Greatest composer who was not a genius?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Haydn maybe.

[karlhenning]

Aye, that was a signally puzzling remark, even considering the source ; )

[Josquin des Prez]

Well, being the worst among the best isn't necessarily an unflattering position to be in.   

[The Six]

Yes, "worst" doesn't necessarily entail "bad." I'd like to see a comprehensive list of all the genius composers from the Baroque to contemporaries times so that this can be decided. Posthaste!

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well, being the worst among the best isn't necessarily an unflattering position to be in.

Oh. Now I get it. Thanks for the clarification.

[springrite]

Well, being the worst among the best isn't necessarily an unflattering position to be in.

That depends on how long the "best" list is. There is a difference being the worse of the top 10 and being the worse of the top 10,000.




Wait, why am I even commenting on this?

[(poco) Sforzando]

That depends on how long the "best" list is. There is a difference being the worse of the top 10 and being the worse of the top 10,000.

Will someone please shoot whoever invented decimal arithmetic?

[karlhenning]

I understand it was the mediaeval Arabs who invented the zero . . . .

[karlhenning]

Zappa, from (appropriate to this thread? You make the call!) "The Torture Never Stops":

♫ He's the best, of course, of all the worst.

[Ten thumbs]

Short shrift for Fanny, then.

Yes indeed because she composed music that no ordinary composer could create. Therefore she need not be mentioned here. In any case due to an accident of history most of her music lay hidden for 150 years and so she doesn't yet make it into the list of greats.

[Josquin des Prez]

Yes indeed because she composed music that no ordinary composer could create. Therefore she need not be mentioned here. In any case due to an accident of history most of her music lay hidden for 150 years and so she doesn't yet make it into the list of greats.

Her music is an amateurish patchwork of stuff she borrowed from her brother but had no idea how to use properly. I never heard something so abysmally disjointed in my life. At times it feels like a parody of Felix's own music.

[Chaszz]

Except brilliance alone turned Wagner into a genius. He may have been persistent in his own fashion but there was no trace of perspiration in his musical development. He was not particularly talented in his youth and demonstrated an unwillingness to conform to any musical discipline or training. And there isn't a single case in which brilliance ever hindered a composer's "success", that i can think of.

His long years of daily conducting were his real apprenticeship. Plenty of perspiration and discipline there, and he was forced to know and analyze the works of his predecessors thoroughly to the smallest detail. 

[Josquin des Prez]

His long years of daily conducting were his real apprenticeship. Plenty of perspiration and discipline there, and he was forced to know and analyze the works of his predecessors thoroughly to the smallest detail.

I stand corrected.

[Chaszz]

To settle the issue of whether the term genius has any real meaning, try it backwards. Say "Beethoven was NOT a genius". Silly, no?

Then say "Johann Krebs WAS a genius." Silly again, no?

Just because reasonable people can disagree in many cases on who makes it into the charmed circle doesn't mean the term is meaningless. It's just hard to pin down in those cases. But excluding Beethoven, Bach, Mozart would be ludicrous. And including hundreds of others would be just as ludicrous. So in the vast middle, it comes down to a matter of taste. But at the extremes it is meaningful, if one grants that anything can be said about musical quality at all.  And so the term is not meaningless.   

[jochanaan]

Her music is an amateurish patchwork of stuff she borrowed from her brother but had no idea how to use properly. I never heard something so abysmally disjointed in my life. At times it feels like a parody of Felix's own music.

That's one opinion.  My own opinion differs greatly.

[Franco]

To settle the issue of whether the term genius has any real meaning, try it backwards. Say "Beethoven was NOT a genius". Silly, no?

Then say "Johann Krebs WAS a genius." Silly again, no?

Just because reasonable people can disagree in many cases on who makes it into the charmed circle doesn't mean the term is meaningless. It's just hard to pin down in those cases. But excluding Beethoven, Bach, Mozart would be ludicrous. And including hundreds of others would be just as ludicrous. So in the vast middle, it comes down to a matter of taste. But at the extremes it is meaningful, if one grants that anything can be said about musical quality at all.  And so the term is not meaningless.   

I guess all depends upon how you wish to access the music.  I don't need to even think about whether Beethoven is a genius or not in order to listen and enjoy the music, the same with any composer (whether they are geniuses or not).  And knowing Beethoven is a genius does not add to my pleasure, and the converse is true: knowing that many people do not consider Saint-Seans or Mendelssohn geniuses does not alter the fact that I enjoy their music as much as Beethoven's, or more on some days.

[Josquin des Prez]

How you can you not know whether Beethoven was a genius without knowing whether his music was that of a genius in the first place? If you understand the genius in a musical work then you understand the genius that produced it. Your argument is illogical so me.

[(poco) Sforzando]

How you can you not know whether Beethoven was a genius without knowing whether his music was that of a genius in the first place? If you understand the genius in a musical work then you understand the genius that produced it. Your argument is illogical so me.

Other than music, Beethoven was staggeringly inept in a number of areas. For example, he never learned to multiply and had to add columns of the same numbers to get his answers; he was not much of a writer (cf. Berlioz or Schumann) and his command of foreign languages was weak. So was he a genius? Can one be a genius in one area and barely intelligent in others?

I consider Pierre Boulez a brilliant man, quite possibly a genius, though I have many reservations about his music. In the long run, while the issue may be of interest to musical biography, does it really matter? We listen presumably for the works, not the biography of their creators.

[Josquin des Prez]

Other than music, Beethoven was staggeringly inept in a number of areas. For example, he never learned to multiply and had to add columns of the same numbers to get his answers; he was not much of a writer (cf. Berlioz or Schumann) and his command of foreign languages was weak. So was he a genius? Can one be a genius in one area and barely intelligent in others?

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?

[Daverz]

I think the question boils down to: were there any great composers who were idiot savants.  I don't know of any.