Greatest composer who was not a genius?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Besides the fact genius is a phenomena entirely separate from intelligence, i don't see how a poor education is a sign of intellectual deficiency. Surely, you don't believe Beethoven was actually too stupid to learn something that even a child knows how to do today, do you?

I believe it is possible to be gifted in some areas and deficient in others. No doubt Beethoven had a poor education in our sense of the word, but from the little I've found on the subject, he apparently had no head for math. (As for the children of today, they learn how to use a calculator very well, making me wonder what kind of sense they have of numbers. I have had the experience of asking for $25 additional on my debit card at the grocery, and seeing the teenage checker pull out a calculator.)

[Brian]

I believe it is possible to be gifted in some areas and deficient in others. No doubt Beethoven had a poor education in our sense of the word, but from the little I've found on the subject, he apparently had no head for math. (As for the children of today, they learn how to use a calculator very well, making me wonder what kind of sense they have of numbers. I have had the experience of asking for $25 additional on my debit card at the grocery, and seeing the teenage checker pull out a calculator.)

Indeed, I work at my local Walmart and people are always impressed that I can do basic math in my head, like telling them how much more it would cost to add something, or whatnot. I thought that was what you were supposed to learn. Oh well.

Then again, not many people at my local Walmart would be able to confirm that Beethoven was, indeed, awful at math. Unfortunately I can't find the passage in Solomon where I learned this, having failed to find anything about math in the index...

EDIT: I can, however, report that Beethoven became a follower of Kant, which indicates either the remarkable ability to actually understand Kant, something reserved to very few very bright people today, or a with-the-crowd willingness to follow the current (and local) trends in philosophy.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Then again, not many people at my local Walmart would be able to confirm that Beethoven was, indeed, awful at math. Unfortunately I can't find the passage in Solomon where I learned this, having failed to find anything about math in the index...

http://www.slate.com/id/2206021
See paragraph 6. Whether this was a deficiency in this side of B's intellect or just an interruption in his education seems inconclusive. But a bright young person lacking this schooling might have investigated the idea of multiplication on his own, or could have wondered whether there must be an easier way than adding all those identical figures. I have seen nothing in B's biographies that suggests his intellectual abilities went beyond music. Similarly, though no one had a more logical and orderly musical mind, B in his personal life was as disorganized and slovenly as can be imagined.

EDIT: I can, however, report that Beethoven became a follower of Kant, which indicates either the remarkable ability to actually understand Kant, something reserved to very few very bright people today, or a with-the-crowd willingness to follow the current (and local) trends in philosophy.

http://ml.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/42/3/242

If you look at the opening of the second paragraph, the only evidence we have of B's interest in Kant is a quotation in a conversation book.

[Brian]

http://ml.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/42/3/242

If you look at the opening of the second paragraph, the only evidence we have of B's interest in Kant is a quotation in a conversation book.

Solomon: "Beethoven's was, of course, a popularized conception of Kant, one that had no room for Kant's epistemology or his exploration of the faculties of knowledge....the Kantian idea of time and space as a priori forms of perception was beyond the grasp and probably the interest of the young composer who, some university lectures aside, had never gone past grade school and had been a backward student at that. As did most of his contemporaries, Beethoven understood Kant in a sloganized and simplified form." (53)

I found the math remark. A classmate "wrote bluntly, 'What was striking about Louis, to which I can testify, is that he learned absolutely nothing in school." ... Councillor Wurzer [also a classmate] marveled that 'not a sign was to be discovered in him of that spark of genius which glowed brilliantly in him afterwards.' Most unusual was his lifelong inability to learn arithmetic beyond addition." (26)

So I and presumably Solomon are inclined to agree with you. Thanks for those links, by the way.

[Chaszz]

Whatever in the world does Beethoven's inability at math have to do with his genius at music?  Some people are polymaths, or Renaissance people, and do a number of things well. This does not make them geniuses. A genius in art 1. creates exceptionally beautiful and/or deeply meaningful works and 2. often changes the history of his or her art by the sheer power of his or her work and its making plain ideas which are floating unarticulated in the collective culture of the time. (Some other geniuses like Bach and Rembrandt bring up the rear, summing up the art of their time better than anyone else and may be completely out of fashion by their middle or old age). His or her ability to do arithmetic or trigonometry, negotiate a contract, fly a glider, make love, cook, garden, lead a political movement or whatever else, has nothing whatsoever to with his or her artistic genius.  If a physicist was good at all the things I mentioned but only mildly important in his original work in the field of physics, would that rank him with Einstein as a genius in physics? Would all the other physicists and scientifically aware people who are looking or waiting for ways out of the conundrums that physics now finds itself in, care in the least about this guy's ability to fly a glider? If Beethoven could have done multiplication, would more orchestras play his symphonies than do now?

Leonardo da Vinci was a polymath, but is considered a genius not because he was a polymath but because he painted great paintings, on the level of genius, and changed art history. Without that quality he might be considered a very prescient inventor and a pioneering anatomist and geologist, but would probably not be considered a genius. The fact that he only completed less than a dozen or so paintings underlines the fact of his genius because it is unmistakable even from these few examples. It may also show that his polymathism -- he could never keep his wandering mind on one thing for long, even a paid commission -- actually possibly undermined his genius. 

[Josquin des Prez]

Beethoven obviously suffered from attention deficit disorder. Its not that he couldn't understand, he just couldn't bring himself to learn how to do certain things. Considering the highly intellectual nature of his music, it is safe to say he had a great intelligence, he just had a learning disability. The idea that he couldn't learn some basic mathematical operations because he wasn't intelligent enough to grasp them is absurd when you consider the simplicity of the computations in question. For heaven sake, my eight year old niece can do basic multiplications already. Are we to infer then that Beethoven was less intelligent then a child? Its nonsense.

[Brian]

Whatever in the world does Beethoven's inability at math have top do with his genius at music? If Beethoven could have done multiplication, would more orchestras play his symphonies than do now?

Beethoven's inability at school subjects has little to do with his genius at music, unless perchance his withdrawal from his companions in some way "helped along" the creation of an "artistic mind." And his inability to understand other people in social interaction has little to do with his genius at music, too, unless it helped him write better, rather than worse, music.

We were talking about it because of the remark a while back:

Besides the fact genius is a phenomena entirely separate from intelligence, i don't see how a poor education is a sign of intellectual deficiency. Surely, you don't believe Beethoven was actually too stupid to learn something that even a child knows how to do today, do you?

I cheerfully believe that Beethoven was a, maybe the, genius of western music while at the same time not just below average in all mental faculties but maybe alarmingly so. If anything, his inability at math makes his genius at music even more remarkable. It does not make him not a genius.

Beethoven obviously suffered from attention deficit disorder.

Beethoven has been diagnosed, truly or falsely, with many disorders - alcoholism ("but he rarely exceeded one bottle of wine per meal," Solomon p. 334), delusion and self-deceit about his birth year and circumstances, depression or manic depression with suicidal tendencies, paranoia and persecution fantasies ("always jealous and thinking his friends were deceiving him," Johann Streicher), "patently pathological behavior" (Solomon p. 317), and "neurotic disorder - sudden rages, uncontrolled emotional states, an increasing obsession with money, feelings of persecution, ungrounded suspicions" (Solomon p. 333), this is the first I have heard him diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. A quick Google search, however, reveals that he is listed on several "Living with A.D.D." websites, alongside a laundry list of basically every other famous "Genius" (Einstein, Galileo, Mozart, Wright Brothers, Da Vinci, Edison, Graham Bell, Ben Franklin, proclaims this frankly rather hopeful page).

The idea that he couldn't learn some basic mathematical operations because he wasn't intelligent enough to grasp them is absurd when you consider the simplicity of the computations in question. For heaven sake, my eight year old niece can do basic multiplications already. Are we to infer then that Beethoven was less intelligent then a child? Its nonsense.

I have highlighted the "because" above because I refuse to speculate upon it. I don't know why he couldn't learn basic math beyond addition. But whatever the "because," whether he wasn't intelligent enough or he was ADD or his brain was just wired differently from yours or mine or he just didn't care or for some other reason, I do at least infer that your eight year old niece is better at math than Beethoven. With all due respect to your niece, however, I think Beethoven is most definitely a genius, one of the most extraordinary in fact, and doubt she will match him on that point.

[Josquin des Prez]

Beethoven has been diagnosed, truly or falsely, with many disorders - alcoholism ("but he rarely exceeded one bottle of wine per meal," Solomon p. 334), delusion and self-deceit about his birth year and circumstances, depression or manic depression with suicidal tendencies, paranoia and persecution fantasies ("always jealous and thinking his friends were deceiving him," Johann Streicher), "patently pathological behavior" (Solomon p. 317), and "neurotic disorder - sudden rages, uncontrolled emotional states, an increasing obsession with money, feelings of persecution, ungrounded suspicions" (Solomon p. 333), this is the first I have heard him diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. A quick Google search, however, reveals that he is listed on several "Living with A.D.D." websites, alongside a laundry list of basically every other famous "Genius" (Einstein, Galileo, Mozart, Wright Brothers, Da Vinci, Edison, Graham Bell, Ben Franklin, proclaims this frankly rather hopeful page).

My father has ADHD, and i myself suffer from the inattentive type. When i first read about Beethoven i recognized the signs instantly.

I have highlighted the "because" above because I refuse to speculate upon it. I don't know why he couldn't learn basic math beyond addition. But whatever the "because," whether he wasn't intelligent enough or he was ADD or his brain was just wired differently from yours or mine or he just didn't care or for some other reason, I do at least infer that your eight year old niece is better at math than Beethoven. With all due respect to your niece, however, I think Beethoven is most definitely a genius, one of the most extraordinary in fact, and doubt she will match him on that point.

The point is that intelligence doesn't always correlate with learning. I do not subscribe to the idea each individual possesses different types of intelligence. I think intelligence is an inherent individual quality, so that if Beethoven was able to show great intelligence in one instance, then that is the measure of his general intellectual powers. That he couldn't apply his intelligence in other fields are then due external reasons. A learning disability, a poor education or plain simply a lack of interest. If he was truly unable to understand basic mathematical operations because of his lack of intelligence, then he would have never been able to write complex music as well, for the same reasons.

[Luke]

It's true to say, though, that at the most basic of levels, in order to write music like the Arietta of op 111 one has to be able to add up and understand principles of division and mulitplication, even though, in the act of composition, it doesn't seem as if one is working with those techniques. (Actually, to write music of any level of complexity one needs to understand these things, but the manipulation of complex rhythms in the late sonatas and quartets is pretty striking.) So if Beethoven was incapable of maths, it was only when he knew it was maths; as soon as it was a matter of noteheads, he could add up, divide and multiply as well as any other man in the street. This suggests to me, as has been said above, not that he couldn't, but that he just wasn't interested.

[Cato]

In the movie Amadeus, Salieri despairs of his talent, when he compares his works to the Mozart manuscripts.  He makes a comment about realizing his own mediocrity...in comparison to Mozart.

Perhaps up until then Salieri thought of himself as a genius?   

Part of the problem here is the lack of gray area: can one not speculate on degrees of genius? 

Joachim Raff comes to mind, or in literature James Gould Cozzens and Thomas B. Costain. 

Creative genius can live as widely sputtering sparks with great silence and darkness in between.  Perhaps the difference between e.g. Raff and Bruckner is what happens during those "in betweens."

[Chaszz]

The above two posts are speculative. The emerging field of neuroscience through brain imaging is supplying some more solid evidence of what goes on on the brain than personal philosophical speculation. For instance, intelligence does not seem to be a completely unified thing, as there are different brain locations for different facets of it. Also it's been known for some time that rational thinking occurs more in one hemisphere and emotive reactions more in the other. This is another in the long list of fields where philosophy has been forced to retreat in the face of science.   

[Cato]

The above two posts are speculative. The emerging field of neuroscience through brain imaging is supplying some more solid evidence of what goes on on the brain than personal philosophical speculation. For instance, intelligence does not seem to be a completely unified thing, as there are different brain locations for different facets of it. Also it's been known for some time that rational thinking occurs more in one hemisphere and emotive reactions more in the other. This is another in the long list of fields where philosophy has been forced to retreat in the face of science.

Quite true: given that quantum effects are most probably at work in the brain, trying to place any kind of absolutist, Newtonian definition on "intelligence" or "genius" will fail. 

I am not so sure that "philosophy" will retreat: it will more probably absorb the advances of neuroscience and advance alongside it.

One can say e.g. that certain brain areas "light up" when one thinks of "2+2=4" and that does indeed give us certain information, but does not tell us why one brain e.g. decides to rub sticks together to create fire and another brain does not.

[Chaszz]

Quite true: given that quantum effects are most probably at work in the brain, trying to place any kind of absolutist, Newtonian definition on "intelligence" or "genius" will fail. 

I am not so sure that "philosophy" will retreat: it will more probably absorb the advances of neuroscience and advance alongside it.

One can say e.g. that certain brain areas "light up" when one thinks of "2+2=4" and that does indeed give us certain information, but does not tell us why one brain e.g. decides to rub sticks together to create fire and another brain does not.

I certainly don't think science will, for a long time, if ever, answer all questions about the brain and personality. But some of them, anyway.

"I made my money on the seas, and in the mines, and in the cattle wars of the old frontier! I made it by being tougher than the toughies, and smarter than the smarties! And I made it square!"  -  Scrooge McDuck

Sad omission of the roles his great-nephews Huey, Dewey and Louie played in expanding his fortune from a good beginning to a huge money bin. But typical of some egotists to downplay their assistants' help.

[drogulus]

A tricky question. Like discussing who is the biggest midget.

    That's what I think. Yet I don't think the idea is totally screwy. That is, there must be something to say for the inspiration vs perspiration balance. However, it might not turn out to be very interesting. Perhaps all of the widely admired composers have plenty of both behind them, and it's probably true that most of the composers that could easily produce an excellent composition are also trying very hard to produce an even better one.

[DavidRoss]

The above two posts are speculative. The emerging field of neuroscience through brain imaging is supplying some more solid evidence of what goes on on the brain than personal philosophical speculation. For instance, intelligence does not seem to be a completely unified thing, as there are different brain locations for different facets of it. Also it's been known for some time that rational thinking occurs more in one hemisphere and emotive reactions more in the other. This is another in the long list of fields where philosophy has been forced to retreat in the face of science.

Huh?  What the heck are you talking about?  Science IS applied philosophy.   

[Josquin des Prez]

Science is philosophy with all the genius taken out of it.

[karlhenning]

Anyone else see Leno speaking that line?  No: Letterman.

[DavidRoss]

Science is philosophy with all the genius taken out of it.

Good grief....  Now I remember why I rarely visit this site any longer.

[jowcol]

Science is philosophy with all the genius taken out of it.

Ergo, by definition,  Einstein was not a genius.  I'm learning a lot here.

[karlhenning]

Dave & jowcol . . . in some work of ficton I read 20 years ago (The Broom of the System?) there is a game the college freshmen play, "Hi Bob."  They watch Newhart on TV, and whenever a character enters and says "Hi, Bob!" they have to chug their beer.

Here at GMG we read "Josquin's" posts and play "Genius."