Most Intelligent Composers

[Mark G. Simon]

Also, by intelligence we mean the ability to crank out and tackle extremely difficult 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.

This gets us somewhere as far as defining what intelligent music is (as opposed to intellegent composers). One can compare Vivaldi and Bach and immediately see that Bach handles much more difficult ideas and much more involved textures. On the other hand, difficult ideas tend to be complex, and we're not supposed to be equating complexity with intelligence. Indeed, a composer, such as Reger, compromises his music by piling on complexities indiscriminately. So part of intelligence must lie in knowing when to hold back, to withold difficult ideas, saving them for the appropriate moments. There are times when the simple idea is the better choice.

[Haffner]

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

I see your point, but when I listen to his symphonies I wonder just how "dumb" he really was. Light under a bushel...

[DavidRoss]

The statement makes no reference to intelligence, and I fail to see why some remark tossed of by Mahler is in any way decisive in determining this question.  Presumably Mahler admired Wagner for pioneering the concept of music that goes on way too long, a critical component of Mahler's work.

  Brilliant.  Thank you!

[Greta]

Which composer do you think shows the greatest amount of intellect in his music?
I don't mean music which is just composed as complex as possible. The ideal conditions of a score which shows the highest level of sophistication would mean for me (also a point to discuss!): each note stands in relation to all the other notes, not a single note can be dropped without lowering the impression on the listener, there's nothing more to be said, the thematic material and its instrumentation is full of wit, etc.

That sounds like a description of Sibelius 7 to me.....and Sibelius in general....I wouldn't change a single note.

I'll say Ravel too. Both were also extremely intelligent people...

[DavidRoss]

That sounds like a description of Sibelius 7 to me.....and Sibelius in general....I wouldn't change a single note.

I'll say Ravel too. Both were also extremely intelligent people...

Well, of course, Greta.  (Nice to hear from you.)  Bear in mind that the kind of intelligence required to synthesize centuries of practice into the creation of radically new musical structures--not to mention the impeccable craftsmanship that revised and cut and distilled until nothing but the essential remained--is unlikely to be recognized by those who think there's nothing superfluous in the works of little Dickie.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well, of course, Greta.  (Nice to hear from you.)  Bear in mind that the kind of intelligence required to synthesize centuries of practice into the creation of radically new musical structures--not to mention the impeccable craftsmanship that revised and cut and distilled until nothing but the essential remained--is unlikely to be recognized by those who think there's nothing superfluous in the works of little Dickie.

Not necessarily, Mr. Ross, despite your high confidence in the matter. It is possible to admire both the concise structures of Ravel and the monumental if sprawling epics of a Wagner. Fortunately, music is large enough to include both.

[DavidRoss]

Not necessarily, Mr. Ross, despite your high confidence in the matter. It is possible to admire both the concise structures of Ravel and the monumental if sprawling epics of a Wagner. Fortunately, music is large enough to include both.

Of course it is.  I did not say that it is impossible to admire both. I admire both.  But my admiration for Wagner's achievement hardly blinds me to its flaws--chief among which is self-indulgence (extreme even for its time!) that cripples the dramatic integrity of the work.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Of course it is.  I did not say that it is impossible to admire both. I admire both.  But my admiration for Wagner's achievement hardly blinds me to its flaws--chief among which is self-indulgence (extreme even for its time!) that cripples the dramatic integrity of the work.

What you said - to summarize your rather verbose statement - is that those who find nothing superfluous in Wagner's work are unlikely to recognize the impeccable craftsmanship of a Ravel.

[DavidRoss]

What you said - to summarize your rather verbose statement - is that those who find nothing superfluous in Wagner's work are unlikely to recognize the impeccable craftsmanship of a Ravel.

That's closer.  Why are you trying to offend?

[(poco) Sforzando]

That's closer.  Why are you trying to offend?

I might ask the same of you. You were the one who endorsed as "brilliant" the sneering comment that "Presumably Mahler admired Wagner for pioneering the concept of music that goes on way too long, a critical component of Mahler's work" - as if Mahler's regard for Wagner was rooted solely in the latter's prolixity and had nothing to do with anything more musically substantial.

Wagner of course was not the only "pioneer" who stretched music to previously unheard-of lengths; operas like Les Troyens and Les Huguenots were also of Wagnerian dimensions (Berlioz settled for splitting Troyens into two halves, but that was never his real intention), and in the symphony Bruckner anticipated Mahler's giganticism. In terms of outsize dimensions, the genesis for symphonies such as Bruckner's and Mahler's is ultimately to be found in Beethoven's 9th.

[marvinbrown]

The statement makes no reference to intelligence, and I fail to see why some remark tossed of by Mahler is in any way decisive in determining this question.  Presumably Mahler admired Wagner for pioneering the concept of music that goes on way too long, a critical component of Mahler's work.
By your measure, Wagner is only surpassed in intelligence by Britney Spears.  He certainly was original, but he failed to mold those original elements into true masterworks because of his intellectual weakness. 

    I went back and read my post regarding Mahler. I was responding to DavidRoss claim that it was a universally accepted fact that Bach/Beethoven/Mozart/Brahms are supreme master's of their art.  DavidRoss was not talking about intelligence and neither was I!  How could it be universally accepted when the leading musicians of that time Mahler and Bruckner were idolizing Wagner?? 

  head-case You have interefered in a conversation that did not concern you to begin with and then proceeded to insult me with your comment regarding "the most intelligent" poster.  I want to thank you for your good behaviour towards me.

  marvin   
 
 

[karlhenning]

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.

Well, here we have it:  you feel sure that there is an objective means to gauge it, because you find some aspect of the question extremely unsatisfying.

There are (as we've had occasion to observe ere now) both external and internal considerations bearing upon the matter.  We are not going to find a coldly immutable touchstone for genius.

[ChamberNut]

I see your point, but when I listen to his symphonies I wonder just how "dumb" he really was. Light under a bushel...

I'm not sure Bruckner was that "dumb" either.  I think he played his "country bumpkin" card well. He got Wagner to say he was the greatest symphonist after Beethoven, which is true, and which is also why I think Wagner is very intelligent. 

[karlhenning]

. . . and which is also why I think Wagner is very intelligent. 

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'm not sure Bruckner was that "dumb" either.  I think he played his "country bumpkin" card well. He got Wagner to say he was the greatest symphonist after Beethoven, which is true, and which is also why I think Wagner is very intelligent. 

I'd have to do some sleuthing, but as I recall some documents emerging in the past ten years suggest Bruckner was not quite the rube he was taken for in haughty, sophisticated Vienna. Then again, no composer seems to have been as socially awkward, obsessive, given to nervous tics, and superstitious.

[ChamberNut]

I'd have to do some sleuthing, but as I recall some documents emerging in the past ten years suggest Bruckner was not quite the rube he was taken for in haughty, sophisticated Vienna. Then again, no composer seems to have been as socially awkward, obsessive, given to nervous tics, and superstitious.

Yes, socially awkward.  But, he was a great tipper.   

[karlhenning]

If practically everyone else within the very same field looks at the creative, original, highly imaginative, substantial & important achievements & accomplishments of a particular individual and collectively and unamiously goes "whoa" that's a sign on the measure of genius. So in music for instance we have certain milestones created by certain figures; Bach's Well Tempered Clavier & St. Matthew Passion. Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Wagner's Tristan & Isolde. Stravinsky's Rite of Spring.

In many ways, this is the "anchor" in a nutshell, and well expressed, James.  Here is the immediate and crucial corollary:

This principle works in affirmative mode, but it is not determinative (in the way that many have presumed) in its negative compliment.  In a word, the fact that circumstances have not conjoined to create such a professional consensus for some work, or some composer, does not automatically mean that genius is 'absent' from those.

[DavidRoss]

I might ask the same of you. You were the one who endorsed as "brilliant" the sneering comment that "Presumably Mahler admired Wagner for pioneering the concept of music that goes on way too long, a critical component of Mahler's work" - as if Mahler's regard for Wagner was rooted solely in the latter's prolixity and had nothing to do with anything more musically substantial.

I applauded head-cases's wit as "brilliant."  Idolators often lack a sense of humor, at least concerning the object of their worship.  You sure read a lot into my brief comment, none of which is there.

I was responding to DavidRoss [sic] claim that it was [sic] a universally accepted fact [sic] that Bach/Beethoven/Mozart/Brahms are [sic] supreme master's [sic] of their art.  DavidRoss was not talking about intelligence and neither was I!  How could it be universally accepted when the leading musicians of that time Mahler and Bruckner were idolizing Wagner??  

Near universal enjoyment of ice cream does not preclude its fans from also liking apple pie.

[karlhenning]

Near universal enjoyment of ice cream does not preclude its fans from also liking apple pie.

Nor (to build upon that analogy) does it argue any inherent inferiority of the apple pie.

[marvinbrown]

Near universal enjoyment of ice cream does not preclude its fans from also liking apple pie.

     They weren't just enjoying Wagner's artwork they were worshipping it! They were being influenced by it! They were trying to learn from it! 



  marvin