Greatest composer who was not a genius?

[(poco) Sforzando]

& composers can be cruel to eachother. Eg. Rimsky Korsakov said of his pupil Arensky that he would quickly be forgotten.

He was right!

[The Six]

Ironically, by all reports, Saint-Saëns WAS a genius,

Maybe he's the worst composer who was a genius.

[The new erato]

Was it Grieg or Bartok who was the shortest composer without being a midget?

[Sid]

He was right!

Well, not literally. Arensky's music is still being played (probably has been revived?). I saw a performance of his piano trio in March, and it was ok (but yes, the other works on the program grabbed me more, Arensky's trio couldn't even begin to catch up to Schubert's 1st trio). After hearing that work, and it's rather conservative idiom, I'm in no hurry to hear more Arensky. It was a "one off."

[quintett op.57]

Except my understanding of genius is modeled after the same definition used since ages past in western society as far back as ancient Greece. Of course, the use of the word "genius" was introduced in the 19th century, but the idea was always present and was referred to in various ways. Even a cursory glance at the following list of quotations will reveal that historically, nobody understood by Genius what jochanaan implied in his assertion:

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/genqtpg.html

There is nothing idiosyncratic about my conception of genius. The way the word genius is used today has nothing to do with what it was supposed to express in the past.

genius used to mean evil.
Now it means "much more gifted than average".
The speaker using this given word is free to choose from what level of talent he considers someone as a genius.

I'm not sure 1 out of 100000 people are gifted enough to compete with Saint-Saëns as a composer. Well, I regard him as a genius.

[Guido]

Except my understanding of genius is modeled after the same definition used since ages past in western society as far back as ancient Greece. Of course, the use of the word "genius" was introduced in the 19th century, but the idea was always present and was referred to in various ways. Even a cursory glance at the following list of quotations will reveal that historically, nobody understood by Genius what jochanaan implied in his assertion:

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/genqtpg.html

There is nothing idiosyncratic about my conception of genius. The way the word genius is used today has nothing to do with what it was supposed to express in the past.

Your list of quoatations and aphorisms doesn't at all imply what you think it does. You make yourself hard to take seriously sometimes. Oftentimes.

[jowcol]

Your list of quoatations and aphorisms doesn't at all imply what you think it does. You make yourself hard to take seriously sometimes. Oftentimes.

Actually, it's refreshing from those quotes to see that Andy Warhol was a genius....

[Josquin des Prez]

Your list of quoatations and aphorisms doesn't at all imply what you think it does.

Its clear to me that genius is always applied to a particular creative quality (even a counterfeit one, such as the case of Andy Warhol, the moron who conned others into believing he was a genius) or personal force rather then a mere superior form of intellect, the latter being the contemporary definition.

[karlhenning]

Its clear to me that genius is always applied to a particular creative quality or personal force rather then a mere superior form of intellect, which is the contemporary definition.

That's fine, and is exactly how we are applying the term to Saint-Saëns, id est, with reference not to his prodigious intellect, but to his creative powers..

[Josquin des Prez]

That's fine, and is exactly how we are applying the term to Saint-Saëns, id est, with reference not to his prodigious intellect, but to his creative powers..

Which is good. Of course, i disagree that his creative powers were that of a genius, but that's another argument altogether.

[Franco]

Does it matter if an artist is considered a genius?

[Josquin des Prez]

Does it matter if an artist is considered a genius?

Well yes, considering that, without genius, art does not mean anything in the first place.

[karlhenning]

Well yes, considering that, without genius, art does not mean anything in the first place.

Either that is false, or genius must be more widely abroad than you are fond to think.

[Franco]

Well yes, considering that, without genius, art does not mean anything in the first place.

It is my view that an object of art means something by itself, distinct from its creator, and an idea of "genius " is speculative, biographical and irrelevant.

[Josquin des Prez]

It is my view that an object of art means something by itself, distinct from its creator, and an idea of "genius " is speculative, biographical and irrelevant.

Where as it is my view that art does mean anything by itself. Without Bach or Handel there would be no point to baroque music. The form and style in itself is irrelevant, it is genius and genius alone that gives it purpose.

[karlhenning]

Without Bach or Handel there would be no purpose to Baroque music.

That is untrue, save under a most labored and tendentious notion of "purpose" to music.

[Josquin des Prez]

That is untrue, save under a most labored and tendentious notion of "purpose" to music.

It is only untrue for those who use art the same way one would use tapestry decoration: to stimulate the senses rather then the soul.

[karlhenning]

It is only untrue for those who use art the same way one would use tapestry decoration: to stimulate the senses rather then the soul.

A pity you are using this discussing only to stimulate your senses rather then your soul.

[Chaszz]

I agree with Mr. des Prez. I think genius is something rare and special, is inborn (although the artist has to work hard to realize it), few have it, and it gives the arts most of their purpose. Baroque music would be greatly diminished by the absence of Handel or Bach, and overall not much by that of Corelli, though Corelli is a great composer. There is a difference in degree between greatness and genius, and we instinctively feel it.

My nominee for a typical great non-genius is Mendelssohn. I don't know if he's the greatest, but he seems to me the essence of the definition. A quandary I've always been in is with Brahms.  But I think he makes it to genius. However, if someone tells me he thinks Bach is a genius and Brahms not, I wouldn't argue too strongly. And neither would Brahms.

[Franco]

Where as it is my view that art does mean anything by itself. Without Bach or Handel there would be no point to baroque music. The form and style in itself is irrelevant, it is genius and genius alone that gives it purpose.

Whether or not you or anyone else labels Bach or Handel a genius their music will exist and have meaning.  Whether the mastery that Bach and Handel brought to music composition is the work of genius is not an issue I care to contemplate since it is merely someone's opinion, and cloaks the work of art in a shroud of "this is the work of genius" - as if the work needs a context in order to be felt. 

An idea of what constitutes genius is completely unnecessary to appreciating art.  For myself, the less I know about the creator,  the more I can appreciate the art object on its own terms.