle, of wildness, poverty, preferably early death, and the like. It apparently includes a certain degree of un-personableness. Charme and an easy going manner somehow aren't part of that. (Suffer, poor Mendelssohn, because of that stereotype.)

It's bollocks, of course, but it's part of a very deeply ingrained perception and not easily removed. Since I obviously know no past composers, I think about this matter in terms of conductors. I've met and/or interviewed a fair share of artists and conductors and judging from that, greatness and 'being difficult' are not at all interdependent. (Although that's not to say that when they do occur in the same person that there's not some inter-relatedness.) One of the most admired conductors of them all is one of the most humble, self-effacing person I've met. And a young, more "already up" than "coming" conducting star is a real prick. One seems super-obnoxious from afar, but turns out to be strangely likable and shockingly honest in person, another is really just like "You & Me". Another, who never rose to the prominence he evidently felt he deserved, became an insufferable [male animal reference]. Hence: D_ckishness can go along with greatness, but it does not stem from it. (And certainly not vice versa.)

[schweitzeralan]

Complete bullshit.  What's being described here is an asshole, not a genius.  Genius is not "imposing of one's own individual point of view over others."   It is creating something that is so compelling that others accept it (sometimes not immediately).   Upon being confronted by the work of a truly brilliant person the typical reaction is "why didn't I think of that?" or "now that I see it, it's so obvious, how did I miss it?"  A person brilliant person who is unpleasant is simply insecure or cruel.  I've met a number of such people, but often the most brilliant people I have had the privilege of working with very gracious.  There is no weakness in being kind or gracious.

Same opinion here.  What involves total narcissism borders on solipsism.  The universe strictly revolves around me.

[Josquin des Prez]

I didn't say that genius is akin to narcissism. Why is it that my ideas are always subject to gross misinterpretations?

[karlhenning]

Why is it that my ideas are always subject to gross misinterpretations?

May have something to do with the messenger, and his capacities.

[Josquin des Prez]

May have something to do with the messenger, and his capacities.

Yes. It is frustrating that such an average mind as myself was given a gift for truth.

[Egebedieff]

I didn't say that genius is akin to narcissism. Why is it that my ideas are always subject to gross misinterpretations?

I couldn't see on a quick scan who had misinterpreted you as saying that that genius was akin to narcissism. Am I just not looking hard enough?'

[Egebedieff]

Did anyone else see this Google Ad on this page?

Narcissism Cured
"Maybe it's me causing the fights?" 3 Questions to know it's not you

'

[Sydney Grew]

He [sc. Scryabine] even once tried walking on water to prove he was Jesus. Luckily, his friends fished him out.

We have tried and tried but have still not managed to bring ourself to believe this story. Scryabine was at bottom a very sensible man, but because he expressed such tremendously strong emotion much "propaganda" about him has been invented by the conventional. If the writer - member Brian - could be so kind as to cite a reliable reference for it we shall be eternally grateful.