Most Intelligent Composers

[karlhenning]

Was Wagner intelligent?  Sure: but he was also a moron.

And even with such intelligence as he had, he would have benefited from a better self-critical faculty, in a number of spheres.  For even though the Ring is a mighty accomplishment overall, there are aspects of it which I find amateurish, and even (*gasp*) flat-out tedious.

[Haffner]

Yes, so in your opinion, the intelligence behind this particular accomplishment outweighs the intelligence of other composers.  Which is one of the more eccentric means of "measuring" intelligence.

(Incidentally, I do not contest either (a) that the Ring is a mighty accomplishment, nor (b) that part of what went into making it was some degree of intelligence.)

I think you are right in terms of abstracting the music from the music and drama. Certainly Beethoven, Mozart, Profokiev, Tchaikovsky, etc. quite often matched Wagner on musical terms (I'd put op.132 over anything by anybody, for instance). I meant from the perspective of writing both the music and drama, and how well they hold up as a team. You probably guessed that.

[Haffner]

(1) Wagner was not the only composer to make bad personal and social decisions. Beethoven ranks up there, too - with his unethical business dealings with publishers, his failed attempts at relating to women, his obsessive and possessive treatment of his nephew, etc. And let's not forget Bruckner, Stravinsky, no doubt others . . .

(2) I think there's enough that's dramatically muddled and inconsistent about The Ring as to call into question how great an intellect Wagner really was (taking cover from the inevitable attacks from The Faithful).

(3) Yeah, right.

(4) Well, I can't read Act III:iii in Shakespeare without hearing Si pel ciel thundering in my mind either. But I would question whether Verdi supersedes Shakespeare; both play and opera to my mind work extraordinarily well in their different ways.

These are all excellent points.

[Haffner]

And even with such intelligence as he had, he would have benefited from a better self-critical faculty, in a number of spheres.  For even though the Ring is a mighty accomplishment overall, there are aspects of it which I find amateurish, and even (*gasp*) flat-out tedious.

That's easy to agree with.

[BachQ]

I mean, let's not forget Elgar here (hello, Dmitri!).

Of course!  Lalo, Dittersdorf, and ........... and ............ and ............. and .............

[BachQ]

These are all excellent points.

That's why we pay Sforzando the big bucks ..........

[ChamberNut]

Which is one of the more eccentric means of "measuring" intelligence.

Wow, that's the first time I've ever been called eccentric, although I've been called worse things. 

[karlhenning]

. . . although I've been called worse things.

I'll never believe it.

At any rate, I did not call you eccentric, but that means of determining intelligence. A person, and an idea that the person has, are two distinct entities.

[MN Dave]

Brahms, because he knew when enough was enough and didn't go all hardcore Romantic.

[lukeottevanger]

Sure. But given the complexities of Ferneyhough's meters and tuplets, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has thought he could achieve the same or similar musical ends with different notational means.

Perhaps so. But the notation can be a barrier to performers who lack the patience or skill to decipher these 2/10 measures with syncopated tuplets across the barline. And therefore the written text can get so much in the way that the performer who might otherwise have no trouble handling Ferneyhough's technical complexities is going to discount the music - will not perform it, therefore listeners won't hear it - because he/she can't figure out how to play his rhythms:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3125.msg178093.html#msg178093

I expect however that Luke might rise in defense of the rhythmic notation of The New Complexity.

Yes, indeed! But only to try to answer the point of the first passage I quote. The complex appearance of Ferneyhough's music doesn't only arise out of the equally complex techniques that he uses to write it; he is well aware that, as you point out, similar results could be achieved by simpler notation, and if that were what mattered to him, I've no doubt he'd use that simpler notation. But he has another concern over and above this, which is that the difficulty of his music is part of it - not something relatively separate which concerns only the performer but something whose changing demands on the performer should be perceived by the audience as readily as they perceive the more obviously acoustical facts of the music. It is, therefore, a parameter which he calculates as precisely as he calculates more usual parameters (dynamics, pitch etc.) so that, in a sense it becomes a polyphonic strand of its own. IOW the performer's (often scarified!) reaction to the notation and their struggle to realise it is also a part of the performance. Indeed, Ferneyhough has said, effectively (I can dig out the quotation later) - I don't expect a performer to play more than a minimal percentage of my music accurately (and none of them do), but what I do expect is that they try their hardest to realise my deliberately complex instructions; the (psychological ) tension between the two is what Ferneyhough is really interested in, and that tension would be nullified by a simpler notation. You might not agree that this is an interesting, valid or worthy aim, but nevertheless, his use of such notation is itself valid in this light, I think.

Blimey, I'm getting as long-winded as Ferneyhough himself..... I'm sure that could have been said much better and simpler!

[(poco) Sforzando]

That's why we pay Sforzando the big bucks ..........

Can I quit my day job?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Indeed, Ferneyhough has said, effectively (I can dig out the quotation later) - I don't expect a performer to play more than a minimal percentage of my music accurately (and none of them do), but what I do expect is that they try their hardest to realise my deliberately complex instructions

At this late and declining stage in my pianistic development, I don't play more than a minimal percentage of any composer's music accurately.

[karlhenning]

Blimey, I'm getting as long-winded as Ferneyhough himself..... I'm sure that could have been said much better and simpler!

Well, but some things defy easy saying.

[karlhenning]

Can I quit my day job?

You have that freedom.

[karlhenning]

Most intelligent composer

It may be worth repeating this here:

Intelligence is knowing that the tomato is a fruit.

Wisdom is not adding tomato to the fruit salad.

[not edward]

Well, but some things defy easy saying.

As with his music, Ferneyhough's essays are sometimes expressed in a more complex manner than they might be.

I have the big-ass 500-page book of Ferneyhough essays and stuff. The thing that surprised me most about it was that the bits of poetry included show that the man has a rather wicked sense of humour.

[karlhenning]

As with his music, Ferneyhough's essays are sometimes expressed in a more complex manner than they might be.

Oh, I should never seek to defend Ferneyhough in that regard.

The defense of Luke, though, is another matter  0:)

[Cato]

Another example from my school experience: hearing grade point averages being taken out to 3 DECIMAL POINTS!!!

"And graduating first in his class with a GPA of 5.276 is John Smith.  Graduating second in his class with a GPA of 5.105 is John Jones."

And you see the moronic audience (and some faculty members, usually the mathematics teachers) nodding in approval that what they just heard makes some kind of sense!!!

One can indeed debate that Wagner might have shown us higher intelligence by a more judicious use of a red pen.

As to Ferneyhough: so he wants his complexity to be an artistically and perhaps meditatively ontological struggle with complexity.

Would the result be any different for the listener, if the music were simplified?  One would think yes.  So if that is what he wants, fine. 

I am not sure "intelligence" per se has much to do with this: non-intellectual factors like perseverance would seem more important.

[lukeottevanger]

As with his music, Ferneyhough's essays are sometimes expressed in a more complex manner than they might be.

Yes, but it is just his natural mode of expression, so it's hard to criticise him for it. We all have our ways of doing these things - I over-punctuate, over-hyphenate and don't use half as many full stops as I ought to; Saul uses his own special spellings; Karl keeps things pithy and so on. It make us recognisable and individual, so I'm all for it.

In Ferneyhough's case, he's used to dealing with complex thoughts and so he's become used to expressing them in a complex manner. It is, at the very least, involving and idiosyncratic, but more than that - one is forced to think about what he is saying, and not take a single sentence for granted.

I have the big-ass 500-page book of Ferneyhough essays and stuff. The thing that surprised me most about it was that the bits of poetry included show that the man has a rather wicked sense of humour.

Yes, that's quite a tome - it took me a while to read through the whole thing!

[karlhenning]

Yes, that's quite a tome - it took me a while to read through the whole thing!

Burn it! Tome, tome on the range . . . .