Most Intelligent Composers

[Mark G. Simon]

We don't really have enough information to make statements about who is the most intelligent composer. Putting together a great composition surely requires some form of intellignece, but that is not the sum total of intelligence.

I think Camille Saint-Saëns should be in the running for the most intelligent composer. Besides composing prodigiously throughout his life, he was also a skilled pianist, one who could play all of Beethoven's piano sonatas from memory by the age of 10, and he gained fame early on for his ability to improvise at the organ. He also knew a lot about, archaeology, biology, mathematics, he wrote scholarly papers on acoustics, Roman theater decoration, the occult, and philosophy. He also wrote poetry and plays. He was a member of the Astronomical Society of France, and had a telescope made to his own specifications. No one would ever say he was the greatest composer in the world, but he may have been the most intelligent.

[lukeottevanger]

...No one would ever say he was the greatest composer in the world...

This is GMG you're at: don't be too hasty!

[Mark G. Simon]

Here at GMG, people are more likely to say he was the worst composer ever.

That isn't true, either. Saint-Saëns counts as a pretty good composer in my book. There are others who are greater, but he did pretty well.

[BachQ]

He also knew a lot about, archaeology, biology, mathematics, he wrote scholarly papers on acoustics, Roman theater decoration, the occult, and philosophy.

He also knew a lot about pederasty ............

[Josquin des Prez]

I think Camille Saint-Saëns should be in the running for the most intelligent composer. Besides composing prodigiously throughout his life, he was also a skilled pianist, one who could play all of Beethoven's piano sonatas from memory by the age of 10, and he gained fame early on for his ability to improvise at the organ. He also knew a lot about, archaeology, biology, mathematics, he wrote scholarly papers on acoustics, Roman theater decoration, the occult, and philosophy. He also wrote poetry and plays. He was a member of the Astronomical Society of France, and had a telescope made to his own specifications. No one would ever say he was the greatest composer in the world, but he may have been the most intelligent.

I think the original poster meant which composer wrote the most intelligent music, and by intelligent we mean the most brain wrecking compositions from the point of view of writing them rather then something that is hard to listen to but doesn't take a whole lot to compose, hence why "complexity" (which isn't too difficoult to achieve with the right techniques) wasn't included in the definition.

Also, by intelligence we mean the ability to crank out and tackle extremely difficoult ideas as opposed to a simple autistic-like ability to process and retain a large amount of informations. This is where many people get confused since the acquisition of informations is a rather taxing process in itself and a sure sign of brain power but doesn't necessarily indicate a mind capable of complex ideas.

Therefore, why artists of seemingly average brain power (relatively speaking) like Beethoven or Mahler were able to write music of unsurpassing intelligence as opposed to a Mendelsohn or a Saint-Saëns, whom, beyond the ability to absorb informations with ridiculous ease showed rather pedestrian abilities in actual practice.

[Ten thumbs]

So then, as to the question of intelligence, let us stipulate as follows: Brahms > Beethoven

I don't think counterpoint comes into this. It can be argued that Reger was a better contrapuntalist than Brahms but he comes somewhat behind him in musical intelligence.

[karlhenning]

I think the original poster meant which composer wrote the most intelligent music

(a) I wouldn't take the initial query to mean that, particularly.

(b) That only serves further to muddy the question.  For if there are difficulties in comparative intelligence among composers, defining what is "intelligent music" is hopeless.

Mark's nomination of Saint-Saëns is, at the least, eminently sensible.  And I don't think for an instant that Saint-Saëns wrote less than "intelligent" music.

[head-case]

I'm afraid I will change the subject back to the original topic.  I'd say Mozart displays the greatest intelligence in his music.  It is for the simple reason that his music is outwardly simple, but the more you study or listen to it, the more you find that these apparently simple elements interact with each other in unexpected and delightful ways.  I could say the same of Haydn, Brahms, Beethoven, Bach, and some others (not necessarily in that order), but to a lesser extent. 

I must say, I don't find the topic to be the most essential, since the purpose of music is not to manifest intelligence, although it does add delight to it.  But I find it very interesting that certain people are can get so upset if no one agrees with them that their favorite composer is the most intelligent.

[(poco) Sforzando]

But I find it very interesting that certain people are can get so upset if no one agrees with them that their favorite composer is the most intelligent.

No one wants to think they're listening to music by a dumb composer.

[(poco) Sforzando]

(a) I wouldn't take the initial query to mean that, particularly.

Actually, I think it did mean just that: "Which composer do you think shows the greatest amount of intellect in his music?"  (I.e., not in his poetry, or in his papers on Roman theater decoration, or in his acumen in pursuing his pederastical proclivities.)

[BachQ]

No one wants to think they're listening to music by a dumb composer.

[Josquin des Prez]

(b) That only serves further to muddy the question.  For if there are difficulties in comparative intelligence among composers, defining what is "intelligent music" is hopeless.

Just because it can't be defined in simple terms doesn't mean it's not assailable, if only intuitively. For instance, i have no doubt in my mind that Chopin is a more intelligent composer then Liszt. I don't know why, but for me the difference it's perfectly obvious. I wouldn't necessarily attempt to convince others of this personal certainty, but i sure as hell cannot ignore it.

Mark's nomination of Saint-Saëns is, at the least, eminently sensible.  And I don't think for an instant that Saint-Saëns wrote less than "intelligent" music.

I was speaking in relative terms of course. The music of Saint-Saëns is obviously intelligent, but not exact genial. I think the distinction between the savant and the genius it's an important one, particularly when a lot of people seem to be convinced the two are synonymous of each other.

[Lethevich]

No one wants to think they're listening to music by a dumb composer.

...something Bruckner fans have to come to terms with very early on

[karlhenning]

The music of Saint-Saëns is obviously intelligent, but not exact genial.

But, how have you determined that genius is absent from Saint-Saëns's music?

[head-case]

...something Bruckner fans have to come to terms with very early on

Well, I love Bruckner, but I'd have to agree...grudgingly.

[Josquin des Prez]

But, how have you determined that genius is absent from Saint-Saëns's music?

I don't know, i just know. 

[head-case]

But, how have you determined that genius is absent from Saint-Saëns's music?

Sure his music smacks of genius.  I assume the genius parts come along after I've already nodded off.

[karlhenning]

I don't know, i just know. 

Thank you for acknowledging the purely opinionated nature of your remark.

Sure his music smacks of genius.  I assume the genius parts come along after I've already nodded off.

Now, if we said that of another composer — let's say, Wagner — an enthusiast of the composer would say that anyone who falls asleep through the music doesn't understand or appreciate it.

[Mark G. Simon]

Guess what. This is all about opinion, because there's no objective way to measure the quantity of intellect in a composition. And part of that is because people listen to music with various levels of intellectual engagement and will thus take away different levels of intellectual stimulation from what is presented in the music.

[Josquin des Prez]

because there's no objective way to measure the quantity of intellect in a composition.

I am of the opinion that there is an objective measure, it's just too difficoult to frame it in simple terms. The fact nobody is trying anymore isn't helping, either.

All i know is that the concept that everything revolves around the individual is an extremely unsatisfying solution, even if it appears to be rationally sound.