Unpleasant personalities

[schweitzeralan]

I was going to post a question on the tread "Musicians can Be Nasty," but I was advised to start, or rather, to continue with a posted subject.  My short question is:  who were some composers whose  personalities were difficult, uncompromising, arrogant, most self absorbed, etc.  I think that most classical music aficionados would agree that Wagner was one of, if not, the worst of the arrogant sort.   "Amadeus" gives a clue about Mozart. I read somewhere that Brahms had a "prickly" side to him.  I was so sorry to learn that Debussy, and Arnold Bax were at times "difficult." So apparently was Beethoven.

Scriabin, another favorite of mine was  megamaniacal.  On the other hand there were composers who were just the opposite; viz, Cesar Franck; Bruckner; Ravel? (I'm not sure)

These difficult personalities would make it very difficult to approach on a personal level, or so I would think.

Yet despite any personality defects, the music keeps rolling along, capturing the mind and soul of many enthusiasts. One may dislike the "persona" and still love the work of art.

[Brian]

Scriabin, another favorite of mine was  megamaniacal.

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

[Josquin des Prez]

"Amadeus" gives a clue about Mozart."

No it doesn't. Amadeus is pure fiction, nothing more then that.

From my part, i see the genius as the greater individuality there is, regardless of how "unpleasant" their personality may appear. Pleasantness is a feminine trait, and is connotative of passivity. The man of genius is by definition an assertive entity, so it stands to reason most men of genius will be unpleasant in a way or another.

[Egebedieff]

No it doesn't. Amadeus is pure fiction, nothing more then that.

From my part, i see the genius as the greater individuality there is, regardless of how "unpleasant" their personality may appear. Pleasantness is a feminine trait, and is connotative of passivity. The man of genius is by definition an assertive entity, so it stands to reason most men of genius will be unpleasant in a way or another.

Unpleasantness is not a necessary, and certainly not a sufficient, trait of genius. Are most "geniuses" unpleasant? I don't think so. Of the brightest minds I know (and I know a few), there are none I would consider to be unpleasant. Not socially adept, some of them, but not unpleasant.

Unpleasantness is not a sign of genius. It is, however, a trait of narcissists and of folks who are eager to think that others are fools just so they can have someone not to suffer lightly. '

[some guy]

Hahaha, when I first read this, I thought "most people who post on classical music forums," but then I decided not to say that.

Or did I?

No, I didn't.

Or did I?

Anyway, anyone can be unpleasant under certain circumstances, or viewed by certain people. I met Larry Austin a couple of years ago and found him very pleasant indeed. My son covered the 2009 SEAMUS conference and didn't think Austin was very pleasant at all.

I met Ana-Maria Avram in Bourges a couple of years ago. Sweetest of the sweet. Met her a year later at a festival she was in charge of--very different vibe. Might have seemed unpleasant to someone meeting her then for the first time, but she was simply stressed, that's all.

[vandermolen]

Had the misfortune of having to deal with James Galway once. Given his famous outward charm, I wasn't expecting him to be so disagreeable.

A turd, but with sprinkles.'

Doesn't surprise me - always found him arrogant in TV interviews.

[The Six]

Josquin is obviously a prank. That and he just found a clever way to call himself a genius,

[karlhenning]

No it doesn't. Amadeus is pure fiction, nothing more then that.

Not pure fiction, but such a caricature of whatever fact is referred to, as to verge on libel.

[ChamberNut]

I was so sorry to learn that Debussy, and Arnold Bax were at times "difficult." So apparently was Beethoven.

I don't quite understand why this would bother you so much.  So what, big deal?  No composer was a saint, and all have some character flaws, just like everyone else.

I doesn't make me enjoy Brahms, Debussy or Beethoven's music any more or less, based on how difficult or prickly they could at times be.  Just my half a penny's worth. 

[Josquin des Prez]

Not pure fiction, but such a caricature of whatever fact is referred to, as to verge on libel.

Well, what you see on the film is what Salieri is telling the priest who visits him at the beginning. Everything you see in the move is coming from the perspective of the crazy old man.

And yes, my post was supposed to be somewhat self-ironic, but i think it's true. 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.

[schweitzeralan]

I don't quite understand why this would bother you so much.  So what, big deal?  No composer was a saint, and all have some character flaws, just like everyone else.

I doesn't make me enjoy Brahms, Debussy or Beethoven's music any more or less, based on how difficult or prickly they could at times be.  Just my half a penny's worth. 

I agree.  I wanted to learn about the life and personality ofcomposers whose works I appreciate Love the work; nor always the "persona."  I've read about Wagner, Bach, Debussy and Bax (two favorites, but more is written about their work, which is OK.); but, I was interested in knowing more about what they were like in terms of personalitry or, yes, their interaction with others.  I'd like to read bios about several composers: Hanson, Barber, Taillefaire, Martin, Gliere.  I did read a biography of Scriabin. What about those who were influenced by him, personally as well as aesthetically? What was Mennin like/ Gershwin? Farwell? Griffes?  Just curious.  Overall not all that important perhaps, but interesting, nevertheless.

[Christo]

Genius ... genius ... Genius ... To be a genius is to be ... the man of genius ... genius cannot ...

[Josquin des Prez]

Pretty much, yes. 

[greg]

Well, what you see on the film is what Salieri is telling the priest who visits him at the beginning. Everything you see in the move is coming from the perspective of the crazy old man.

And yes, my post was supposed to be somewhat self-ironic, but i think it's true. 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 like this post. There's truth in here, although I would only accept this explanation in an artistic sense, not to mention the genius first has to be "learned."

[schweitzeralan]

I like this post. There's truth in here, although I would only accept this explanation in an artistic sense, not to mention the genius first has to be "learned."

I gather, then that most serious composers act, live, and become invlved with others the way they are because of extraordinary talent.  Probably right on most counts.  Then what about Franck, Martinu, Bruckner.  What little I know of their personalities was that these geniuses (plus perhaps other musical giants) were not arrogant nor demanding, but instead were modest and unassuming.  Were not some composers actually charming?

[The Six]

Fauré was quite a gentleman.

[schweitzeralan]

Fauré was quite a gentleman.

Yes.  And, like Franck, Ravel, Gliere, Hanson, Faure had to deal with students.  I won't get into conductors, here; but, were I a musician who toiled under Szell or Von Karajan, (sp?) life may have had its difficulties.  At any rate, asi es al vida!

[mikkeljs]

Unpleasantness is not a necessary, and certainly not a sufficient, trait of genius. Are most "geniuses" unpleasant? I don't think so. Of the brightest minds I know (and I know a few), there are none I would consider to be unpleasant. Not socially adept, some of them, but not unpleasant.

Unpleasantness is not a sign of genius. It is, however, a trait of narcissists and of folks who are eager to think that others are fools just so they can have someone not to suffer lightly. '

I think you have a really good point. Many also mix unpleasantness with how you look, act, live and think. Some people even insist that a person who listen to classical music is arrogant, since classical music is all about arrogance.

But have you considered that some of us actually are narcissists? If someone has an IQ double as high as everyone around him, and throughout life suffers from others missing understanding and destructive stupidity, then you might forgive them or find yourself in a situation that keeps you away from your potential and life, so perhabs you can´t forgive. I know, that one must accept his situation in any case, but...as I always say...relaxation is the most difficult disciplin in the universe, and I am not one of the perfect superhuman, I´m only close, but not enought to keep my anger of normal people away. So in a way, I feel extremely narcissistic, since I prefer to spent money on my piano instead of saving lifes in Africa. Well...I don´t have any money, but still... Something in my brain tells me, that other peoples problems is not my problem, since they are stupid and I´m not. I have tried for many years, believe me! I have tried to teach and forgive them, but had to give up. If I had to give all my time and little money to help others, it would cost me my own life. Maybe that´s the only right path. But I´m not sure if one musical force is allowed to kill for it´s survival. Which reminds me of an opera by Hindemith I saw a while ago, it was about a jeweler who killed his customers to steel back his jewels, and the conclusion of the opera was that he was the victim of luxury.

Sorry this long mess, but I feel it´s connected. Narcissists have there reasons just like anyone else, and it´s sometimes a complex one. Again, it cannot be repeated too many times, that understanding and relaxation is so extremely important and the most difficult of everything!

I would say, that such a thing as arrogance doesn´t exist among musicians, but only between musicians and others and among other groups of people.

[schweitzeralan]

I think you have a really good point. Many also mix unpleasantness with how you look, act, live and think. Some people even insist that a person who listen to classical music is arrogant, since classical music is all about arrogance.

But have you considered that some of us actually are narcissists? If someone has an IQ double as high as everyone around him, and throughout life suffers from others missing understanding and destructive stupidity, then you might forgive them or find yourself in a situation that keeps you away from your potential and life, so perhabs you can´t forgive. I know, that one must accept his situation in any case, but...as I always say...relaxation is the most difficult disciplin in the universe, and I am not one of the perfect superhuman, I´m only close, but not enought to keep my anger of normal people away. So in a way, I feel extremely narcissistic, since I prefer to spent money on my piano instead of saving lifes in Africa. Well...I don´t have any money, but still... Something in my brain tells me, that other peoples problems is not my problem, since they are stupid and I´m not. I have tried for many years, believe me! I have tried to teach and forgive them, but had to give up. If I had to give all my time and little money to help others, it would cost me my own life. Maybe that´s the only right path. But I´m not sure if one musical force is allowed to kill for it´s survival. Which reminds me of an opera by Hindemith I saw a while ago, it was about a jeweler who killed his customers to steel back his jewels, and the conclusion of the opera was that he was the victim of luxury.

Sorry this long mess, but I feel it´s connected. Narcissists have there reasons just like anyone else, and it´s sometimes a complex one. Again, it cannot be repeated too many times, that understanding and relaxation is so extremely important and the most difficult of everything!

I would say, that such a thing as arrogance doesn´t exist among musicians, but only between musicians and others and among other groups of people.

Thanks for the reply. I have always been interested in the bios of composers.  I have wanted to know what their personalities and character were about.  Regardless of how they were personally, for me it was always the music that was significant.  I have informed my wife that I surely could never have hobnobbed with the likes of Wagner, Debussy, Scriabin, Mozart, or so many other great geniuses.  The ultimate redeeming thing is the creation of works that are inspiring, magical, and, yes, spiritual, spiritual in a psychological sense.

[Scarpia]

And yes, my post was supposed to be somewhat self-ironic, but i think it's true. 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.

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.