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.
I just listened to the Brahms 2nd PC and followed the score. I think I have never seen such a conclusive, awe-inspiring score. He definitely gets my vote.
Other candidates could be Bach and Mahler. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven in most of their later works.
Now it's your turn.
Webern, I suppose. Particularly the 12-tone works.
Interesting. I read that Webern didn't show much talent in school etc.
But of course, that might have nothing to do with his music, yeah.
Quote from: rappy on May 06, 2008, 11:40:35 AM
I don't mean music which is just composed as complex as possible.
Thank you for making this distinction.
For me it has to be Bach, followed by Mozart as a close second. There are many others who over around ths spot but they all fall short by some margin, however small.
Quote from: rappy on May 06, 2008, 02:23:53 PM
Interesting. I read that Webern didn't show much talent in school etc.
But of course, that might have nothing to do with his music, yeah.
He was a fair student, particularly considering schools were a lot tougher then then they are now. I don't know how much that counts tough. Jazz virtuoso Art Tatum wrote some excruciatingly complex (and intelligent) music but his IQ must have been scarcely at college level.
I'd give Webern an IQ of 130+ with a standard deviation of 15, more or less Mensa entry level. His musical IQ must have been through the roof however. Even as a teen he was already able to grasp the genius of Mahler when others (including Schoenberg) were still coming to terms with his music, and his criticism of his contemporaries was spot on almost 100% of the time.
Webern managed a PhD, so he can't have been a total intellectual loss...
Not sure if I can follow the definition of 'intelligent' used in the original posting.
The most intellectual composer in British music though is-most probably-Sir Michael Tippett. Although I am not a huge fan of his music(at least not his later music) it is obvious from the interviews that he gave and from his writings that Tippett was a man of the deepest intellect whose philosophical train of thought was often extremely difficult if not impenetrable to we lesser mortals!
So who then was the dumbest major composer?
And Webern can't be that smart otherwise he would have paid attention to the curfew in effect
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 06, 2008, 04:50:15 PM
So who then was the dumbest major composer?
Tchaikovsky? ;D
I always thought Mahler would be fascinating to speak with.
I see J. S. Bach and Mozart as being probably the smartest too. Schoenberg didn't seem like a dummy either, nor Copland.
JS Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Mozart
Quote from: Dundonnell on May 06, 2008, 04:23:42 PM
Not sure if I can follow the definition of 'intelligent' used in the original posting.
Why not? Incidentally (or not), this conception of complete formal and developmental dependence between the smallest elements of a composition is what eventually led to the idea of "continuous variation" which is at the basis of the 12-tone system, more so then the often cited "emancipation" of dissonance. This is at the very core of Webern's art and is probably why he manages to make serialism work even though i personally believe the theory to be erroneous (at this point in time), particularly in it's role as substitute-tonality.
Quote from: rappy on May 06, 2008, 11:40:35 AM
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.
I just listened to the Brahms 2nd PC and followed the score. I think I have never seen such a conclusive, awe-inspiring score. He definitely gets my vote.
Other candidates could be Bach and Mahler. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven in most of their later works.
Now it's your turn.
If one believes, as I do, that composition is not just a matter of pouring out one's feelings but of creating sculptures in sound, which calls for a very specifically musical type of braininess (and which may have nothing to do with conventional verbal or mathematical intelligence) - then how is your question any differerent from asking who was the greatest composer of all? I don't think you're talking about extramusical intelligence such as might be found in the writings of Tippett or Berlioz or Boulez, but rather about the musical intelligence of putting together a superbly sophisticated (but not complex for its own sake) piece of music. And so, likely candidates would include the Beethoven of the C# minor quartet and Diabellis, the Verdi of Falstaff, the Mozart of The Magic Flute, the Bach of the huge organ fugues, the Berlioz of the Love Scene from R+J, the Brahms of the Clarinet Quintet, the Chopin of the 4th Ballade, the Debussy of La Mer, the Berg of Wozzeck, and more - in short, most of the very greatest works by the very greatest composers, pure and simple (whether or not anyone else accepts my examples).
Or am I missing something from your original question?
Webern
Bach
Carter
Beethoven
JS Bach
Schönberg
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 06, 2008, 04:50:15 PM
And Webern can't be that smart otherwise he would have paid attention to the curfew in effect
At least he was smart enough to recognise the dangers of passive smoking around his grandchildren.
Quote from: Dundonnell on May 06, 2008, 04:23:42 PM
Not sure if I can follow the definition of 'intelligent' used in the original posting.
The most intellectual composer in British music though is-most probably-Sir Michael Tippett. Although I am not a huge fan of his music(at least not his later music) it is obvious from the interviews that he gave and from his writings that Tippett was a man of the deepest intellect whose philosophical train of thought was often extremely difficult if not impenetrable to we lesser mortals!
If one takes the implications of that last sentence as our definition of 'intelligent' then Brian Ferneyhough is going to be difficult for anyone to top. Though I rather tend to agree with Sforzando on this one.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 07, 2008, 03:05:37 AM
If one takes the implications of that last sentence as our definition of 'intelligent' then Brian Ferneyhough is going to be difficult for anyone to top. Though I rather tend to agree with Sforzando on this one.
As do I. But if the caveat against music that is "complex as possible" is applied, I'm not sure Ferneyough would escape.
I wasn't referring to his music here as much as to his bristling intellect as displayed in his writings - and believe me, he speaks like that in real life! :o
Quote from: rappy on May 06, 2008, 11:40:35 AM
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.
Beethoven and Brahms have this nailed.
Quote from: Dundonnell on May 06, 2008, 04:23:42 PM
Not sure if I can follow the definition of 'intelligent' used in the original posting.
Nor the methodology in "measuring" it.
Quote from: Dm on May 06, 2008, 05:56:18 PM
JS Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Mozart
Dm, please limit your choices to 1 intelligent composer who happens to be German-speaking only. 0:)
Wagner and DeBussy immediately come to mind.
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 07, 2008, 03:47:50 AM
Dm, please limit your choices to 1 intelligent composer who happens to be German-speaking only. 0:)
:D I choose Brahmshoven .........
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 07, 2008, 03:20:13 AM
I wasn't referring to his music here as much as to his bristling intellect as displayed in his writings - and believe me, he speaks like that in real life! :o
I know! I've heard him speak. But I think our friend Rappy was trying to eliminate music that he felt is complex for its own sake. Whether Brian's music is guilty of that, is a personal decision.
So it's largely a question of who we feel is 'the most intelligent composer', or 'most intellectual composer', yes? Selecting Wagner for this designation, is in part because we have the great benefit of his announcing himself, and repeatedly, that he is, right? 8)
Quote from: Sforzando on May 07, 2008, 03:58:27 AM
But I think our friend Rappy was trying to eliminate music that he felt is complex for its own sake. Whether Brian's music is guilty of that, is a personal decision.
Good point. Hardly any artist (no artist?) engages in "complexity for its own sake." For someone in the audience to claim that this damning phrase applies to this or that piece of music, is essentially a confession that he does not perceive the artistic intent of the composer.
Determining some external 'scale' against which we can determine such an 'imbalance' is problematical.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 07, 2008, 04:04:21 AM
Good point. Hardly any artist (no artist?) engages in "complexity for its own sake." For someone in the audience to claim that this damning phrase applies to this or that piece of music, is essentially a confession that he does not perceive the artistic intent of the composer.
Determining some external 'scale' against which we can determine such an 'imbalance' is problematical.
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 07, 2008, 04:00:19 AM
So it's largely a question of who we feel is 'the most intelligent composer', or 'most intellectual composer', yes?
Lalo
Quote from: Sforzando on May 07, 2008, 04:08:00 AM
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.
Point well taken; but then, it seems to me that your concern is logistical (simplifying the notation), rather than aesthetic (discounting the music because of the complexity).
Dittersdorf.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 07, 2008, 04:00:19 AM
So it's largely a question of who we feel[/i] is 'the most intelligent composer', or 'most intellectual composer', yes? Selecting Wagner for this designation, is in part because we have the great benefit of his announcing himself, and repeatedly, that he is, right? 8)
Yes, that's my opinion. Someone who conceived something as monumental as
The Ring certainly had to have a lot of intelligence. 0:)
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 07, 2008, 05:01:58 AM
Yes, that's my opinion. Someone who conceived something as monumental as The Ring certainly had to have a lot of intelligence. 0:)
No argument here :).
marvin
Quote from: karlhenning on May 07, 2008, 04:00:19 AM
So it's largely a question of who we feel is 'the most intelligent composer', or 'most intellectual composer', yes? Selecting Wagner for this designation, is in part because we have the great benefit of his announcing himself, and repeatedly, that he is, right? 8)
This is a good point. As far as musical composition, Wagner was obviously intelligent. But as a person, it's tough to judge him that way. Most intelligent people don't repeatedly make the astoundingly bad decisions in personal and social life Wagner made. And Wagner persisted in these outrageous decisions, which reflects even worse on him.
I guess what really astounds me about him is the fact that he wrote both the music and libretti for the last six operas. It's truly awe-inspiring (at least to a basically dumb person like me) that he had such a force of concentration. The man really had sense of range and scope...it's just me, but I really don't find such a
sustained, intensely focused, power of creative effort in any other form of art. Anywhere. Again, this is just me.
I mean, let's not forget Elgar here (hello, Dmitri!).
Verdi was certainly no joke intellectually. These days I find it impossible to be interested in reading Othello without hearing Verdi's setting to as an opera. The music is, in my opinion, so tremendously inspiring and enhancing it tends to supercede the story. For me, Otello trumps and makes (at least in this instance) superfluous Shakespeare's hand.
I took creative writing as one of my majors at University of Central Florida, and to this day I would pick the Verdi opera over Shakespeare's play when teaching Othello. It's a far more powerful, inspirational beast.
Again, that's just me, and whadda I know.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 07, 2008, 04:24:38 AM
Point well taken; but then, it seems to me that your concern is logistical (simplifying the notation), rather than aesthetic (discounting the music because of the complexity).
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.
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 07, 2008, 05:01:58 AM
Yes, that's my opinion. Someone who conceived something as monumental as The Ring certainly had to have a lot of intelligence.
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.)
Quote from: Sforzando on May 07, 2008, 05:20:53 AM
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.
But, of course, the composer may be entirely content that this 'notational barrier' effectively restricts performances of the piece to professionals of a certain degree of notational fluency.
Similarly, while I have written a number of choral pieces which could be sung by practically any choir which has a pulse, there are other pieces which demand a certain level of rhythmic capability.
I don't see the
Ferneyhough affair as differing
in kind from most composer's choices, only in degree.
As a teacher I sizzle and fry whenever the subject of I.Q. comes up and attempts to place a number onto intelligence.
Check the theories on "multiple intelligences" these days!
Ultimately it is futile and stupid to say: "This person's I.Q. is 131 and that one's is 133, so I guess the latter is just a little bit smarter!"
Was Wagner intelligent? Sure: but he was also a moron. Check his assorted essays and his adulterous behavior. Sex can negate intelligence on any given day!
To use Karl's idea: I have always felt that Prokofiev was extremely intelligent in various ways, not just musically.
Quote from: AndyD. on May 07, 2008, 05:07:27 AM
(1) This is a good point. As far as musical composition, Wagner was obviously intelligent. But as a person, it's tough to judge him that way. Most intelligent people don't repeatedly make the astoundingly bad decisions in personal and social life Wagner made. And Wagner persisted in these outrageous decisions, which reflects even worse on him.
(2) I guess what really astounds me about him is the fact that he wrote both the music and libretti for the last six operas. It's truly awe-inspiring (at least to a basically dumb person like me) that he had such a force of concentration. The man really had sense of range and scope...it's just me, but I really don't find such a sustained, intensely focused, power of creative effort in any other form of art. Anywhere. Again, this is just me.
(3) I mean, let's not forget Elgar here (hello, Dmitri!).
(4) Verdi was certainly no joke intellectually. These days I find it impossible to be interested in reading Othello without hearing Verdi's setting to as an opera. The music is, in my opinion, so tremendously inspiring and enhancing it tends to supercede the story. For me, Otello trumps and makes (at least in this instance) superfluous Shakespeare's hand.
I took creative writing as one of my majors at University of Central Florida, and to this day I would pick the Verdi opera over Shakespeare's play when teaching Othello. It's a far more powerful, inspirational beast.
Again, that's just me, and whadda I know.
(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.
Quote from: Cato on May 07, 2008, 05:26:20 AM
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 07, 2008, 05:21:45 AM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 07, 2008, 05:31:22 AM
(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.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 07, 2008, 05:33:11 AM
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.
Quote from: AndyD. on May 07, 2008, 05:07:27 AM
I mean, let's not forget Elgar here (hello, Dmitri!).
Of course! Lalo, Dittersdorf, and ........... and ............ and ............. and .............
Quote from: AndyD. on May 07, 2008, 05:39:47 AM
These are all excellent points.
That's why we pay Sforzando the big bucks ..........
Quote from: karlhenning on May 07, 2008, 05:21:45 AM
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. :D
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 07, 2008, 05:48:50 AM
. . . 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.
Brahms, because he knew when enough was enough and didn't go all hardcore Romantic.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 07, 2008, 04:08:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 07, 2008, 05:20:53 AM
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!
Quote from: Dm on May 07, 2008, 05:42:30 AM
That's why we pay Sforzando the big bucks ..........
Can I quit my day job?
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 07, 2008, 06:03:24 AM
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.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 07, 2008, 06:03:24 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 07, 2008, 06:28:15 AM
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.
Quote from: edward on May 07, 2008, 06:31:33 AM
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:)
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.
Quote from: edward on May 07, 2008, 06:31:33 AM
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.
Quote from: edward on May 07, 2008, 06:31:33 AMI 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!
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 07, 2008, 06:55:50 AM
Yes, that's quite a tome - it took me a while to read through the whole thing!
Burn it!
Tome, tome on the range . . . .
Quote from: rappy on May 06, 2008, 11:40:35 AM
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 ...
Medtner's music is most highly accomplished in this regard, as well. His scores show a formidable faculty of counterpoint and motivic development, combined with an intimate grasp of form (especially the sonata and variation forms) and impressive use of complex polyrhythms.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 07, 2008, 04:00:19 AM
So it's largely a question of who we feel is 'the most intelligent composer', or 'most intellectual composer', yes? Selecting Wagner for this designation, is in part because we have the great benefit of his announcing himself, and repeatedly, that he is, right? 8)
Wagner and Sean...two peas in a pod...
:-*
Quote from: AndyD. on May 07, 2008, 05:38:01 AM
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.
The internet has proven that even mental midgets can produce prodigious amounts of jibberish text. Wagner was a pioneer in introducing more chromaticism and more brass into music, and for conceiving an opera as something like a symphony with singing, rather than as a series of songs connected by a story, but his libretti are nothing to brag about, in my opinion. Just last night I was listening to Die Walkure, and most of the second act is absolutely insufferable. Why is it necessary for every character to have a 30 minute soliloquy in which he or she narrates the action that we just saw in the previous act (or the previous opera)?
And can someone explain to me why, if the magic ring gives the wearer the power to rule the world, the wearer can also be immediately dispatched by a swift blow to the head, or by being tricked into turning him or herself into a frog? How powerful can this ring be?
And how can you keep all of these magic props straight? There's the magic gold, the hord the Nibelungen mined after Alberich got the magic gold, the magic ring made from the magic gold, the magic hat made from the hord, the magic sword, the magic spear made from the magic ash tree. How do we know which magic is strongest. It's like the worlds most complicated game of rock-paper-scissors. At least Mozart only had to deal with a magic flute and magic glockenspeil.
Quote from: head-case on May 08, 2008, 08:28:05 AM
The internet has proven that even mental midgets can produce prodigious amounts of jibberish text.
Yes it has, hasn't it?
Quote from: head-case on May 08, 2008, 08:28:05 AM
The internet has proven that even mental midgets can produce prodigious amounts of jibberish text.
And
Wagner did it
without the Internet!
(Couldn't resist, sorry!)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 08, 2008, 11:18:05 AM
And Wagner did it without the Internet!
(Couldn't resist, sorry!)
Think how much more gibberish he could have produced if he could have registered at GMG!
Dangerous vision, sforza! ;D
Quote from: Sforzando on May 08, 2008, 11:34:32 AM
Think how much more gibberish he could have produced if he could have registered at GMG!
Whhheeeeee!
For me, Mozart's music has always been the most unalterable. However, it is not overtly intellectual. Of composers with known high intelligence, Mendelssohn is one of the most well known. Again, he is not renowned as an intellectual. It is quite possible that the most intelligent composer of all never achieved fame in that field and became an astro-physicist instead.
Quote from: head-case on May 08, 2008, 08:28:05 AM
[Wagner's] libretti are nothing to brag about, in my opinion. Just last night I was listening to Die Walkure, and most of the second act is absolutely insufferable. Why is it necessary for every character to have a 30 minute soliloquy in which he or she narrates the action that we just saw in the previous act (or the previous opera)?
Amen. "The Master" was a dismal failure as a dramatist, but a brilliant self-promoter.
As for intelligence, it's terribly overrated by those painfully impressed with their own modest allotment. Talent, opportunity, and persistent hard work trump native intelligence 99 times out of a hundred. And I wish folks would stop conflating intelligence and intellectualism. They are utterly distinct, but sometimes overlap--like talent and ambition.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 08, 2008, 11:34:32 AM
Think how much more gibberish he [Wagner] could have produced if he could have registered at GMG!
Ah, but with Sean around we have a pretty fair inkling of what it would've been like...
(Sorry... ;D)
:-* :-*
Quote from: head-case on May 08, 2008, 08:28:05 AM
The internet has proven that even mental midgets can produce prodigious amounts of jibberish text. Wagner was a pioneer in introducing more chromaticism and more brass into music, and for conceiving an opera as something like a symphony with singing, rather than as a series of songs connected by a story, but his libretti are nothing to brag about, in my opinion. Just last night I was listening to Die Walkure, and most of the second act is absolutely insufferable. Why is it necessary for every character to have a 30 minute soliloquy in which he or she narrates the action that we just saw in the previous act (or the previous opera)?
And can someone explain to me why, if the magic ring gives the wearer the power to rule the world, the wearer can also be immediately dispatched by a swift blow to the head, or by being tricked into turning him or herself into a frog? How powerful can this ring be?
And how can you keep all of these magic props straight? There's the magic gold, the hord the Nibelungen mined after Alberich got the magic gold, the magic ring made from the magic gold, the magic hat made from the hord, the magic sword, the magic spear made from the magic ash tree. How do we know which magic is strongest. It's like the worlds most complicated game of rock-paper-scissors. At least Mozart only had to deal with a magic flute and magic glockenspeil.
head-case all I can say in Wagner's defence, of course, is that his music dramas were never meant to be micro-analyzed. When critics pointed out to Wagner inconsistencies in his librettos his reaction was that they missed the point of it all. One should look at the big picture, enjoy the glorious music, the emotional impact of it all. Wagner's intricate and complex use of the leitmotif is a testament to his intelligence. Plus Wagner used to intensely read the philosophical works of Hegel, Nietzsche etc. Wagner was an intellectual first and formost. The fact that he was a racist, antisemitic adulterer is mutually exclusive from his intelect.
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 09, 2008, 03:15:17 AM
head-case all I can say in Wagner's defence, of course, is that his music dramas were never meant to be micro-analyzed. When critics pointed out to Wagner inconsistencies in his librettos his reaction was that they missed the point of it all. One should look at the big picture, enjoy the glorious music, the emotional impact of it all.
Sorry, Marvin, but that just won't work. Wagner was making excuses, and rather shoddy ones coming from the great proponent of the Gesamtkunstwerk. What's there is there, and if the librettos are dramatically faulty that just can't be explained away by telling us not to look at them.
As for the intelligence/intellectual thing from the past few posts, my point as stated previously is that there is a specifically
musical kind of intellect that has nothing to do with conventional verbal or mathematical intelligences. Beethoven wrote bad German letters and couldn't multiply. Now consider the Eroica or Op. 131.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 09, 2008, 04:14:41 AM
Sorry, Marvin, but that just won't work. Wagner was making excuses, and rather shoddy ones . . . .
Aye, and you can measure a wagnerite's malaise by his willingness to canonize those excuses as a sort of "holy writ."
Quote from: SforzandoAs for the intelligence/intellectual thing from the past few posts, my point as stated previously is that there is a specifically musical kind of intellect that has nothing to do with conventional verbal or mathematical intelligences.
Yes, and I think
Cato has remarked more than once on there being a variety of faculties of intelligence. Not that the topic has been anything like exhausted, no, not a jot.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on May 08, 2008, 01:12:39 PM
It is quite possible that the most intelligent composer of all never achieved fame in that field and became an astro-physicist instead.
Hmm. That hypothetical illustration appears to favor natural-science intelligence over artistic intelligence, doesn't it?
Quote from: Sforzando on May 09, 2008, 04:14:41 AM
Sorry, Marvin, but that just won't work. Wagner was making excuses, and rather shoddy ones coming from the great proponent of the Gesamtkunstwerk. What's there is there, and if the librettos are dramatically faulty that just can't be explained away by telling us not to look at them.
Be that as it may, the music of the Ring Cycle is flawless 0:)!
PS: if not flawless then remarkably enjoyable ;).
marvin
Quote from: karlhenning on May 09, 2008, 04:21:15 AM
Aye, and you can measure a wagnerite's malaise by his willingness to canonize those excuses as a sort of "holy writ."
Correction mon ami :), you can always measure a wagnerite's enjoyment and delight, no discomfort here I assure you! I'll take any excuse Wagner gives so long as I can listen to his music and partake in the adventure of the Ring Cycle.
marvin
So defensive, I never mentioned that he was a racist, antisemitic adulterer.
I don't think you have to be a micro-analyzer to be bothered by Wagner's texts. The logical inconsistencies wouldn't be noticeable if it weren't for the 45 minute stretches where nothing happens (except Wotan is whining about his magic spear) and you have nothing else to think about. For that reason I like Rheingold a lot. Something is always happening, at least, and Loge is lots of fun.
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 09, 2008, 03:15:17 AM
head-case all I can say in Wagner's defence, of course, is that his music dramas were never meant to be micro-analyzed. When critics pointed out to Wagner inconsistencies in his librettos his reaction was that they missed the point of it all. One should look at the big picture, enjoy the glorious music, the emotional impact of it all. Wagner's intricate and complex use of the leitmotif is a testament to his intelligence. Plus Wagner used to intensely read the philosophical works of Hegel, Nietzsche etc. Wagner was an intellectual first and formost. The fact that he was a racist, antisemitic adulterer is mutually exclusive from his intelect.
marvin
Quote from: head-case on May 09, 2008, 06:17:13 AM
So defensive, I never mentioned that he was a racist, antisemitic adulterer.
I don't think you have to be a micro-analyzer to be bothered by Wagner's texts. The logical inconsistencies wouldn't be noticeable if it weren't for the 45 minute stretches where nothing happens (except Wotan is whining about his magic spear) and you have nothing else to think about. For that reason I like Rheingold a lot. Something is always happening, at least, and Loge is lots of fun.
Sorry head-case but I never meant to imply that you mentioned that Wagner was a racist etc. I wrote that as an after thought when I mentioned that Wagner was an intellectual and read philosophy, therefore he was very intelligent. Also, as a preemptive strike I feared someone might write back claiming inconsistencies between Wagner's intellectual side and his racist rants (ie Judaism in Music).
PS: With regards to illogical text vis-a-vis intelligence I think you'll have a hard time finding any opera with a logical text- most opera plots don't make much sense anyway.
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 09, 2008, 06:34:36 AM
PS: With regards to illogical text vis-a-vis intelligence I think you'll have a hard time finding any opera with a logical text- most opera plots don't make much sense anyway.
marvin
The great operas do have plots that make sense, even if they take things to unrealistic extremes. Otello (altough it's a blunt instrument compared with Shakespeare's origional), Tosca, Paigliacci, Boheme, Butterfly, Triaviata, Elektra, Salome make sense to me, although there is considerable melodramatic excess. Figaro, Don Giovanni make sense, in their farsical way. Zauberflote we won't talk about.
Wagner could have written some great stuff, if he hadn't been under the misapprehension that every drop of ink that dripped from his pen was destined to change the world. In my book, that makes him talented but dumb in the extreme.
Quote from: head-case on May 09, 2008, 07:14:40 AM
The great operas do have plots that make sense, even if they take things to unrealistic extremes. Otello (altough it's a blunt instrument compared with Shakespeare's origional), Tosca, Paigliacci, Boheme, Butterfly, Triaviata, Elektra, Salome make sense to me, although there is considerable melodramatic excess. Figaro, Don Giovanni make sense, in their farsical way. Zauberflote we won't talk about.
I don't see why not; it's a fable, which is one dramatic genre, and just as suited to the stage as other genres.
Quote from: head-caseWagner could have written some great stuff, if he hadn't been under the misapprehension that every drop of ink that dripped from his pen was destined to change the world.
There might even be something a little charming about someone thinking that his own work can be "THE force for good in the world." Only in
Wagner's case, the potential charm is immediately drowned out by his childish egoism.
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 09, 2008, 05:28:42 AM
Correction mon ami :), you can always measure a wagnerite's enjoyment and delight, no discomfort here I assure you!
You are far too good-natured to be a true wagnerite,
mon ami! :D And I wish you all joy of your listening to
Wagner.
Quote from: rappy on May 06, 2008, 11:40:35 AM
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.
I just listened to the Brahms 2nd PC and followed the score. I think I have never seen such a conclusive, awe-inspiring score. He definitely gets my vote.
Other candidates could be Bach and Mahler. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven in most of their later works.
Now it's your turn.
This is why I keep coming back here, only at GMG do you get gems like this! ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on May 09, 2008, 04:25:26 AM
Hmm. That hypothetical illustration appears to favor natural-science intelligence over artistic intelligence, doesn't it?
I think the distinction is between creative intelligence and practical intelligence. Creative intelligence may be attracted towards the unknown but anyone who abandons composition for physics is probably no great loss to music. I'm sticking with Mozart for my first choice.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 06, 2008, 04:50:15 PM
So who then was the dumbest major composer?
And Webern can't be that smart otherwise he would have paid attention to the curfew in effect
lol.
yeah, and he would have realized that smoking is bad for your health.
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 09, 2008, 05:08:19 AM
Be that as it may, the music of the Ring Cycle is flawless 0:)!
PS: if not flawless then remarkably enjoyable ;).
I find it as flawed as the text--overlong, indulgent, and monotonous--which is too bad, as there's some pretty good stuff in there.
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 09, 2008, 06:34:36 AM
...Wagner was an intellectual and read philosophy, therefore he was very intelligent.
No, no, no! The world is full of morons who are intellectuals and read philosophy. (Kevin Kline's character in
A Fish Called Wanda is a memorable sendup of such fools.) In fact, intellectualism virtually condemns its victims to idiocy, although the poor dullards are usually so feeble-minded that they mistake their handicap for a virtue!
Quote from: Sforzando on May 09, 2008, 05:30:12 PM
Lucky us.
There have been some silly topics at this forum, but this one truly takes the biscuit. ;D
Quote from: Rod Corkin on May 09, 2008, 09:50:59 AM
This is why I keep coming back .......
Like a chronic case of herpes ..........
Quote from: Dm on May 10, 2008, 04:07:01 AM
Like a chronic case of herpes ..........
Don't be mean Dm. :(
Someone has to put things right there, however unpopular that may be!
Quote from: Dm on May 10, 2008, 04:07:01 AM
Like a chronic case of herpes ..........
Herpes. Still with us I see... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CaVhx7MKMA)
I choose Beethoven and Mahler.
I choose the ones i like, cuz they were inteligent enough to make music i like 8)
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 09, 2008, 07:57:18 PM
I find it as flawed as the text--overlong, indulgent, and monotonous--which is too bad, as there's some pretty good stuff in there.
Well the countless number of opera fans who flock to Bayreuth every year seem to disagree with you. Sorry but I am just not buying your argument about Wagner's music.
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 11, 2008, 12:38:08 PM
Well the countless number of opera fans who flock to Bayreuth every year seem to disagree with you. Sorry but I am just not buying your argument about Wagner's music.
marvin
Countless? It is a tiny theater and they have a limited number of performances every year, it is will within our ability to count.
Clearly the music is very fine, or it wouldn't have been so influential and it wouldn't still be played as frequently as it is. However, I can't put it in the same league as the finest works of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, etc, where I can say that in a major work I couldn't want to change a note. The libretto has enormous stretches which are pointless, and the lack of dramatic tension shows in the music. I just listened to Walkure and if I were Wagner's editor I'd cut more than half of it and send half of what I keep back for a rewrite.
I think Rossini summed it up when he said "Wagner has beautiful moments and bad quarters of an hour." Reportedly Rossini was also quoted to have said "One can't judge Wagner's opera Lohengrin after a first hearing, and I certainly don't intend to hear it a second time. "
Quote from: head-case on May 11, 2008, 01:02:34 PM
Countless? It is a tiny theater and they have a limited number of performances every year, it is will within our ability to count.
Clearly the music is very fine, or it wouldn't have been so influential and it wouldn't still be played as frequently as it is. However, I can't put it in the same league as the finest works of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, etc, where I can say that in a major work I couldn't want to change a note. The libretto has enormous stretches which are pointless, and the lack of dramatic tension shows in the music. I just listened to Walkure and if I were Wagner's editor I'd cut more than half of it and send half of what I keep back for a rewrite.
I think Rossini summed it up when he said "Wagner has beautiful moments and bad quarters of an hour." Reportedly Rossini was also quoted to have said "One can't judge Wagner's opera Lohengrin after a first hearing, and I certainly don't intend to hear it a second time. "
To each his own! I very much agree with many of your points. But, for me at least, the Ring and (perhaps even moreso) Parsifal are the pinnacles of post-Beethoven Western Musical Art. They haven't been surpassed since. But that is entirely my opinion.
Of course you mentioned some other, tremendous composers (great choices by the way).
It sounds to me that the likes of Bruckner and Mahler were influenced (in the resoundingly POSITIVE way) by Wagner more than anyone else. And that, in itself, is quite the coup for the world.
Again, this is just me.
Quote from: AndyD. on May 11, 2008, 01:24:05 PM
To each his own! I very much agree with many of your points. But, for me at least, the Ring and (perhaps even moreso) Parsifal are the pinnacles of post-Beethoven Western Musical Art. They haven't been surpassed since. But that is entirely my opinion.
It is also the opinion of a lot of people, despite the few on this forum who like to make a lot of noise against Wagner.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on May 11, 2008, 02:29:36 PM
It is also the opinion of a lot of people, despite the few on this forum who like to make a lot of noise against Wagner.
I sympathize with the "noise-makers" in regard to the "too long" or "too recititave-y" complaint.
I can also see eye-to-eye with a person whom finds Wagner in general to be an "acquired taste".
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 11, 2008, 12:38:08 PM
Well the countless number of opera fans who flock to Bayreuth every year seem to disagree with you. Sorry but I am just not buying your argument about Wagner's music.
It's not an argument, just a personal observation. By my aesthetic criteria, his work is all terribly flawed. I am not alone in this opinion. By your criteria, his work is masterful. You are not alone in that opinion. It is even shared by some whose learned opinions I respect very much--like Mr. Simon, above. However, I doubt that any but his most devoted acolytes would agree with you that the music of the Ring is "flawless." There's a reason for the universal acclaim of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, and Brahms as supreme masters of their art. And there's also a reason that Wagner does not share such universal acclaim.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 11, 2008, 04:51:27 PM
There's a reason for the universal acclaim of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, and Brahms as supreme masters of their art. And there's also a reason that Wagner does not share such universal acclaim.
and how do you reconcile that argument with Mahler's claim that there "was only Beethoven and Wagner- and no one else" ? No mention of Brahms??
I am now convinced more than ever that Wagner is quite possibly the most intelligent composer of them all. More has been written about him and his works than any other composer. He inspires critics, take a look at this thread for Christ's sake to discuss, argue, accuse, and defend him and his music dramas. If that's not intelligence I don't know what is!
PS: I think this argument has run it's course. We can argue and bicker over Wagner, his intelligence, his music dramas till the cows come home (moo!) and I doubt any of us here will be successfull in convincing the other to change their point of view. So let's just listen to what we enjoy most and leave the arguments to posterity. I'm sure there will be plenty of bickering over Wagner between members of future generations :-\.
marvin
Quote from: AndyD. on May 11, 2008, 02:36:27 PM
I sympathize with the "noise-makers" in regard to the "too long" or "too recititave-y" complaint.
I can also see eye-to-eye with a person whom finds Wagner in general to be an "acquired taste".
Well, and let's keep in mind the topic; it was inevitable that some Wagner-enthusiast would nominate his idol as "the most intelligent composer." One hopes that offering sensible opposition to this is not prosecuble as 'making noise against' the Bloat of Bayreuth.
To paraphrase Michael Palin:
"Forgive us, Richard, for this our dreadful toadying . . . ."
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 12, 2008, 02:25:48 AM
and how do you reconcile that argument with Mahler's claim that there "was only Beethoven and Wagner- and no one else" ? No mention of Brahms??
Well, I suppose that
Mahler didn't have so high regard for
Brahms as he did for
Wagner,
Marvin. And
Mahler was entitled to his own enthusiasms and preferences, but they aren't aesthetically binding upon the rest of the world.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 11, 2008, 04:51:27 PM
It's not an argument, just a personal observation. By my aesthetic criteria, his work is all terribly flawed. I am not alone in this opinion. By your criteria, his work is masterful. You are not alone in that opinion. It is even shared by some whose learned opinions I respect very much--like Mr. Simon, above. However, I doubt that any but his most devoted acolytes would agree with you that the music of the Ring is "flawless."
Largely agree, though I'll reserve judgement on
Tristan and
Parsifal until some (probably remote, leave us be frank) future time when I investigate those operas properly.
There's much to like in the
Ring, and even as is, it is a magnificent realization of an admirably ambitious scheme. But my ears do not find it unalloyedly brilliant.
And again, viz. the topic, the
Ring does not seal any case for
Wagner being "the most intelligent composer."
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 12, 2008, 02:25:48 AM
and how do you reconcile that argument with Mahler's claim that there "was only Beethoven and Wagner- and no one else" ? No mention of Brahms??
I am now convinced more than ever that Wagner is quite possibly the most intelligent composer of them all. More has been written about him and his works than any other composer. He inspires critics, take a look at this thread for Christ's sake to discuss, argue, accuse, and defend him and his music dramas. If that's not intelligence I don't know what is!
That Mahler said something does not require us to agree. That a composer incites controversy and discussion is not proof of his intelligence.
All that said, I would certainly place Wagner as among the top ten composers - but there's much about his work that is artistically disturbing in ways that Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach are not.
This is again off-topic (and just how objective can we be concerning this topic), but besides the strange dismissal of Brahms, Mahler erroneously left both himself and Anton Brucker out of the famous equation. So I wonder how much credibility we can actually lend to it.
Granted he might have been modest concerning himself, but Bruckner was becoming quite highly regarded symphony-wise during the time of that quote.
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 12, 2008, 02:25:48 AM
and how do you reconcile that argument with Mahler's claim that there "was only Beethoven and Wagner- and no one else" ? No mention of Brahms?? [What argument? Again, I've made no argument, only stated certain opinions and facts. (Others have already addressed the irrelevance of Mahler's comment.)]
I am now convinced more than ever that Wagner is quite possibly the most intelligent composer of them all. More has been written about him and his works than any other composer. He inspires critics, take a look at this thread for Christ's sake to discuss, argue, accuse, and defend him and his music dramas. If that's not intelligence I don't know what is! [Correct!]
PS: I think this argument has run it's course. We can argue and bicker over Wagner, his intelligence, his music dramas till the cows come home (moo!) and I doubt any of us here will be successfull in convincing the other to change their point of view. So let's just listen to what we enjoy most and leave the arguments to posterity. I'm sure there will be plenty of bickering over Wagner between members of future generations :-\. [Has anyone here tried to change another's point of view? I've not--but I have tried to correct misstatements presenting opinion as if it were fact.]
In case Dave's middle comment is too subtle . . . neither the fact that more has been written about him and his works than any other composer, nor the fact that he "inspires" critics, haa any bearing whatever on the question of Wagner's intelligence. It is puzzling (at the least) why you should take that as "confirmation" that he is "quite possibly the most intelligent composer of them all," Martin.
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 12, 2008, 02:25:48 AM
and how do you reconcile that argument with Mahler's claim that there "was only Beethoven and Wagner- and no one else" ? No mention of Brahms??
Mahler also claimed that Brahms was Germany's greatest contrapuntist after Bach, greater then either Beethoven or Wagner. As you can see, things aren't as clear cut as they seem.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 12, 2008, 05:11:41 AM
Mahler also claimed that Brahms was Germany's greatest contrapuntist after Bach, greater then either Beethoven or Wagner.
There's a good case to be made there, meseems.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 12, 2008, 05:11:41 AM
Mahler also claimed that Brahms was Germany's greatest contrapuntist after Bach, greater then either Beethoven or Wagner.
Ahhh! AHA! ........... Suddenly everything is falling into place ............ Everything is becoming clearer now ..........
Quote from: Dm on May 12, 2008, 05:26:06 AM
Everything is becoming clearer now ..........
Yes, the increase in font size helped immensely 8)
There's no need for me to utter the words "Brahms is God" when others will do this for me ............
Quote from: karlhenning on May 12, 2008, 05:07:40 AM
In case Dave's middle comment is too subtle . . . neither the fact that more has been written about him and his works than any other composer, nor the fact that he "inspires" critics, haa any bearing whatever on the question of Wagner's intelligence. It is puzzling (at the least) why you should take that as "confirmation" that he is "quite possibly the most intelligent composer of them all," Martin.
Not confirmation really, more like a convincing set of circumstances. Take for example the controversy over traces of antisemitic messages in Wagner's music dramas. Some argue (and I do not subscribe to their views) that Wagner cleverly hid those messages in his operas and others claim that it is difficult to prove such accusations. Wagner's works encourage debate, controversial debate no doubt. This is a testament to Wagner's intelligence, wicked intelligence in this case!
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 12, 2008, 02:25:48 AM
and how do you reconcile that argument with Mahler's claim that there "was only Beethoven and Wagner- and no one else" ? No mention of Brahms??
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.
Quote
I am now convinced more than ever that Wagner is quite possibly the most intelligent composer of them all. More has been written about him and his works than any other composer. He inspires critics, take a look at this thread for Christ's sake to discuss, argue, accuse, and defend him and his music dramas. If that's not intelligence I don't know what is!
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 12, 2008, 05:15:07 AM
There's a good case to be made there, meseems.
I love it!
"meseems"Perhaps if we couldn't see the point, we could be "no-see-ums".
BWA-Ha-....
sorry
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 12, 2008, 05:44:34 AM
. . . This is a testament to Wagner's intelligence, wicked intelligence in this case!
Now the matter you are clouding is his possessing some intelligence (which hardly anyone contests), and elevating his character to the status of "the most intelligent composer" (puh-
leeze). 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 12, 2008, 06:00:58 AM
Good morning, Andy!
Good Morning. Woo-Hooo!
Enjoying your scores this morning,
Karl, no music, just reading. Just got the Bruckner 4th and 7th scores as well. Happy reading!
I'm off topic and
drat me thusly!
Quote from: head-case on May 12, 2008, 05:45:27 AM
By your measure, Wagner is only surpassed in intelligence by Britney Spears.
Or George W. Bush . . . .
Quote from: head-case on May 12, 2008, 05:45:27 AM
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.
Rubbish- and even you don't believe that! None of you do!
So after all these posts we have reached this conclusion that Tristan und Isolde, The Ring, Parsifal and Die Meistersingers are
not masterworks and those two American idiots Brtiney Spears and George W. Bush are on equal intellectual footing with Wagner - I'm wasting my time in this thread!
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 12, 2008, 06:29:32 AM
Rubbish- and even you don't believe that! None of you do!
So after all these posts we have reached this conclusion that Tristan und Isolde, The Ring, Parsifal and Die Meistersingers are not masterworks and those two American idiots Brtiney Spears and George W. Bush are on equal intellectual footing with Wagner - I'm wasting my time in this thread!
marvin
Are you so lacking in humor?
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 12, 2008, 06:29:32 AM
Rubbish- and even you don't believe that! None of you do!
So after all these posts we have reached this conclusion that Tristan und Isolde, The Ring, Parsifal and Die Meistersingers are not masterworks and those two American idiots Brtiney Spears and George W. Bush are on equal intellectual footing with Wagner - I'm wasting my time in this thread!
marvin
The point is not that Britney Spears is intelligent, but that the argument you put forward is logically invalid. I you don't get that, well, let's just say you may not be in the running for most intelligent poster. ;)
Quote from: Sforzando on May 12, 2008, 06:30:59 AM
Are you so lacking in humor?
Like Wagner himself.
I think alot of people are really turned off to Wagner whenever they perceive that someone else is being too strident in their advocation of him/it. This is easy to sympathize with, in my basically-dumb opinion.
Quote from: head-case on May 12, 2008, 06:37:54 AM
The point is not that Britney Spears is intelligent, but that the argument you put forward is logically invalid. I you don't get that, well, let's just say you may not be in the running for most intelligent poster. ;)
And neither are you, think how intellegint you sounded when you claimed that Wagner did not produce any
masterworks !
I'm done with this thread!
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 12, 2008, 06:29:32 AM
. . . So after all these posts we have reached this conclusion that Tristan und Isolde, The Ring, Parsifal and Die Meistersingers are not masterworks . . . .
Let's restate the obvious yet again: These may all be masterworks, and yet it will not mean that
Wagner is the Supreme Intelligence among composers.
Quote from: AndyD. on May 12, 2008, 06:18:21 AM
Enjoying your scores this morning, Karl, no music, just reading. Just got the Bruckner 4th and 7th scores as well. Happy reading!
Thanks,
Andy!
Which was the strongest composer?
Which had the highest dexterity?
Which composer had the best constitution?
Which composer was most charismatic?
Which composer was wisest?
[Thank you, Dungeons and Dragons]
Quote from: MN Dave on May 12, 2008, 06:58:25 AM
Which was the strongest composer?
Which had the highest dexterity?
Which composer had the best constitution?
Which composer was most charismatic?
Which composer was wisest?
[Thank you, Dungeons and Dragons]
Which had the biggest . . . . ?
Quote from: MN Dave on May 12, 2008, 06:58:25 AM
Which was the strongest composer?
Satie, who may possibly have lifted an upright piano to rest atop another.
QuoteWhich had the highest dexterity?
I'll guess either
Liszt,
Saint-Saëns or
Rakhmaninov; when you're that good a pianist, all ten fingers are limber and dexterous.
QuoteWhich composer had the best constitution?
Shostakovich; he had to stomach a great deal over the course of a long career.
QuoteWhich composer was most charismatic?
Wagner (oh, what a give-away)QuoteWhich composer was wisest?
Well,
John Cage was perhaps the wisest-guy.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 12, 2008, 06:49:30 AM
Let's restate the obvious yet again: These may all be masterworks, and yet it will not mean that Wagner is the Supreme Intelligence among composers.
Yes, that's the point.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 12, 2008, 06:30:59 AM
Are you so lacking in humor?
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!
Sforzando has a fine sense of humor.
I think Rod must have been referring to the post he was in the process of writing.
Quote from: James on May 12, 2008, 09:19:43 AM
Genius doesnt mean perfect or without flaw. Nor does it mean 'good person' or being 'omniscient' either.
Sure.
But that isn't the question (see subject header, above).
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 12, 2008, 05:11:41 AM
Mahler also claimed that Brahms was Germany's greatest contrapuntist after Bach, greater then either Beethoven or Wagner.
So then, as to the question of intelligence, let us stipulate as follows: Brahms > Beethoven
Quote from: James on May 12, 2008, 09:35:44 AM
There is major overlap between 'genius' and 'intelligence'.
Not necessarily, and again, it depends on how
intelligence is defined.
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.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on May 12, 2008, 10:20:40 AM
...No one would ever say he was the greatest composer in the world...
This is GMG you're at: don't be too hasty!
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.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on May 12, 2008, 10:20:40 AM
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 ............
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on May 12, 2008, 10:20:40 AM
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.
Quote from: Dm on May 12, 2008, 09:36:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 12, 2008, 11:07:33 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: head-case on May 12, 2008, 11:16:23 AM
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 12, 2008, 11:13:27 AM
(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.)
Quote from: Sforzando on May 12, 2008, 12:35:25 PM
No one wants to think they're listening to music by a dumb composer.
:D
Quote from: karlhenning on May 12, 2008, 11:13:27 AM
(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.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 12, 2008, 11:13:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 12, 2008, 12:35:25 PM
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 :P
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 12, 2008, 12:46:42 PM
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?
Quote from: Lethe on May 12, 2008, 12:48:25 PM
...something Bruckner fans have to come to terms with very early on :P
Well, I love Bruckner, but I'd have to agree...grudgingly.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 12, 2008, 12:49:10 PM
But, how have you determined that genius is absent from Saint-Saëns's music?
I don't know, i just
know. :P
Quote from: karlhenning on May 12, 2008, 12:49:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 12, 2008, 01:05:31 PM
I don't know, i just know. :P
Thank you for acknowledging the purely opinionated nature of your remark.
Quote from: head-case on May 12, 2008, 01:16:17 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on May 12, 2008, 01:36:08 PM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 12, 2008, 11:07:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Lethe on May 12, 2008, 12:48:25 PM
...something Bruckner fans have to come to terms with very early on :P
I see your point, but when I listen to his symphonies I wonder just how "dumb" he really was. Light under a bushel...
Quote from: head-case on May 12, 2008, 05:45:27 AM
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.
;D Brilliant. Thank you!
Quote from: rappy on May 06, 2008, 11:40:35 AM
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...
Quote from: Greta on May 12, 2008, 05:35:27 PM
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.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 12, 2008, 05:50:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 12, 2008, 06:05:23 PM
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.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 12, 2008, 06:27:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 12, 2008, 07:09:54 PM
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?
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 12, 2008, 07:13:36 PM
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.
Quote from: head-case on May 12, 2008, 05:45:27 AM
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
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 12, 2008, 01:37:49 PM
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.
Quote from: AndyD. on May 12, 2008, 04:06:52 PM
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. ;D
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 13, 2008, 03:57:12 AM
. . . and which is also why I think Wagner is very intelligent. ;D
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 13, 2008, 03:57:12 AM
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. ;D
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 13, 2008, 04:01:39 AM
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. ;)
Quote from: James on May 13, 2008, 04:11:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 12, 2008, 07:30:23 PM
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.
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 13, 2008, 03:43:31 AM
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.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 13, 2008, 04:30:41 AM
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.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 13, 2008, 04:30:41 AM
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
Quote from: Greta on May 12, 2008, 05:35:27 PM
That sounds like a description of Sibelius 7 to me.....and Sibelius in general....I wouldn't change a single note. :)
As far as I'm concerned,
Greta, this is a sign of musical genius: not a note out of place, nor any superfluous note.
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 13, 2008, 04:41:28 AM
::) They weren't just enjoying Wagner artwork they were worshipping it, being influenced by it! They were trying to learn from it!
The "worship" is the potentially imbalanced part,
Marvin.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 13, 2008, 04:30:41 AM
You sure read a lot into my brief comment, none of which is there.
I'll let the other members come to their own conclusions.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 04:51:17 AM
The "worship" is the potentially imbalanced part, Marvin.
What if Marvin worshipped Nielsen, Carter or Barber?
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 13, 2008, 05:16:09 AM
What if Marvin worshipped Nielsen, Carter or Barber?
(a) I don't know of anyone who does; do you?
(b) That would be imbalance, too. At least, though, none of those three
expected to be worshiped 8)
Quote from: James on May 13, 2008, 05:11:44 AM
yea there are many degrees of it.
All right, so how do we 'measure' the degrees of genius without essentially reflecting one's own scale of preference?
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 13, 2008, 05:16:09 AM
What if Marvin . . . .
And you know, it seems that
Marvin would actualy take the fact that
Wagner was such an egotist, that he thought worship was somehow his "due," as a bizarre 'indication' that
Wagner was
entitled to worship! And that
Nielsen and
Carter are not worthy! Bwa-ha-ha-haaaa! ::)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 05:28:33 AM
(a) I don't know of anyone who does; do you?
(b) That would be imbalance, too. At least, though, none of those three expected to be worshiped 8)
I personally know two Carter worshippers. No Nielsen or Barber worshippers, although I know a few people who can tolerate Barber.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 13, 2008, 05:37:07 AM
I personally know two Carter worshippers.
Well, there you go. I'd be interested to meet them.
Reminds me of a cynical Frenchman's remark, "Anything that two people agree on, is the truth."
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 04:51:17 AM
The "worship" is the potentially imbalanced part, Marvin.
Really...well why don't you tell that to Bruckner who named his 3rd Symphony "Wagner" and dedicated it to him. Wagner advanced music beyond the realm of Beethoven in a way that Brahms could never do. That's a fact that you Karl and every anti-Wagnerian on this forum are just going to have to live with.
marvin
That's not the same as worship, though, is it?
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 13, 2008, 05:56:02 AM
That's not the same as worship, though, is it?
That's right - it's not the same, and I thhink it's perverse for any human to worship another.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 13, 2008, 05:56:02 AM
That's not the same as worship, though, is it?
It is! The whole "sound world" of the symphonies of Mahler and Bruckner show very strong Wagnerian influences more so than Brahms or any other composer for that matter.
marvin
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 05:30:16 AM
All right, so how do we 'measure' the degrees of genius without essentially reflecting one's own scale of preference?
Didn't you just say that the principle expressed by James
does work in the affirmative? Seems to me you are now implying i does not work at all.
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 13, 2008, 06:04:37 AM
It is! The whole "sound world" of the symphonies of Mahler and Bruckner show very strong Wagnerian influences more so than Brahms or any other composer for that matter.
Marvin, I think you are unclear as to the meaning of worship. "Very strong influences, more so than other composers" is not worship.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 13, 2008, 06:10:31 AM
Didn't you just say that the principle expressed by James does work in the affirmative?
I did, and I stand by that.
QuoteSeems to me you are now implying i does not work at all.
Not a bit of it.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 06:11:37 AM
Marvin, I think you are unclear as to the meaning of worship. "Very strong influences, more so than other composers" is not worship.
come on you didn't real believe that I meant that Bruckner and Mahler were praying to Wagner as if he were some god.
Look we are talking about intelligence as it relates to composers. I have argued the case for Wagner that he was an intellectual who read philosophy, that his artwork required great skill and intelligence to compose. So what do I get in return: arguments from anti-Wagnerians that intellectuals who read philosophy are dumb, that Wagner's librettos and music are drastically flawed and the greatest insult of them all that Wagner did not compose masterpieces. I'm not deaf I assure you. I used to play the clarinet and piano so I have some musical background. I can honestly tell that there is great genius in Wagner's work. It is a real shame that others are incapable of appreciating this man's work.
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 13, 2008, 06:29:19 AM
come on you didn't real believe that I meant that Bruckner and Mahler were praying to Wagner as if he were some god.
Look we are talking about intelligence as it relates to composers. I have argued the case for Wagner that he was an intellectual who read philosophy, that his artwork required great skill and intelligence to compose. So what do I get in return: arguments from anti-Wagnerians that intellectuals who read philosophy are dumb, that Wagner's librettos and music are drastically flawed and the greatest insult of them all that Wagner did not compose masterpieces. I'm not deaf I assure you. I used to play the clarinet and piano so I have some musical background. I can honestly tell that there is great genius in Wagner's work. It is a real shame that others are incapable of appreciating this man's work.
marvin
Of course there is great genius in Wagner's work. At the same time, of all the major composers, I can't think of another whose work is (to my mind) as deeply flawed in a number of ways. I spent considerable time arguing my case about the ending of Meistersinger on another thread. No question that all the works from Rheingold on are masterpieces. No doubt in my mind that there are problems in some of these works that I don't hear in some other major composers. But some of the most ambitious undertakings are not necessarily "perfect"; their very ambitiousness almost makes it inevitable that there will be some flaws.
Quote from: James on May 13, 2008, 06:38:26 AM
The old cliche is that there is sometimes a fine line between genius and madness; Wagner, is an example of a great composer who teetered that line.
Balderdash.
Wagner was nowhere near madness. He was in large part a loathsome, despicable character, yes, but that is a matter entirely distinct from madness.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 07:03:05 AM
Balderdash. Wagner was nowhere near madness. He was in large part a loathsome, despicable character, yes, but that is a matter entirely distinct from madness.
Schumann, on the other hand..... ;D
Actually, Schumann was likely "depressed", which back then, you'd be considered "mad".
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 13, 2008, 06:29:19 AM
come on you didn't real believe that I meant that Bruckner and Mahler were praying to Wagner as if he were some god.
Well, your tone here is often unseemly unctuous,
Marvin.
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 13, 2008, 07:05:04 AM
Schumann, on the other hand..... ;D
Actually, Schumann was likely "depressed", which back then, you'd be considered "mad".
In any event, trying to diagnose from this temporal remove is . . . doomed to fail, isn't it? ;)
Can we please have a Top Ten of the following:
Most Intelligent
Dumbest
Craziest
:D
Quote from: James on May 13, 2008, 07:10:52 AM
Love him or hate him, he was a seminal figure.
Aye,
was 8)
Quote from: Sforzando on May 13, 2008, 06:57:22 AM
Of course there is great genius in Wagner's work. At the same time, of all the major composers, I can't think of another whose work is (to my mind) as deeply flawed in a number of ways. I spent considerable time arguing my case about the ending of Meistersinger on another thread. No question that all the works from Rheingold on are masterpieces. No doubt in my mind that there are problems in some of these works that I don't hear in some other major composers. But some of the most ambitious undertakings are not necessarily "perfect"; their very ambitiousness almost makes it inevitable that there will be some flaws.
I was on the receiving end of that Die Meistersinger argument. We were not discussing if Die Meistersinger was flawed but the "allegedly" malicious way Wagner chose to treat Beckmesser. You were bothered by it, I wasn't, I ended that coversation by saying that I respect your point of view- nothing more. We never discussed whether that work was flawed or not vis-a-vis the treatment of Beckmesser!
So you don't hear flaws in other major composers works but only in Wagner well I don't agree with you here and I don't believe you.
marvin
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 06:13:24 AM
Not a bit of it.
Ok, let's backtrack here a little. This is what James said:
Quote from: James on May 13, 2008, 06:13:24 AM
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.
If you agree with this proposition, then you are agreeing that individual perception can be used as an objective measure in the assessment of genius, because if you don't, it doesn't matter one bit that a lot of people were exposed to Beethoven's 9th and went "whoa", it still is a mere reflection of one's own personal scale, and that, by some freak of chance, or maybe because of social conditioning and brain washing (as some people seem to believe here), this purely personal and arbitrary reflection happens to collide with the purely personal and arbitrary reflection of a million of other people. In short, genius is unassailable,
period.
If, however, you concede that personal assessment
can be indicative of the inherent objective qualities of a given piece of art, then it means that the principle of general consensus works in the affirmative
as well as the negative, for exactly the same reasons. The only exception to this is when a work of art has not received sufficient attention for a general consensus to be formed at all, which is clearly not the case of Saint-Saens, who's works were very well known in his lifetime and are still readily available to this day. It would be absurd to think that if the equivalent of Beethoven's 9th existed among his oeuvre it would have remained undiscovered after all this time.
Now, on to the next point:
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 05:30:16 AM
All right, so how do we 'measure' the degrees of genius without essentially reflecting one's own scale of preference?
What if one is reflecting his own ability to asses genius outside his personal scale of preference?
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 13, 2008, 07:31:41 AM
I was on the receiving end of that Die Meistersinger argument. We were not discussing if Die Meistersinger was flawed but the "allegedly" malicious way Wagner chose to treat Beckmesser. You were bothered by it, I wasn't, I ended that coversation by saying that I respect your point of view- nothing more. We never discussed whether that work was flawed or not vis-a-vis the treatment of Beckmesser!
So you don't hear flaws in other major composers works but only in Wagner well I don't agree with you here and I don't believe you.
marvin
I made it quite clear I considered Wagner's treatment of Beckmesser a blemish on the dramatic construction of the libretto. Blemish = flaw, right? In your (I'm afraid) apparent Wagner idolatry, you were unwilling to concede my point.
I did not state, or would not state, that no other major composer's work is free from flaws. Beethoven's 9th, for example, is a good case of a work where reasonable questions have been raised as to whether the choral finale is a successful conclusion.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 07:03:05 AM
Wagner... He was in large part a loathsome, despicable character...
He was in
small part a loathsome, despicable character...that's closer to the truth. Had he really been so loathsome, Karl, he wouldn't have gotten all that help and support (emotional, financial) from his myriad friends and supporters.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 13, 2008, 07:58:00 AM
He was in small part a loathsome, despicable character...that's closer to the truth. Had he really been so loathsome, Karl, he wouldn't have gotten all that help and support (emotional, financial) from his myriad friends and supporters.
Sarge
So he was just a basically nice guy with a few foibles?
(Like megalomania, financial dishonesty, adultery, and rabid anti-Semitism.) You sure about that?
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 13, 2008, 07:58:00 AM
He was in small part a loathsome, despicable character...that's closer to the truth. Had he really been so loathsome, Karl, he wouldn't have gotten all that help and support (emotional, financial) from his myriad friends and supporters.
Sarge
O.J. Simpson has many friends that provide support.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 13, 2008, 07:58:00 AM
He was in small part a loathsome, despicable character...that's closer to the truth.
I suppose,
Sarge, we must say simply, he was, in part, a loathsome, despicable character. To reference an obviously exaggerated example, Hitler was good to dogs and children, and there were people who would have sworn as to the quality of
his character.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 06:11:37 AM
Marvin, I think you are unclear as to the meaning of worship. "Very strong influences, more so than other composers" is not worship.
I dont condone this behavior at all, but Bruckner did tell Wagner (in person no less) that he worshipped him.
Overall I'm really glad that the members on this forum never feel the need to have to defend their favorite composers. We all seem to know that the greats really don't need anyone to defend them.
Quote from: AndyD. on May 13, 2008, 09:24:19 AM
Overall I'm really glad that the members on this forum never feel the need to have to defend their favorite composers. We all seem to know that the greats really don't need anyone to defend them.
Well, some of us do.
QuoteTHE MONSTER
He was an undersized little man, with a head too big for his body-a
sickly little man. His nerves were bad. He had skin trouble. It was
agony for him to wear anything next to his skin coarser than silk. And
he had delusions of grandeur.
He was a monster of conceit. Never for one minute did he look at the
world or at people except in relation to himself. He was not only the
most important person in the world, to himself, in his own eyes he was
the only person who existed. He believed himself to be one of the
greatest dramatists in the world, one of the greatest thinkers, and
one of the greatest composers. To hear him talk, he was Shakespeare,
and Beethoven, and Plato, rolled into one. And you would have had no
difficulty in hearing him talk. He was one of the most exhausting
conversationalists that ever lived. An evening with him was an evening
spent in listening to a monologue. Sometimes he was brilliant;
sometimes he was maddeningly tiresome. But whether he was being
brilliant or dull, he had one sole topic of conversation: himself.
What he thought and what he did.
He had a mania for being in the right. The slightest hint of
disagreement, from anyone, on the most trivial point, was enough to
set him off on an harangue that might last for hours, in which he
proved himself right in so many ways, and with such exhausting
volubility, that in the end his hearer, stunned and deafened, would agree
with him, for the sake of peace.
It never occurred to him that he and his doing were not of the most
intense and fascinating interest to anyone with whom he came in
contact. He had theories about almost any subject under the sun,
including vegetarianism, the drama, politics and music; and in support
of these theories he wrote pamphlets, letters, books...thousands upon
thousands of words, hundreds and hundreds of pages. He not only wrote
these things, and published them-usually at somebody else's expense-
but he would sit and read them aloud, for hours, to his friends and
his family.
He wrote operas; and no sooner did he have the synopsis of a story,
but he would invite-or rather summon-a crowd of his friends to his
house and read it aloud to them. Not for criticism. For applause. When
the complete poem was written, the friends had to come again, and hear
that read aloud. Then he would publish the poem, sometimes years
before the music that went with it was written. He played the piano
like a composer, in the worst sense of what that implies, and he would
sit down at the piano before parties that included some of the finest
pianists of his time, and play for them, by the hour, his own music,
needless to say. He had a composer's voice. And he would invite
eminent vocalists to his house, and sing them his operas, taking all
the parts.
He had the emotional stability of a six year old child. When he felt
out of sorts, he would rave and stamp, or sink into suicidal gloom and
talk darkly of going to the east to end his days as a Buddhist monk.
Ten minutes later, when something pleased him, he would rush out of
doors and run around the garden, or jump up and down on the sofa, or
stand on his head. He could be grief stricken about the death of a pet
dog, and he could be callous and heartless to a degree that would have
made a Roman emperor shudder.
He was almost innocent of any sense of responsibility. Not only did he
seem incapable of supporting himself, but it never occurred to him
that he was under any obligation to do so. He was convinced the world
owed him a living. In support of this belief, he borrowed money from
everybody who was good for a loan-men, women, friends or strangers. He
wrote begging letters by the score, sometimes groveling without shame,
at others loftily offering his intended benefactor the privilege of
contributing to his support, and being mortally offended if the
recipient denied the honor. I have found no record of his ever paying
money or repaying money to anyone who did not have a legal claim upon
it.
What money he could lay his hands on he spent like an Indian rajah.
The mere prospect of a performance of one of his operas was enough to
set him to running up bills amounting to ten times the amount of his
prospective royalties. On an income that would reduce a more
scrupulous man to doing his own laundry, he would keep two servants.
Without enough money in his pocket to pay his rent, he would have the
walls and ceiling of his study lined with pink silk. No one will ever
know-certainly he never knew-how much money he owed. We do know that
his greatest benefactor gave him $6,000.00 to pay the most pressing of
his debts in one city, and a year later had to give him $16,000 to
enable him to live in another city without being thrown into jail for
debt.
He was equally unscrupulous in other ways. An endless procession of (men and)
women marches through his bed. His first wife spent twenty years
enduring and forgiving his infidelities. His second wife had been the
wife of his most devoted admirer, from whom he stole her. And even
while he was trying to persuade her to leave her first husband he was
writing to a friend to enquire whether he could suggest some wealthy
woman-any wealthy woman-he could marry for her money.
He was completely selfish in his other personal relationships. His
liking for his friends was measured solely by their devotion to him,
or their usefulness to him, whether financial or artistic. The minute
they failed him-even by refusing a dinner invitation-or began to
lessen in usefulness, he cast them off without a second thought. At
the end of his life he had exactly one friend left whom he had known
even in middle age.
He had a genius for making enemies. He would insult a man who
disagreed with him about the weather. He would pull endless wires in
order to meet some man who admired his work, and was able and anxious
to be of use to him-and would proceed to make a mortal enemy of him
with some idiotic and wholly uncalled-for exhibition of arrogance and
bad manners. A character in one of his operas was a caricature of the
most powerful music critic of his day. Not content with burlesquing
him, he invited the critic to his house and read him the libretto
aloud in front of his friends.
The name of this monster was Richard Wagner. Everything that I have
said about him you can find on record-in newspapers, in police
reports, in the testimony of people who knew him, in his own letters,
between the lines of his autobiography. And the curious thing about
this record is that it doesn't matter in the least.
Because this undersized, sickly, disagreeable, fascinating little man
was right all the time. The joke was on us. He was one of the world's
great dramatists; he was a great thinker; he was one of the most
stupendous musical geniuses that, up to now, the world has ever seen.
The world did owe him a living. People couldn't know those things at
the time, I suppose; and yet to us, who know his music, it does seem
as though they should have known. What if he did talk about himself
all the time? If he had talked about himself for twenty-four hours for
every day of his life he would not have uttered half the number of
words other men have spoken and written about him since his death.
When you consider what he wrote-thirteen operas and music dramas,
eleven of them still holding the stage, eight of them unquestionably
ranking among the world's great musico-dramatic masterpieces-when you
listen to what he wrote, the debts and heartaches that people had to
endure from him don't seem much of a price. Eduard Hanslick, the
critic whom he caricatured in DIE MEISTERSINGER and who hated him ever
after, now lives only because he was caricatured in DIE MEISTERSINGER.
The women whose hearts he broke are long since dead; and the man who
could never love anyone but himself has made them deathless atonement,
I think, with TRISTAN UND ISOLDE. Think of the luxury with which for a
time, at least, fate rewarded Napoleon, the man who ruined France and
looted Europe; and then perhaps you will agree that a few thousand
dollars' worth of debt were not too high a price to pay for the RING
TRILOGY.
What if he was faithless to his friends and to his wives? He had one
mistress to whom he was faithful to the day of his death: Music. Not
for a single moment did he ever compromise with what he believed, with
what he dreamed. There is not a line of his music that could have been
written by a little mind. Even when he is dull, or downright bad, he
is dull in the grand manner. There is greatness about his worst
mistakes. Listening to his music, one does not forgive him for what he
may or may not have been. It is not a matter of forgiveness. It is a
matter of being dumb with wonder that his poor body didn't burst under
the torment of the demon of creative energy living inside him,
struggling, clawing, scratching to be released; tearing, shrieking at
him to write the music that was in him. The miracle is that what he
did in the little space of seventy years could have been done at all,
even by a great genius. Is it any wonder that he had no time to be a
man?
--Deems Taylor, from OF MEN AND MUSIC, 1937.
All this and anti-Semitism too! :D
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 13, 2008, 07:31:41 AM
So you don't hear flaws in other major composers works but only in Wagner well I don't agree with you here.
marvin
I'm trying hard not to defend anyone here, but Marvin has a point as legitimate as James and Karl and all the rest. Bach and Mozart repeated themselves in their later works to a quite noticeable (at times tiresome) extent. Many of the atonal/twelve tone composers tended to sound very contrived/trying-too-hard-to-be-"different" at times. Wagner was dizzyingly inconsistent and at times ouright incoherent in his libretti, and more than several times his music could put a Crystal Meth freak to sleep.
All the great composers had faults, otherwise how could we truly love them? Sometimes I wonder if it's the human quality about them that makes us love them most.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 13, 2008, 09:27:56 AM
Well, some of us do.
All this and anti-Semitism too! :D
Irony. Good for the blood, right?
Quote from: Don on May 13, 2008, 08:25:07 AM
O.J. Simpson has many friends that provide support.
Mike Tyson.
Current statistics clearly show a strong correlation between intelligence and modern works. An even greater link is shown for American composers.
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 13, 2008, 03:43:31 AM
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
I fail to see how you can decide that anything on this public discussion board doesn't concern me.
In the second place, apparently you failed to notice that the comment you mentioned was accompanied by a "wink" symbol ( ;) ) which indicates that the associated remark is meant to be humorous. You sense of humor and personal modesty are certainly traits you share with your idol, Wagner.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 13, 2008, 06:57:22 AM
Of course there is great genius in Wagner's work. At the same time, of all the major composers, I can't think of another whose work is (to my mind) as deeply flawed in a number of ways. I spent considerable time arguing my case about the ending of Meistersinger on another thread. No question that all the works from Rheingold on are masterpieces. No doubt in my mind that there are problems in some of these works that I don't hear in some other major composers. But some of the most ambitious undertakings are not necessarily "perfect"; their very ambitiousness almost makes it inevitable that there will be some flaws.
I'm not sure I like the use of the term "flaw." Flaw implies a well defined defect. You could say there is a flaw in a student's composition of a dissonance didn't resolve properly, or if a fugue subject was not compatible with a certain kind of counterpoint that the composer tried to subject it to, or if the orchestration is too thick in a certain section to allow a soloist to be heard. In Wagner I find long sections which are just awful. They're boring. They are there to indulge the composers vanity. Maybe some people think Wagner is magnificent from beginning to end, but I can't imagine it. That's a more vaguely defined problem than a "flaw."
Quote from: AndyD. on May 13, 2008, 09:24:19 AM
I dont condone this behavior at all, but Bruckner did tell Wagner (in person no less) that he worshipped him.
Bruckner is a special case. As far as I can determine--and who can really know what goes on in another's mind, especially one as complex as Anton's?--Wagner indeed was an object of near-idolatry, yet along with that, Bruckner loved the Lord God with all his heart and soul and would never have considered giving to a mere man the devotion he gave to the Almighty Godhead.
As for his music, it indeed shares many characteristics with Wagner's, including monumental orchestration and chromatic harmonies; yet it is by no means a mere translation of Wagner's idioms into symphonic and choral form. For one thing, Bruckner was also heavily influenced by sacred music from Medieval and Renaissance times, which Wagner would have scorned. Also, Bruckner's mastery of strict contrapuntal forms went far beyond Wagner's, whose contrapuntal gifts were of another kind. So where Wagner was entirely Romantic in gifts and nature, Bruckner had a classical discipline that makes him no "mere Wagnerian."
Quote from: head-case on May 13, 2008, 09:58:06 AM
...In Wagner I find long sections which are just awful. They're boring. They are there to indulge the composers vanity...
Obviously these same sections are not "just awful" to all Wagner fans, so how can we say they're there merely "to indulge the composer's vanity"? ???
Quote from: jochanaan on May 13, 2008, 10:06:38 AM
Bruckner is a special case. As far as I can determine--and who can really know what goes on in another's mind, especially one as complex as Anton's?--Wagner indeed was an object of near-idolatry, yet along with that, Bruckner loved the Lord God with all his heart and soul and would never have considered giving to a mere man the devotion he gave to the Almighty Godhead.
As for his music, it indeed shares many characteristics with Wagner's, including monumental orchestration and chromatic harmonies; yet it is by no means a mere translation of Wagner's idioms into symphonic and choral form. For one thing, Bruckner was also heavily influenced by sacred music from Medieval and Renaissance times, which Wagner would have scorned. Also, Bruckner's mastery of strict contrapuntal forms went far beyond Wagner's, whose contrapuntal gifts were of another kind. So where Wagner was entirely Romantic in gifts and nature, Bruckner had a classical discipline that makes him no "mere Wagnerian."Obviously these same sections are not "just awful" to all Wagner fans, so how can we say they're there merely "to indulge the composer's vanity"? ???
Very interesting clarification.
J.
Quote from: jochanaan on May 13, 2008, 10:06:38 AM
Bruckner is a special case. As far as I can determine--and who can really know what goes on in another's mind, especially one as complex as Anton's?--Wagner indeed was an object of near-idolatry, yet along with that, Bruckner loved the Lord God with all his heart and soul and would never have considered giving to a mere man the devotion he gave to the Almighty Godhead.
An incisive distinction,
jochanaan. And in partial defense of
Marvin, historically the English word
worship is used for different degrees of
deep respect, hence one of the polite forms of address in the age of
Shakespeare was
your worship.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 13, 2008, 07:43:53 AM
I made it quite clear I considered Wagner's treatment of Beckmesser a blemish on the dramatic construction of the libretto. Blemish = flaw, right? In your (I'm afraid) apparent Wagner idolatry, you were unwilling to concede my point.
Blemish??Wagner meant to humiliate Beckmesser- I'd hardly call that a flaw, considering Beckmesser was to represent Hanslick who was notoriously critical of Wagner's work but let's not get into that shall we?
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 13, 2008, 10:32:29 AM
Blemish??Wagner meant to humiliate Beckmesser- I'd hardly call that a flaw, considering Beckmesser was to represent Hanslick who was notoriously critical of Wagner's work but let's not get into that shall we?
marvin
Point taken,
Marvin. But I have read alot of different interpretations re Beckmesser. Many scholars believe Beckmesser was more of an amalgamation of different of critics, or of critics en masse.
For what it's worth, I
love that opera,
Marvin.
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 13, 2008, 10:32:29 AM
Blemish??Wagner meant to humiliate Beckmesser- I'd hardly call that a flaw, considering Beckmesser was to represent Hanslick who was notoriously critical of Wagner's work but let's not get into that shall we?
What if Hanslick was
right,
Marvin? ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 10:36:37 AM
What if Hanslick was right, Marvin? ;D
OH no Karl please do not go there!
marvin
I don't know a lot about Wagner on account of my sparse interest in opera, but this past couple of weeks i've reading some of his writings (including his infamous rant against Jewish musicians) and he actually makes sense more often then not:
http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/index.htm
As an example, here's what he has to say about Mendelssohn:
Quote
By what example will this all grow clearer to us—ay, wellnigh what other single case
could make us so alive to it, as the works of a musician of Jewish birth whom Nature had
endowed with specific musical gifts as very few before him? All that offered itself to our
gaze, in the inquiry into our antipathy against the Jewish nature; all the contradictoriness of
this nature, both in itself and as touching us; all its inability, while outside our footing, to have
intercourse with us upon that footing, nay, even to form a wish to further develop the things
which had sprung from out our soil: all these are intensified to a positively tragic conflict in
the nature, life, and art-career of the early-taken FELIX MENDELSSOHN BARTHOLDY.
He has shewn us that a Jew may have the amplest store of specific talents, may own the finest
and most varied culture, the highest and the tenderest sense of honour—yet without all these
pre-eminences helping him, were it but one single time, to call [94] forth in us that deep, that
heart-searching effect which we await from Art (24) because we know her capable thereof,
because we have felt it many a time and oft, so soon as once a hero of our art has, so to say,
but opened his mouth to speak to us. To professional critics, who haply have reached a like
consciousness with ourselves hereon, it may be left to prove by specimens of Mendelssohn's
art-products our statement of this indubitably certain thing; by way of illustrating our general
impression, let us here be content with the fact that, in hearing a tone-piece of this composer's,
we have only been able to feel engrossed where nothing beyond our more or less
amusement-craving Phantasy was roused through the presentment, stringing-together and
entanglement of the most elegant, the smoothest and most polished figures—as in the
kaleidoscope's changeful play of form and colour (25) —but never where those figures were
meant to take the shape of deep and stalwart feelings of the human heart. (26) In this latter
event Mendelssohn lost even all formal productive-faculty; wherefore in particular where he
made for Drama, as in the Oratorio, he was obliged quite openly to snatch at every formal
detail that had served as characteristic token of the individuality of this or that forerunner
whom he chose out for his model. It is further significant of this procedure, that he gave the
preference to our old master BACH, as special pattern for his inexpressive modern tongue to
copy. Bach's musical speech was formed at a period of our history when Music s universal
tongue was still striving for the faculty of more individual, more unequivocal Expression:
pure formalism and pedantry still clung so strongly to her, that it was first through the [95]
gigantic force of Bach's own genius that her purely human accents (Ausdruck) broke
themselves a vent. The speech of Bach stands toward that of Mozart, and finally of
Beethoven, in the relation of the Egyptian Sphinx to the Greek statue of a Man: as the human
visage of the Sphinx is in the act of striving outward from the animal body, so strives Bach's
noble human head from out the periwig. It is only another evidence of the inconceivably
witless confusion of our luxurious music-taste of nowadays, that we can let Bach's language
be spoken to us at the selfsame time as that of Beethoven, and flatter ourselves that there is
merely an individual difference of form between them, but nowise a real historic distinction,
marking off a period in our culture. The reason, however, is not so far to seek: the speech of
Beethoven can be spoken only by a whole, entire, warm-breathed human being; since it was
just the speech of a music-man so perfect, that with the force of Necessity he thrust beyond
Absolute Music—whose dominion he had measured and fulfilled unto its utmost
frontiers—and shewed to us the pathway to the fecundation of every art through Music, as her
only salutary broadening. (27) On the other hand, Bach's language can be mimicked, at a
pinch, by any musician who thoroughly understands his business, though scarcely in the sense
of Bach; because the Formal has still therein the upper hand, and the purely human
Expression is not as yet a factor so definitely preponderant that its What either can, or must be
uttered without conditions, for it still is fully occupied with shaping out the How. The
washiness and whimsicality of our present musical style has been, if not exactly brought
about, yet pushed to its utmost pitch by Mendelssohn's endeavour to speak out a vague, an
almost nugatory Content as interestingly and spiritedly as possible. Whereas Beethoven, the
last in the chain of our true music-heroes, [96] strove with highest longing, and
wonder-working faculty, (28) for the clearest, certainest Expression of an unsayable Content
through a sharp-cut, plastic shaping of his tone-pictures: Mendelssohn, on the contrary,
reduces these achievements to vague, fantastic shadow-forms, midst whose indefinite
shimmer our freakish fancy is indeed aroused, but our inner, purely-human yearning for
distinct artistic sight is hardly touched with even the merest hope of a fulfilment. Only where
an oppressive feeling of this incapacity seems to master the composer's mood, and drive him
to express a soft and mournful resignation, has Mendelssohn the power to shew himself
characteristic—characteristic in the subjective sense of a gentle (29) individuality that
confesses an impossibility in view of its own powerlessness. This, as we have said, is the
tragic trait in Mendelssohn's life-history; and if in the domain of Art we are to give our
sympathy to the sheer personality, we can scarcely deny a large measure thereof to
Mendelssohn, even though the force of that sympathy be weakened by the reflection that the
Tragic, in Mendelssohn's situation, hung rather over him than came to actual, sore and
cleansing consciousness.
I think he is right, at least in his criticism of Mendelssohn's music. I wouldn't necessarily argue that the reason for this incapacity for true expression is a product of belonging to a Jewish ethnic background which, according to Wagner was too alienated from the European, and particularly German cultural pool to draw inspiration from it. This isn't as absurd as one would think, considering that culture
does have a role in the channeling of artistic pursuits. Consider England for instance, which for the longest time was called the country without music, and with reason. At no point does he argue that Jewish composers are incapable of musical expression because they are racially inferior to Europeans.
Of course, the existence of Gustav Mahler throws a monkey wrench at the whole idea, not to mention Joachim Raff, a non-Jew who's "inexpressivity" was far lower then that of Mendelssohn, but that came later i guess, when Jews were much more involved in German culture.
That's "making sense," is it?
Draw me a diagram, please: How does the following have anything to do with
Mendelssohn's being Jewish? TIA
Quote from: WagnerMendelssohn, on the contrary, reduces these achievements to vague, fantastic shadow-forms, midst whose indefinite shimmer our freakish fancy is indeed aroused, but our inner, purely-human yearning for distinct artistic sight is hardly touched with even the merest hope of a fulfilment.
Sorry, but that's precisely my own personal reaction to most of his music, expressed here by Wagner with a frightening accurate eloquence. I may not agree with him that Mendelssohn's cultural background robs him of his inspiration, but i don't think that the argument is entirely illogical, particularly back then.
Newcommers to Wagner should read his essays on Opera and Drama where he discusses his ideas of creating a new art work that incorporates music, drama, visual spectacle all tied together in what he termed Gesamkunstwerk "Total Artwork". Also read up on his remarkable use of the leitmotif which appears in his Ring to a mindblowing effect!! All a testament to his intelligence!
marvin
Where are these sections in Wagner that are "just awful"? I haven't heard any. What I have heard are magnificent works of overpowering musical/dramatic impact (and remember that music in opera is not just music, it has a dramatic purpose). As in all great opera, the combination of words with music adds up to something greater than the sum of its parts, so that considering the libretto or the music by itself will not produce an accurate picture of what the composer has achieved. Like Milton's Paradise Lost, we can say that "no one ever wished them longer", however in Parsifal at least, Wagner wrote music of such narcotic power that time doesn't seem to be a factor. That is, it alters one's perception of time. Wagner actually makes good on Gurnemanz' assertion that "here time becomes space". When I listen to the last act, I am not aware that any time has passed at all, I just know I've experienced something mighty big.
Just letting you know how I experience it, lest certain posters here think their opinion bears any resemblance to objective fact.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on May 13, 2008, 11:28:22 AM
Where are these sections in Wagner that are "just awful"? I haven't heard any. What I have heard are magnificent works of overpowering musical/dramatic impact (and remember that music in opera is not just music, it has a dramatic purpose). As in all great opera, the combination of words with music adds up to something greater than the sum of its parts, so that considering the libretto or the music by itself will not produce an accurate picture of what the composer has achieved. Like Milton's Paradise Lost, we can say that "no one ever wished them longer", however in Parsifal at least, Wagner wrote music of such narcotic power that time doesn't seem to be a factor. That is, it alters one's perception of time. Wagner actually makes good on Gurnemanz' assertion that "here time becomes space". When I listen to the last act, I am not aware that any time has passed at all, I just know I've experienced something mighty big.
Just letting you know how I experience it, lest certain posters here think their opinion bears any resemblance to objective fact.
I'm admiring of your expression of what Parsifal means to you, and I completely feel you in regard to the power of that opera. It might just be the finest thing he ever wrote overall. His crowning achievement, so to speak.
But there are many folks whom just aren't particularly crazy about Wagner's music as a whole. (I realize I'm stating what you already know).
I thought (in the beginning of my experience with Wagner) that perhaps alot of people just got kind of intimidated by the length of his operas, because that's how I started out. These days I realize that there's just something about his music that turns people off/bores-the-hell-out-of-them/add-your-own-epithet.
Of course that can't take away from how much Wagner's music means to us. I've learned from this board also that sometimes the opposition experienced in regard to one's specific musical tastes can make one love something even more. I just got a whole shebang of wonderful music from George yesterday, and yet after reading some of the posts here, I just
had to listen to Act III of Die Meistersinger. The mournful, resigned quality of the prelude speaks so much without words...
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 13, 2008, 11:26:44 AM
Sorry, but that's precisely my own personal reaction to most of his music, expressed here by Wagner with a frightening accurate eloquence. I may not agree with him that Mendelssohn's cultural background robs him of his inspiration . . . .
And yet, that's the context, isn't it? None of us will ever know what
Wagner might have thought of
Mendelssohn's music, barring the former's anti-Semitism. And to say that he would weigh the music exactly the same, is unfounded speculation.
Coincidentally, if I had ever written such turgid prose, my teachers would have laughed me out of class.
Separately . . . so what if some of us say, "sorry, but Hanslick's is precisely my own personal reaction to much of Wagner's music"?
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 12:02:54 PM
And yet, that's the context, isn't it? None of us will ever know what Wagner might have thought of 's music, barring the former's anti-Semitism. And to say that he would weigh the music exactly the same, is unfounded speculation.
It
is pretty damn toy-jihd (Bugs Bunny voice).
Quote from: AndyD. on May 13, 2008, 12:12:02 PM
It is pretty damn toy-jihd (Bugs Bunny voice).
Yet, I suspect the author felt it was a work of soo-oo-oo-oo-per gee-ee-ee-ee-nius (Wile E. Coyote voice).
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 12:18:47 PM
Yet, I suspect the author felt it was a work of soo-oo-oo-oo-per gee-ee-ee-ee-nius (Wile E. Coyote voice).
dying Now
there's a classic!
For a little perspective, here is a sample of Hanslick's prose:
The arabesque, a branch of the art of ornamentation, dimly betokens in what manner music may exhibit forms of beauty though no definite emotion be involved. We see a plexus of flourishes, now bending into graceful curves, now rising in bold sweeps; moving now toward, and now away from each other; correspondingly matched in small and large arcs; apparently incommensurable, yet duly proporitioned throughout; with a duplicate or counterpart to every segment; in fine, a compound of oddments, and yet a perfect whole. Imagine now an arabesque, not still and motionless, but rising before our eyes in constantly changing forms. Behold the broad and delicate lines, how they pursue one another; how from a gentle curve they rise up into lofty heights, presently to descend again; how they widen and contract, surprising the eye with a marvelous alternation of quiescence and mobility. The image thus becomes nobler and more exalted. If, moreover, we conceive this living arabesque as the active emanation of inventive genius, the artistic fullness of whose imagination is incessantly flowing into the heart of these moving forms, the effect, we think, will be not unlike that of music.
What if Wagner and Hanslick were cut from the same cloth? What if turgid prose was endemic to Germans writing in the 19th century?
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on May 13, 2008, 11:28:22 AM
In Parsifal at least, Wagner wrote music of such narcotic power that time doesn't seem to be a factor. That is, it alters one's perception of time. Wagner actually makes good on Gurnemanz' assertion that "here time becomes space". When I listen to the last act, I am not aware that any time has passed at all.
Probably you just fell asleep, like I did.
Quote from: head-case on May 13, 2008, 09:58:06 AM
I'm not sure I like the use of the term "flaw." Flaw implies a well defined defect. You could say there is a flaw in a student's composition of a dissonance didn't resolve properly, or if a fugue subject was not compatible with a certain kind of counterpoint that the composer tried to subject it to, or if the orchestration is too thick in a certain section to allow a soloist to be heard. In Wagner I find long sections which are just awful. They're boring. They are there to indulge the composers vanity. Maybe some people think Wagner is magnificent from beginning to end, but I can't imagine it. That's a more vaguely defined problem than a "flaw."
My use of "flaw" in reference to Die Meistersinger was precisely to imply a well-defined defect. Could you please however provide a list of all the long sections which are just awful, and an explanation of how you know they are there to indulge the composer's vanity?
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on May 13, 2008, 12:35:35 PM
For a little perspective, here is a sample of Hanslick's prose:
The arabesque, a branch of the art of ornamentation, dimly betokens in what manner music may exhibit forms of beauty though no definite emotion be involved. We see a plexus of flourishes, now bending into graceful curves, now rising in bold sweeps; moving now toward, and now away from each other; correspondingly matched in small and large arcs; apparently incommensurable, yet duly proporitioned throughout; with a duplicate or counterpart to every segment; in fine, a compound of oddments, and yet a perfect whole. Imagine now an arabesque, not still and motionless, but rising before our eyes in constantly changing forms. Behold the broad and delicate lines, how they pursue one another; how from a gentle curve they rise up into lofty heights, presently to descend again; how they widen and contract, surprising the eye with a marvelous alternation of quiescence and mobility. The image thus becomes nobler and more exalted. If, moreover, we conceive this living arabesque as the active emanation of inventive genius, the artistic fullness of whose imagination is incessantly flowing into the heart of these moving forms, the effect, we think, will be not unlike that of music.
What if Wagner and Hanslick were cut from the same cloth? What if turgid prose was endemic to Germans writing in the 19th century?
Most illustrative, thanks,
Mark. Maybe it's a matter of translation, but your Hanslick excerpt reads rather better than Josquin's Wagner excerpt (I mean from a simply technical angle, without getting into the question of Wagner's content).
Quote from: Sforzando on May 13, 2008, 02:31:10 PM
My use of "flaw" in reference to Die Meistersinger was precisely to imply a well-defined defect. Could you please however provide a list of all the long sections which are just awful, and an explanation of how you know they are there to indulge the composer's vanity?
I have not committed Wagner's work to memory, but having listened to Walkure recently I would say large swaths of Act II are utterly redundent, consisting of long monologues that tell in gory detail us things we already know. Particularly dull is the scene where Wotan narrates the action of Rhinegold to Brunhilde (all of which we have already seen with our own eyes). I find it self indulgent because it seems to be there because Wagner is in love with his invented mythology and fears that us dim-wits won't get it unless it is spelled out for us. Act III certainly has it's brilliant moments, particularly the beginning and the end, but what of the enormous scene in the middle where Wotan the schoolmaster has to explain to Brunhilde why he is mad at her (as if we didn't get it the first time, in Act II)?
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 02:33:03 PM
Most illustrative, thanks, Mark. Maybe it's a matter of translation, but your Hanslick excerpt reads rather better than Josquin's Wagner excerpt (I mean from a simply technical angle, without getting into the question of Wagner's content).
I'd say Hanslick's prose is an order of magnitude more lucid than Wagner's, which is an elaborate rationalization of his theories of racial superiority. How many words are necessary to say the Mendelssohn's works are pleasant and well crafted, but not the most profound? It is a reminder that to listen to Wagner we must confront the characters he concocted to represent the "degenerate races." The tonic is to remember that, if you consider the character of the composer, he himself was the "Nibelungen."
Quote from: head-case on May 13, 2008, 02:46:58 PM
I have not committed Wagner's work to memory, but having listened to Walkure recently I would say large swaths of Act II are utterly redundent, consisting of long monologues that tell in gory detail us things we already know. Particularly dull is the scene where Wotan narrates the action of Rhinegold to Brunhilde (all of which we have already seen with our own eyes). I find it self indulgent because it seems to be there because Wagner is in love with his invented mythology and fears that us dim-wits won't get it unless it is spelled out for us.
I would give
Wagner the benefit of the doubt, in that such a passage is justifiable when the audience has not seen the first opera. If that is his rationale, though, then one argues that he composed it in such a way, that actually he doesn't wish the four operas to be presented in succession. The solution which seems to me obvious, is that he could have written the passage as optional, in the event of independent production of the one opera; one imagines the possibility of writing the optional passage as a module, which might be omitted and the music to either side might be joined in some artistic way. In fairness to
Wagner, this is perhaps too modern a way to think of it . . . and he was very exercised about The Right Way To Be Realistic In Opera, and he keenly wished his way to be the right way which would render all other opera somehow inferior:
he was writing the Music of the Future, you see. He did not consider the idea that operas of times past had context, and that ideas of staging were in flux; did not consider that his ideas were not, in fact, going to become immutable dramaturgical law.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 03:13:26 PM
I would give Wagner the benefit of the doubt, in that such a passage is justifiable when the audience has not seen the first opera. If that is his rationale, though, then one argues that he composed it in such a way, that actually he doesn't wish the four operas to be presented in succession. The solution which seems to me obvious, is that he could have written the passage as optional, in the event of independent production of the one opera; one imagines the possibility of writing the optional passage as a module, which might be omitted and the music to either side might be joined in some artistic way. In fairness to Wagner, this is perhaps too modern a way to think of it . . . and he was very exercised about The Right Way To Be Realistic In Opera, and he keenly wished his way to be the right way which would render all other opera somehow inferior: he was writing the Music of the Future, you see. He did not consider the idea that operas of times past had context, and that ideas of staging were in flux; did not consider that his ideas were not, in fact, going to become immutable dramaturgical law.
That would make sense if the action being described had any direct bearing on what little action takes place in the scene: Wotan wants Brunhilde to kill Siegfried and she doesn't, so he has to do it himself. And it all has to do with the dwarf that stole the gold from the nymphs, but I stole it back, but I had to give it to the giant who built my house, be he got killed anyway, but now his brother has it, whatever you do don't go in that forest, and I had to give the gold away to get my wife's sister back, and now my wife won't let me hear the end of it, if only I hadn't listened to the clever Loge. Therefore you have to kill Seigfried?! Actually, maybe we need to hear it three times.
Quote from: head-case on May 13, 2008, 03:27:02 PM
That would make sense if the action being described had any direct bearing on what little action takes place in the scene: Wotan wants Brunhilde to kill Siegfried and she doesn't, so he has to do it himself. And it all has to do with the dwarf that stole the gold from the nymphs, but I stole it back, but I had to give it to the giant who built my house, be he got killed anyway, but now his brother has it, whatever you do don't go in that forest, and I had to give the gold away to get my wife's sister back, and now my wife won't let me hear the end of it, if only I hadn't listened to the clever Loge. Therefore you have to kill Seigfried?! Actually, maybe we need to hear it three times.
Siegmund, Siegmund! ;D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 13, 2008, 07:32:28 AM
Ok, let's backtrack here a little. This is what James said: . . .
You got off on something of a mistaken footing. In fact, I don't understand how you wound up, where you wound up.
I agreed with
James that part of the legacy of accumulated consensus, is an acknowledgement of genius. But I don't see genius as something quite 'measurable' or 'exchange-rate-able'. A claim that
Saint-Saëns was "less of a genius" than
Beethoven, in your hands, seems essentially a matter of front-loading the idea of
genius with criteria which favor
Beethoven, your tendentious mention of the
Ninth Symphony being a case in point. Set aside for a moment your religious adoration of the
Beethoven Opus 125; yes, people went "wow" at it from the first performance (and rightly so). The audience went "wow" at the premiere of the
'Organ' Symphony, too (a piece which, by the way, was commissioned by England's Royal Philharmonic Society, so I do not find it difficult to imagine that some members of the commissioning body regarded
Saint-Saëns as in some high degree a genius). So, how do we compare the genius factor, what's the exchange rate on the "wow"?
A more pertinent (in my view) comparison between
Beethoven and
Saint-Saëns would be in, say, piano concerti. I really don't think it any "slam-dunk," to find either composer's set of five "more genial" than the other.
Quote from: head-case on May 13, 2008, 03:27:02 PM
. . . Therefore you have to kill Seigfried?! Actually, maybe we need to hear it three times.
Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 12:02:54 PM
And yet, that's the context, isn't it? None of us will ever know what Wagner might have thought of Mendelssohn's music, barring the former's anti-Semitism. And to say that he would weigh the music exactly the same, is unfounded speculation.
Yes, but since i had the same exact reactions as Wagner when i first heard Felix's compositions, i have no reason to assume his criticism of Mendelssohn wasn't genuine and not colored by prejudice. If anything, the "prejudice" part comes later, by ascribing Mendelssohn's lack of inspiration to his ethnic upbringing rather then relying to the usual excuses, that Mendelssohn led a pampered life, that he achieved success without real challenge and so forth.
Furthermore, his assessment of Mendelssohn is far from being venomous or mean spirited. To the contrary, he refers to him as a noble and honest character, and he paints a completely sympathetic and tragic figure. If this is the extend of Wagern's anti-semitism then i'm throughly unimpressed.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 12:02:54 PM
Coincidentally, if I had ever written such turgid prose, my teachers would have laughed me out of class.
I took it as a matter of course that his prose was the standard mode of expression in the 19th century. It's a bit contorted, but no that much worst then some of the Schopenhauer i read, and i assume the latter was considered good prose in his day.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 13, 2008, 03:35:08 PM
Siegmund, Siegmund! ;D
Siegfried, Siegmund? Whichever one that had sex with his sister.
Obviously I need to hear it again.
:P
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 13, 2008, 03:47:05 PM
If this is the extend of Wagern's anti-semitism then i'm throughly unimpressed.
Sure, me too.
But then, there's more to that tract, isn't there? So what business have we praising
Wagner for being so magnanimous to the Jewish
Mendelssohn?
Quote from: head-case on May 13, 2008, 03:49:18 PM
Whichever one that had sex with his sister.
Oh, you're thinking of that wonderful piece (by the composer of intelligence and genius
Sibelius):
Kullervo ;)
BTW, I really enjoy the typo Wagern (truly).
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 13, 2008, 10:55:52 AM
I don't know a lot about Wagner on account of my sparse interest in opera, but this past couple of weeks i've reading some of his writings (including his infamous rant against Jewish musicians) and he actually makes sense more often then not: ...As an example, here's what he has to say about Mendelssohn: ...I think he is right, at least in his criticism of Mendelssohn's music...
1. One example does not make a general case.
2. Technical ability on Mendelssohn's level is not to be despised. It's a real gift, and there are many who just can't develop it no matter how many hours a day they practice.
3. Simple joy can be as profound as the most intense drama.
4. I would take issue, as indeed most other musicians of the time did, with this characterization of Mendelssohn. While I am not Saul ;D, I do not hear shallowness in Mendelssohn's music, nor "mere craft," but rather a potent music that, while perhaps not as intense as Beethoven or Wagner, yet without apparent effort reaches deep into my heart.
Quote from: head-case on May 13, 2008, 03:49:18 PM
Siegfried, Siegmund? Whichever one that had sex with his sister.
Obviously I need to hear it again.
:P
Siegmund had sex with his sister Sieglinde. If Siegfried had had sex with his mother Sieglinde, he would have f**ked a corpse.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 03:45:05 PM
You got off on something of a mistaken footing. In fact, I don't understand how you wound up, where you wound up.
I agreed with James that part of the legacy of accumulated consensus, is an acknowledgement of genius.
The same "accumulated consensus" which regards Beethoven as a genius is the same consensus which declared Saint-Saens as the "greatest" among second rate composers. You agreed with the "consensus" argument in it's positive mode but you deny it when it moves to the negative, yet, the principle it's exactly the same.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 03:45:05 PM
A claim that Saint-Saëns was "less of a genius" than Beethoven, in your hands, seems essentially a matter of front-loading the idea of genius with criteria which favor Beethoven, your tendentious mention of the Ninth Symphony being a case in point. Set aside for a moment your religious adoration of the Beethoven Opus 125; yes, people went "wow" at it from the first performance (and rightly so). The audience went "wow" at the premiere of the 'Organ' Symphony, too (a piece which, by the way, was commissioned by England's Royal Philharmonic Society, so I do not find it difficult to imagine that some members of the commissioning body regarded Saint-Saëns as in some high degree a genius). So, how do we compare the genius factor, what's the exchange rate on the "wow"?
I seriously hope you are not pretending that the reception of the "Organ" Symphony is in anyway in the same league as the earth shattering impact the 9th had on the entire 19th century. Sorry, but they are not even in the same universe. I think you are better off disregarding James argument altogether as the correct measure to determine "genius" at this point. For the record, i "wowed" far more to the 9th then i did to the organ symphony, and that's good enough for me.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 03:45:05 PM
A more pertinent (in my view) comparison between Beethoven and Saint-Saëns would be in, say, piano concerti. I really don't think it any "slam-dunk," to find either composer's set of five "more genial" than the other.
I don't think the comparison is pertinent at all. Even if you could make a case that Beethoven's concertos aren't as
obviously superior to those of Saint-Seans, the string quartets, piano sonatas and symphonies clearly are, so why bother?
Quote from: head-case on May 13, 2008, 02:46:58 PM
I have not committed Wagner's work to memory, but having listened to Walkure recently I would say large swaths of Act II are utterly redundent, consisting of long monologues that tell in gory detail us things we already know. Particularly dull is the scene where Wotan narrates the action of Rhinegold to Brunhilde (all of which we have already seen with our own eyes). I find it self indulgent because it seems to be there because Wagner is in love with his invented mythology and fears that us dim-wits won't get it unless it is spelled out for us. Act III certainly has it's brilliant moments, particularly the beginning and the end, but what of the enormous scene in the middle where Wotan the schoolmaster has to explain to Brunhilde why he is mad at her (as if we didn't get it the first time, in Act II)?
Well, you're thinking of the Ring in terms of
recordings, head-case.
But the Ring was originally conceived as a
theater work, spanning four successive days.
I imagine Wagner used flashback to reacquaint audiences with what went on the day before. Nothing more. We see the same thing today in two-part TV sitcoms...
And as far as Wotan's narrative to Brünnhilde: so his child has to be told twice she's done something wrong. What child doesn't? ;D It's just good parenting to
explain to a child just why they're being punished.
However, you've got the sequence wrong, here. The Wotan/Brünnhilde exchange
rounds out act 3! (and the opera as a whole). Which is the very thing you point to as being great!!
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 03:49:24 PM
But then, there's more to that tract, isn't there?
Yes, there is, but i never denied that Wagner wasn't prejudiced against the Jews, only that he wasn't entirely nonsensical about it, and at any rate he strikes me more as a bona fide xenophobe in line with the sentiments expressed by his contemporaries then a raving Nazi. Face it, the only reason why people are even bothered by this is because of the Holocaust. Mozart was no less critical of Italians and nobody seems to care. What's the difference?
As for me, anybody capable of writing something as deeply and genuinely felt as Tristan and Isolde (the only Wagner opera i'm truly familiar with) can't possibly be the monster everybody paints him out to be. I just can't accept that.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 13, 2008, 04:31:53 PM
You agreed with the "consensus" argument in it's positive mode but you deny it when it moves to the negative
Good, you understand that much.
Quote. . . yet, the principle it's exactly the same.
Balderdash.
Quote from: donwyn on May 13, 2008, 04:39:25 PM
Well, you're thinking of the Ring in terms of recordings, head-case.
But the Ring was originally conceived as a theater work, spanning four successive days.
I imagine Wagner used flashback to reacquaint audiences with what went on the day before. Nothing more. We see the same thing today in two-part TV sitcoms...
And as far as Wotan's narrative to Brünnhilde: so his child has to be told twice she's done something wrong. What child doesn't? ;D It's just good parenting to explain to a child just why they're being punished.
However, you've got the sequence wrong, here. The Wotan/Brünnhilde exchange rounds out act 3! (and the opera as a whole). Which is the very thing you point to as being great!!
First, Wotan does not scold Brünnhilde twice. She knows that by saving Siegmund she's impulsively committed an act that is likely to get her punished, but that's at the very end of Act Two, and Wotan doesn't find her among her fellow Valkyries under Act Three is under way.
Second, as for the flashbacks and reminiscences: these are not necessarily literal recaps of the previous night's action. Wotan's long monologue in Walküre Act II both reprises some of the Rheingold story and provides much new "information." But more important, in this monologue Wotan re-interprets and synthesizes his reactions to the action in a new way, having been outsmarted by Fricka when he realizes his grand scheme to use Siegmund to reclaim the ring is doomed to failure because Siegmund is not truly a free agent. And this is true of virtually all of Wagner's lengthy retellings of events we've seen the night before: they are not present to take up space or waste the audeince's time, but because they provide opportunities for a character to understand his or her prior experiences in a wholly new and significant way.
Quote from: head-case on May 13, 2008, 01:59:04 PM
Probably you just fell asleep, like I did.
Sorry bud, but you're wrong. First of all you assume I'm talking about a single hearing of the work, which is apparently the sum total of your experience with this music. Wagner doesn't give up his secrets that easily. You've got to listen carefully and often, just as with any other difficult but worthy music. Intelligent composers require intelligent listeners.
...to put it another way! I'd much rather take whatever the dumbest genius has to offer than anything you guys have to contribute by way of art!
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on May 13, 2008, 07:42:53 PM
Sorry bud, but you're wrong. First of all you assume I'm talking about a single hearing of the work, which is apparently the sum total of your experience with this music. Wagner doesn't give up his secrets that easily. You've got to listen carefully and often, just as with any other difficult but worthy music. Intelligent composers require intelligent listeners.
Sorry, I've heard the work numerous times and in numerous versions. Truely a thrilling drama. When Parsifal shoots the magic goose with his bow and arrow, truly a soul retching scene. Too bad we don't have the Bugs Bunny/Elmer Fud version of this work to complement their insightful version of "The Ring."
And I am to understand that I'm not as intelligent as you because I don't listen to my stereo as well? How sad for me. :-[
Quote from: head-case on May 13, 2008, 08:12:38 PM
Sorry, I've heard the work numerous times and in numerous versions. Truely a thrilling drama. When Parsifal shoots the magic goose with his bow and arrow, truly a soul retching scene. Too bad we don't have the Bugs Bunny/Elmer Fud version of this work to complement their insightful version of "The Ring."
And I am to understand that I'm not as intelligent as you because I don't listen to my stereo as well? How sad for me. :-[
Hey Head-case! Do you know what a LIMITATION IS? It's when you use your own to limit others. In that sense you seem to be "Incorporated".
If I were you, I'd stick with the Bugs Bunny/Elmer Fud version of Wagner which quite frankly I did find hilarious.
To bad they couldn't serialize ALL of Wagner's works into a single 20 minute episode for fellows like you. There could have been parts for Daffy Duck, Foghorn-leghorn and probably even for Sylvestor the cat and Tweedy.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 13, 2008, 07:01:11 PM
First, Wotan does not scold Brünnhilde twice. She knows that by saving Siegmund she's impulsively committed an act that is likely to get her punished, but that's at the very end of Act Two, and Wotan doesn't find her among her fellow Valkyries under Act Three is under way.
Second, as for the flashbacks and reminiscences: these are not necessarily literal recaps of the previous night's action. Wotan's long monologue in Walküre Act II both reprises some of the Rheingold story and provides much new "information." But more important, in this monologue Wotan re-interprets and synthesizes his reactions to the action in a new way, having been outsmarted by Fricka when he realizes his grand scheme to use Siegmund to reclaim the ring is doomed to failure because Siegmund is not truly a free agent. And this is true of virtually all of Wagner's lengthy retellings of events we've seen the night before: they are not present to take up space or waste the audeince's time, but because they provide opportunities for a character to understand his or her prior experiences in a wholly new and significant way.
Mine was an allegorical telling... ;D
Quote from: max on May 13, 2008, 08:10:06 PM
...to put it another way! I'd much rather take whatever the dumbest genius has to offer than anything you guys have to contribute by way of art!
Attaboy!
Ah well, another topic which, rightly considered, is much broader than Wagner, but which has managed to become Yet Another Referendum on Wagner.
Sehr yawn-lich.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2008, 03:38:58 AM
Ah well, another topic which, rightly considered, is much broader than Wagner, but which has managed to become Yet Another Referendum on Wagner.
Thanks in large part to you.
Sehr yawn-
lich, indeed.
Well, I think that you were entirely right to address what you find to be unfair charges against Wagner, Mark. I have found your remarks of interest.
Most of the time I ignore the anti-Wagnerian nonsense that gets posted here. Every once in a while I feel the need to take the opposing view.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 13, 2008, 04:39:42 PM
As for me, anybody capable of writing something as deeply and genuinely felt as Tristan and Isolde (the only Wagner opera i'm truly familiar with) can't possibly be the monster everybody paints him out to be. I just can't accept that.
This and stranger things have actually happened. :o But please note that neither I, nor Deems Taylor, nor anybody else whose comments I've read here have said that Wagner was a total monster with no redeeming qualities. And after all, the man's dead; his works are what matter most now. :)
I should mention Xenakis here on this thread......
not only was he a composer, but also an architect, engineer, and his work often deals with very advanced math (just try going through "Formalized Music: Thought and Mathematics in Composition")..... (ok, the only copy i have is in French so I can't read it, but just look at the math......)
not to mention the Greek mythology he was into (nearly all of his works are titled after something to do with Greek mythology)
Quote from: James on May 14, 2008, 03:38:02 PM
So what, the results of his main focus (music) sound primative >:D A lightweight & a blip compared to the major intellectual & creative achievements of the seminal figures. i.e. Wagner's Tristan & Isolde
So what, I'd rather listen to Xenakis than Wagner any day >:D
Quote from: James on May 14, 2008, 06:21:05 PM
That's fine but it still doesn't change history. :D
(shakes fist at history)
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 13, 2008, 05:54:12 AM
Really...well why don't you tell that to Bruckner who named his 3rd Symphony "Wagner" and dedicated it to him. Wagner advanced music beyond the realm of Beethoven in a way that Brahms could never do. That's a fact that you Karl and every anti-Wagnerian on this forum are just going to have to live with.
marvin
My emphasis above:
And what say ye to
Schoenberg's famous essay "
Brahms, the Revolutionary"? (Also translated as "Brahms the Progressive.")
I do believe Arnie Baby would beg to differ: I suspect he would say that
Brahms was just as important in "advancing music" (definition?) as Rick Wagner.
...or indeed Bartok, who thought that Liszt was more important for what came after than Wagner was. Taking the long view, I think that's very likely true.
Would the most intelligent composer have been smart enough to distinguish between fact and opinion?
Quote from: Cato on May 15, 2008, 03:43:52 AM
My emphasis above:
And what say ye to Schoenberg's famous essay "Brahms, the Revolutionary"? (Also translated as "Brahms the Progressive.")
I do believe Arnie Baby would beg to differ: I suspect he would say that Brahms was just as important in "advancing music" (definition?) as Rick Wagner.
Schoenberg was an intelligent composer. He saw this at a time when so many others saw music strictly in terms of Brahms vs. Wagner. Surely, no one
today thinks like that. :)
Did Wagner write much in D Minor, I wonder . . . .
Quote from: James on May 15, 2008, 04:41:41 AM
I have to put on the Prelude [...] from Parsifal
That is a beauty! And incidentally, the Apotheosis of "Anchor's Aweigh" ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2008, 07:36:38 AM
Did Wagner write much in D Minor, I wonder . . . .
The opening of Walküre comes to mind, and the ending of Act II in Tristan. I suspect he wrote in most of the keys. (Even if GGGGRRRREEEEGGGGG shakes fist at history.)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2008, 07:37:33 AM
That is a beauty! And incidentally, the Apotheosis of "Anchor's Aweigh" ;)
Tune detection is a fun game, I'm quite addicted to it. Famous tunes can be wrested out of just about any composer's works (for instance, "The Sound of Music" and "Climb every Mountain" just in the 3rd movement of Tchaikovsky's
Manfred)
Later on in the
Parsifal prelude, there are a few measures which bear a remarkable resemblance to meas. 85-89 of Mozart's String Quartet K. 590. The Flower Maiden's chorus in Act II has a passage which sounds suspiciously similar to Chopin's B major Nocturne. As Stravinsky is supposed to have said "talent borrows, genius steals".
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on May 15, 2008, 07:55:17 AM
Tune detection is a fun game, I'm quite addicted to it. Famous tunes can be wrested out of just about any composer's works (for instance, "The Sound of Music" and "Climb every Mountain" just in the 3rd movement of Tchaikovsky's Manfred)
Later on in the Parsifal prelude, there are a few measures which bear a remarkable resemblance to meas. 85-89 of Mozart's String Quartet K. 590. The Flower Maiden's chorus in Act II has a passage which sounds suspiciously similar to Chopin's B major Nocturne. As Stravinsky is supposed to have said "talent borrows, genius steals".
My favorite is in Messiaen's
Des Canyons Aux Etoilles there is a horn lick about 80% into the 5th movement (5:37 on the Salonen recording) that sounds just like a repeated lick of incidental music in the original Scooby Doo series. The funny thing is that the Scooby Doo series predates
Des Canyons Aux Etoilles
Messiaen obviously saw in Scooby-Doo a profound symbol of the transfiguration of Christ.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on May 15, 2008, 08:12:52 AM
Messiaen obviously saw in Scooby-Doo a profound symbol of the transfiguration of Christ.
The sacramental symbolism of Scooby-snacks in the series is striking
Quote from: Sforzando on May 15, 2008, 07:40:45 AM
The opening of Walküre comes to mind, and the ending of Act II in Tristan. I suspect he wrote in most of the keys. (Even if GGGGRRRREEEEGGGGG shakes fist at history.)
Don't forget that Beethoven 9
rip-off homage, the Flying Dutchman overture ;D (only joking)
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on May 15, 2008, 07:55:17 AM
Tune detection is a fun game, I'm quite addicted to it. Famous tunes can be wrested out of just about any composer's works (for instance, "The Sound of Music" and "Climb every Mountain" just in the 3rd movement of Tchaikovsky's Manfred)
Later on in the Parsifal prelude, there are a few measures which bear a remarkable resemblance to meas. 85-89 of Mozart's String Quartet K. 590. The Flower Maiden's chorus in Act II has a passage which sounds suspiciously similar to Chopin's B major Nocturne. As Stravinsky is supposed to have said "talent borrows, genius steals".
Why stop there, Brahms' 4th Symphony has a melody right out Beethoven's 9th Symphony, Mozart's The Magic Flute has an aria/ensemble that suspiciously resembles a tune from Bach's St. Matthew Passion, one of Bach's violin concertos sounds so identical to one of Vivaldi's l'estro harmonicos.........seems to me that there is a lot of theft going on :-\. I used to know what they were. I'll have to dig them up again to refresh my memory.
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 15, 2008, 09:46:43 AM
Why stop there,
Indeed, one could compile a rather lengthy list. One of my favorites is "Nature Boy" in the 2nd movement of the Dvorak Piano Quintet, (along with the "re, a drop of golden sun" line from Rodgers & Hammerstein's "Do Re Mi" song)
Quote from: marvinbrown on May 15, 2008, 09:46:43 AM
Why stop there, Brahms' 4th Symphony has a melody right out Beethoven's 9th Symphony,
I think you might mean Brahms's 1st Symphony.
Brahms's 4th has a melody straight from the slow movement of Beethoven's Hammerklavier sonata.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 15, 2008, 11:55:53 AM
Brahms's 4th has a melody straight from the slow movement of Beethoven's Hammerklavier sonata.
Hey, if you're gonna steal material, you might as well steal from the very best ...........
Quote from: rappy on May 06, 2008, 11:40:35 AM
Which composer do you think shows the greatest amount of intellect in his music?
Dunno. Don't consider myself intelligent enough to judge about that.
Who am I, that I am allowed to do this?(Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, at her inauguration in 1948.)
la la la la......
Elgar.....
Quote from: Sforzando on May 15, 2008, 11:55:53 AM
I think you might mean Brahms's 1st Symphony.
Brahms's 4th has a melody straight from the slow movement of Beethoven's Hammerklavier sonata.
I stand corrected then... I really need to go back and refresh my memory.
marvin
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 15, 2008, 08:05:04 AM
My favorite is in Messiaen's Des Canyons Aux Etoilles there is a horn lick about 80% into the 5th movement (5:37 on the Salonen recording) that sounds just like a repeated lick of incidental music in the original Scooby Doo series. The funny thing is that the Scooby Doo series predates Des Canyons Aux Etoilles
The end of one movement of Penderecki's 7th symphony (the way the Naxos CD is indexed, IIRC the "Lauda Jerusalem" track) sounds exactly like an incredibly bombastic choral rendition of Woody Woodpecker's laugh :-[
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on May 15, 2008, 08:12:52 AM
Messiaen obviously saw in Scooby-Doo a profound symbol of the transfiguration of Christ.
I know a devout Christian who loves wearing a T-shirt that says, "What would Scooby-Doo?"
I think the theme song for the children's show "The Wonder Pets!" rips off the last movement of Schumann's 2nd symphony. :'(
Somebody mentioned Camille Saint-Saëns a while back. Among "intelligent composers" (yes, I'm trying to get this topic back on topic :)), he must rank very high, since he was apparently brilliant in more than just music. (Sorry if he's been mentioned before; I don't have time to read the whole thread.)
And I suppose Alexander Borodin, a research chemist and composer, would also be high on the list.
Quote from: rappy on May 06, 2008, 11:40:35 AM
Which composer do you think shows the greatest amount of intellect in his music?
...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.
Sounds like Milton Babbitt to me (though while talking to one of my history professors, Babbitt once described Ferneyhough's music as making his compositions look like child's play).
Quote from: paul on May 21, 2008, 07:22:12 PM
Sounds like Milton Babbitt to me (though while talking to one of my history professors, Babbitt once described Ferneyhough's music as making his compositions look like child's play).
And they do. But looking back at the orignal poster's question, I tend to doubt Babbitt would be an answer he was anticipating.
Quote from: James on May 22, 2008, 08:29:04 AM
Saens was an intelligent guy sure, and he had many interests in other areas and yet, he wasn't a genius who changed the course-of or had a major impact on any of them. He was simply one of those types who fell between too many different stools and perhaps wasn't as focused as others. A brilliant prodigy who had potential but a blip compared to the depth, achievements & breakthroughs of the really creative super musical minds.
And Borodin or Babbitt or Ferneyhough ? Naaaaaa
Well, if you measure only by
accomplishments... But a lot of extremely intelligent people have accomplished very little compared to less-gifted but luckier and/or harder-working folks. I suspect that Ludwig van Beethoven's overall intelligence was not particularly acute despite his being a
musical genius. On the other hand, from what I've heard of Mozart, he was brilliant at everything. Didn't he memorize Hamlet or some other Shakespeare at something like age seven?
Oh, and BTW, it's always
Saint Saëns. ;)
Well, we'll have to "agree to disagree" on this.
Quote from: jochanaan on May 22, 2008, 02:15:06 PM
I suspect that Ludwig van Beethoven's overall intelligence was not particularly acute despite his being a musical genius.
Could you provide examples of Beethoven's non-musical intellectual shortcomings? I'd be interested in knowing.
Quote from: Dm on May 22, 2008, 06:32:35 PM
Could you provide examples of Beethoven's non-musical intellectual shortcomings? I'd be interested in knowing.
He could never multiply - he had to add columns of like numbers to get the total. His German prose, as revealed in his letters, was crude and unpolished. Those two come to mind.
Do you understand German well enough to judge that or did you read that somewhere?
Quote from: Cato on May 15, 2008, 03:43:52 AM
And what say ye to Schoenberg's famous essay "Brahms, the Revolutionary"? (Also translated as "Brahms the Progressive.")
Not
also. "Brahms, der Fortschrittliche" can
only be translated as "the Progressive". However thinks it can also be translated as "the Revolutionary" obvously doesn't know German and shouldn't translate anything.
Quote from: M forever on May 22, 2008, 08:12:11 PM
Do you understand German well enough to judge that or did you read that somewhere?
I'll let you decide for yourself.
Decide what?
Quote from: jochanaan on May 18, 2008, 11:03:12 AM
And I suppose Alexander Borodin, a research chemist and composer, would also be high on the list.
Did you realise that "Alexander Borodin" is an anagram of "Ex lab nerd on radio"? One of the best anagrams I know... :D
Quote from: M forever on May 22, 2008, 08:12:11 PM
Not also. "Brahms, der Fortschrittliche" can only be translated as "the Progressive". However thinks it can also be translated as "the Revolutionary" obvously doesn't know German and shouldn't translate anything.
Or perhaps the translator doesn't understand English as precisely as you do, or (as is the translator's lamentable prerogative) takes certain liberties in translation to shift interpretation in the direction of his choice. Bear in mind that those slightly left of center politically often conflate terms like "progressive," "revolutionary," and "radical," even using them to describe policies that simply perpetuate the status quo.
Quote from: Cato on May 15, 2008, 03:43:52 AM
And what say ye to Schoenberg's famous essay "Brahms, the Revolutionary"? (Also translated as "Brahms the Progressive.")
There's always the chance Schoenberg really didn't know what he was talking about.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 22, 2008, 08:07:42 PM
He could never multiply - he had to add columns of like numbers to get the total. His German prose, as revealed in his letters, was crude and unpolished. Those two come to mind.
I'm starting to suspect Beethoven suffered from a form of attention deficit disorder, probably of the "inattentive" type (i myself suffer from the same illness and can recognize the signs), which would go a long way in explaining those difficulties in light of the extreme intelligence of his music. Even his literary tastes were completely out of proportion to his seemingly inept prose. I think people put too much faith to the fact that, just because some individuals demonstrate incredible feats of mental prowess every part of their brain is as evolved in equal measure, or vice versa. It's not that simple.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 24, 2008, 12:11:54 PM
There's always the chance Schoenberg really didn't know what he was talking about.
not really ;D
have you studied any of Brahms' scores?
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on May 24, 2008, 02:59:58 PM
not really ;D
have you studied any of Brahms' scores?
Good point. Not only have I studied the scores, I've played in the orchestra for his first two symphonies and Academic Festival Overture. :D However, I feel it's more precise to say that Brahms looked forward by looking back. A lot of his contrapuntal and rhythmic devices, especially the endless syncopations, came directly from Renaissance music; and the Chaconne (the form of the Fourth Symphony's last movement) is a very old form. In this way he was the forerunner of composers like Stravinsky (of the neoclassic period) and Hovhaness, who also looked forward by looking back at earlier music.
By intelligent, I mean in the scholarly sense.
Two of the smartest ones I can think of:
1. Xenakis- fluent in at least 4 languages, an expert on Greek mythology, an architect, a math expert, the guy who wrote "Formalized Music," a pioneer in electroacoustic music... if any composer can top him in book smarts, I'd be surprised.
2. Prokofiev- a chess master, knew 3 languages (though I can't remember how well his English was), and according to what I've read, the guy once was listening to some other guy play his piano concerto at a recital (the guy's piano concerto, not Prokofiev's). The guy forgot how a passage went and stopped playing. Then, Prokofiev came onstage and finished it off. Not sure how true it is, but if it is, then wow!
A few that come to mind (but most here will probably know these) -
Holst - knew Sanskrit, had an interest in astronomy (hence, The Planets).
Mendelssohn - grew up in a cultivated household with an interest in visual art (he was a pretty good painter & sketcher), languages (not sure which ones, except German & English), philosophy, etc.
Carter - watching interviews with him, he's very much an "intellectual" - reads widely and I remember him mentioning reading things in the original Greek & French...
We already have a thread called "Most Intelligent Composer?" and you've posted in it.
I'm not so impressed with either of your examples.
Prokofiev may have had a good musical memory, nothing compared to Mozart. The Catholic church did not allow publication of Allegri's Miserere, until the 14 year old Mozart heard a performance in the Sistine chapel, and afterwards wrote the 9-part choral piece down from memory. Mozart's transcription was the first publication of the work.
The story is also told that when Beethoven premiered his first piano concerto he came to the hall to find the piano tuned a semitone flat. He performed the concerto by transposing to C# minor in his head so it would sound in C and be in tune with the orchestra.
I don't find the fact that Xenakis dabbled in various fields (in which he didn't particularly excel) particularly impressive.
Schoenberg was an intellectual. He had a wide variety of interests. He was also a very skilled painter.
Borodin could be considered an intellectual. Being a highly gifted composer, but also an acknowledged and well-respected chemist in his field of research.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 24, 2011, 08:53:51 PM
I'm not so impressed with either of your examples.
I'm not sure if the aim of this (or any other) thread is to "impress" anyone here. I think if someone's aim is to "impress" other people online, then maybe they should consider getting a life.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 24, 2011, 08:53:51 PM
Prokofiev may have had a good musical memory, nothing compared to Mozart. The Catholic church did not allow publication of Allegri's Miserere, until the 14 year old Mozart heard a performance in the Sistine chapel, and afterwards wrote the 9-part choral piece down from memory. Mozart's transcription was the first publication of the work.
The story is also told that when Beethoven premiered his first piano concerto he came to the hall to find the piano tuned a semitone flat. He performed the concerto by transposing to C# minor in his head so it would sound in C and be in tune with the orchestra.
Those are good examples, I knew about the Mozart story but didn't know about the Beethoven one.
QuoteI don't find the fact that Xenakis dabbled in various fields (in which he didn't particularly excel) particularly impressive.
Well, he was amongst the first composers to use computers to generate patterns as a basis for his music. Again, it's not an issue of being impressed, but more about the fact that not many others were doing these kinds of things at the time (the 1960's). I'm not an expert in his or any other composers' music, but I think you'd have to give him credit for being so innovative and actually producing something that has stood the test of time since...
Quote from: Sid on March 24, 2011, 09:14:25 PM
I'm not sure if the aim of this (or any other) thread is to "impress" anyone here. I think if someone's aim is to "impress" other people online, then maybe they should consider getting a life.
Your aim seems to be to develop the act of taking umbrage to an art form. Perhaps you should get a life?
Quote
Well, he was amongst the first composers to use computers to generate patterns as a basis for his music. Again, it's not an issue of being impressed, but more about the fact that not many others were doing these kinds of things at the time (the 1960's). I'm not an expert in his or any other composers' music, but I think you'd have to give him credit for being so innovative and actually producing something that has stood the test of time since...
Using a simplistic computer program to generate random music might be original, but it doesn't strike me as particularly requiring "intelligence." From a technical point of view it is a lot harder to write a computer program for which there is a difficult to meet criteria for success, for instance, one that correctly integrates a partial differential equation. My interpretation of the thread topic was to identify composers who demonstrated intelligence, in addition to being good composers.
The short answer is, I don't know of any. The Mozart and Beethoven feats were musical, and related to their talent as composers. Off hand, I don't know of any composers who actually accomplished anything significant outside the field of music. The closest might be William Herschel, who was a significant astronomer and wrote a few symphonies good enough to make the "Contemporaries of Mozart" series on Chandos.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 24, 2011, 08:53:51 PM
I don't find the fact that Xenakis dabbled in various fields (in which he didn't particularly excel) particularly impressive.
I wouldn't call Xenakis a dabbler. In addition to the talents mentioned by Greg, he was a working architect, student of Le Corbusier, and designed some significant buildings. The fact that I consider Le Corbusier a cancerous influence on modern urban design doesn't detract from X's sheer intellectual power.
You're right about Prokofiev - excellent musical memory, but plenty of composers have that.
Boulez has to be another super-high-IQ composer; also Carter, as already mentioned (apparently he taught mathematics at college level, besides his other achievements).
Borodin, already mentioned, was a professor of chemistry. Personally I think he should have ditched it and composed full-time; maybe he wouldn't have left some significant works unfinished.
On the other hand, it's interesting how intellectually narrow some great composers were. Beethoven never even learned to do basic arithmetic, which got him into all kinds of trouble with his finances. Bruckner, Schubert, and Brahms also seemed to have no deep interests outside of music.
Quote from: ScarpiaOff hand, I don't know of any composers who actually accomplished anything significant outside the field of music. The closest might be William Herschel, who was a significant astronomer and wrote a few symphonies good enough to make the "Contemporaries of Mozart" series on Chandos.
...or you could look at it the other way round and identify people who excelled in other fields who also composed - Anthony Burgess, for instance, who really would have wanted to think of himself as a composer first and foremost. (I have some of his music on CD, and a score of an orchestral piece, and it's really not too bad....but I'll tak Earthly Powers over it any day!).
That Beethoven transposition feat, btw, is echoed in a story about Brahms on one of his youthful trips with Remenyi, in which, encountering an out-of-tune piano (and rather than having Remenyi simply retune the violin) he transposed the whole programme by a semitone. It's the sort of story which makes good jaw-dropping reading, but I'm not quite as amazed at it as I used to be, mainly because as I get older I'm sort-of able to do it myself - not as fluently, of course, nowhere near, but I know how the trick works, so to speak. At any rate, it's not really indicative of intelligence, just of very highly-trained musical skills.
An out-an-out egghead is Brian Ferneyhough. I'm not saying this because of the complexity of his music but because of the complexity of his thought, and the way that, even in conversation (let alone writing) his languague is so extraordinarily subtle, dense and...well, complex! Before anyone jumps in and replies that complexity of language is not necessarily A Good Thing, I agree, of course - but in Ferneyhough's case it's certainly indicative of a highly able and formidable brain.
Here's one: though he's not widely known as a composer, Giuseppe Sinopoli was not just a prominent conductor, he was also a medical doctor by education (specializing in psychiatry), multi-lingual, did a course in Egyptology (!) later in life, and held an academic post in electronic music. (And he composed.)
Top that.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 24, 2011, 10:14:15 PM
Your aim seems to be to develop the act of taking umbrage to an art form. Perhaps you should get a life?
I'm very sorry I probably shouldn't have said that. I take it back. Yes, I should kind of take my own advice, very arrogant of me...
I didn't know that Sinopoli was such a versatile person. I agree that it doesn't really matter if a composer or musician was good at things outiside of music or not.
As for "party tricks" I doubt it if anyone can beat Saint-Saens' ability to play any of the Beethoven piano sonatas from memory on demand...
Quote from: Sid on March 25, 2011, 12:18:13 AM
As for "party tricks" I doubt it if anyone can beat Saint-Saens' ability to play any of the Beethoven piano sonatas from memory on demand...
Ensecu! The entire works of Wagner, the complete works of Bach (legend says) and tonnes more besides. At the piano. Even though his fame mostly resided in his violin playing. He astounded Ravel by memorising his brand-new violin sonata after just two play-throughs. He was probably the greatest musical all-rounder of the 20th century, I think - supreme violinist, superb pianist, masterful and highly original composer (the last of these three really the most important, I think)
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 24, 2011, 10:14:15 PM
Using a simplistic computer program to generate random music might be original, but it doesn't strike me as particularly requiring "intelligence."
You had a point and had me following you until you said the above re Xenakis. I suggest you read up on what he actually did.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 24, 2011, 08:57:34 PM
Schoenberg was an intellectual.
Which has nothing to do with intelligence.
Either way, the most obvious answer for me is Bach, without doubt.
Quote from: Luke on March 25, 2011, 01:58:40 AM
Ensecu! The entire works of Wagner, the complete works of Bach (legend says) and tonnes more besides. At the piano. Even though his fame mostly resided in his violin playing. He astounded Ravel by memorising his brand-new violin sonata after just two play-throughs. He was probably the greatest musical all-rounder of the 20th century, I think - supreme violinist, superb pianist, masterful and highly original composer (the last of these three really the most important, I think)
And unlike, say, Mendelssohn, or Saint-Saens, his work takes full advantage of his superior talents. No matter how often i listen to his music there's always something i couldn't catch the first time around. His musical imagination knew no bounds.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 25, 2011, 03:56:31 AM
Which has nothing to do with intelligence.
Either way, the most obvious answer for me is Bach, without doubt.
The question was: "By intelligent, I mean in the scholarly sense." Whether that constitutes intelligence or not, I can't say. But Bach's intelligence was singly musical; there is no example of scholarship or interest in that - unlike say Webern, who was a noted Renaissance music scholar.
Not a scholar per se, but perhaps the best writer among all composers, is of course Berlioz.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 24, 2011, 10:14:15 PM
The short answer is, I don't know of any. The Mozart and Beethoven feats were musical, and related to their talent as composers. Off hand, I don't know of any composers who actually accomplished anything significant outside the field of music. The closest might be William Herschel, who was a significant astronomer and wrote a few symphonies good enough to make the "Contemporaries of Mozart" series on Chandos.
Borodin was a noted chemist, who considered himself an amateur composer.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 25, 2011, 04:10:15 AM
The question was: "By intelligent, I mean in the scholarly sense." Whether that constitutes intelligence or not, I can't say. But Bach's intelligence was singly musical; there is no example of scholarship or interest in that - unlike say Webern, who was a noted Renaissance music scholar.
Well, Bach was one of the foremost experts in organ construction of his time. Much of his work could also be constituted as living academic treatises documenting every single musical form available to him at the time, past or present. Just because he believed in practical, rather then a purely theoretical approach to musicology doesn't mean he was any less of a scholar. And his erudition was legendary.
Either way, i did misread the original question. I think i drank too much coffee this morning.
Concerning Prokofiev and chess, while he was almost certainly one of the strongest famous people I know of, he wasn't quite at Master strength; that's by today's standards, and even the standards of his time. I've examined his games, and while he was a fair bit stronger than me (not that that's saying a whole lot), he wasn't Master standard. Also, in the USSR, Master is higher than in the United States, so by Soviet standards, he was even further from Master than he would be from US Master. "Master" in today's chess world is a national title, and can vary slightly between different countries. In Prokofiev's days', "Master" was used broadly, to describe even the most élite players in the world (and Prokofiev was far from their company), down to national Masters as we'd use the term today (much, much weaker than Grandmasters).
All that rambling basically is to say that, while Prokofiev may have been the second-strongest "celebrity" at chess ever (behind Marchel Duchamp, who really was a Master), he was not quite as strong as many non-chess people make out. Very, very impressive nonetheless, don't get me wrong! You might say he was virtually Candidate Master strength, but with so few games to go by, it's hard to make such a meaningful assessment.
But the main thing I wanted to say was, you don't have to be all that smart to be strong at chess. I literally know of a mentally handicapped kid who is about as strong as Prokofiev was. I'm not joking. Chess is about repetition, pattern recognition, study, and so on; it's not much about intelligence. Granted, from International Master on up, I can't think of any who was not of at least above-average intelligence (apparently), but you can get really good at chess and not be all that bright. I've managed to do fairly well for myself (relatively speaking), being simply of about average intelligence; and that's even without studying on my own time, just with lessons and tournament play.
Chess is commonly seen as a sign of intelligence, but only by non-chessplayers!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on March 25, 2011, 04:24:11 AM
Either way, i did misread the original question. I think i drank too much coffee this morning.
All right, that's it: strictly decaf for you until next Monday! Back to topic . . . do most of us accept the idea that there are different types of intelligence? (Or is that 'received science' at this point?) Therefore, isn't the 'quest' for most intelligent composer front-loaded with a bias towards a specific type of intelligence?
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 25, 2011, 04:54:37 AM
Concerning Prokofiev and chess, while he was almost certainly one of the strongest famous people I know of, he wasn't quite at Master strength; that's by today's standards, and even the standards of his time. I've examined his games, and while he was a fair bit stronger than me (not that that's saying a whole lot), he wasn't Master standard. Also, in the USSR, Master is higher than in the United States, so by Soviet standards, he was even further from Master than he would be from US Master. "Master" in today's chess world is a national title, and can vary slightly between different countries. In Prokofiev's days', "Master" was used broadly, to describe even the most élite players in the world (and Prokofiev was far from their company), down to national Masters as we'd use the term today (much, much weaker than Grandmasters).
All that rambling basically is to say that, while Prokofiev may have been the second-strongest "celebrity" at chess ever (behind Marchel Duchamp, who really was a Master), he was not quite as strong as many non-chess people make out. Very, very impressive nonetheless, don't get me wrong! You might say he was virtually Candidate Master strength, but with so few games to go by, it's hard to make such a meaningful assessment.
But the main thing I wanted to say was, you don't have to be all that smart to be strong at chess. I literally know of a mentally handicapped kid who is about as strong as Prokofiev was. I'm not joking. Chess is about repetition, pattern recognition, study, and so on; it's not much about intelligence. Granted, from International Master on up, I can't think of any who was not of at least above-average intelligence (apparently), but you can get really good at chess and not be all that bright. I've managed to do fairly well for myself (relatively speaking), being simply of about average intelligence; and that's even without studying on my own time, just with lessons and tournament play.
Chess is commonly seen as a sign of intelligence, but only by non-chessplayers!
And in all events, Prokofiev's 'inter-personal intelligence' wasn't as sharp as it might have been . . . .
Quote from: Velimir on March 24, 2011, 11:15:18 PM
On the other hand, it's interesting how intellectually narrow some great composers were. Beethoven never even learned to do basic arithmetic, which got him into all kinds of trouble with his finances.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make him intellectually narrow in the least. He was well read in the classics, with particular interests in Homer and Plutarch and he revered Shakespeare (see Romain Rolland's biography).
Quote
Schubert [...] also seemed to have no deep interests outside of music.
Judging by the high literary quality of most of the poems he set to music, literature was no stranger to him either.
Quote from: Luke on March 25, 2011, 01:58:40 AM
Enescu! The entire works of Wagner, the complete works of Bach (legend says) and tonnes more besides. At the piano. Even though his fame mostly resided in his violin playing. He astounded Ravel by memorising his brand-new violin sonata after just two play-throughs. He was probably the greatest musical all-rounder of the 20th century, I think - supreme violinist, superb pianist, masterful and highly original composer (the last of these three really the most important, I think)
Yes.
Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on March 25, 2011, 05:04:31 AM
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make him intellectually narrow in the least. He was well read in the classics, with particular interests in Homer and Plutarch and he revered Shakespeare (see Romain Rolland's biography).
Judging by the high literary quality of most of the poems he set to music, literature was no stranger to him either.
I'm sure that the greatest composers were not intellectually narrow. Mozart was interested in the thoughts of his time as shown here:
http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/printthread.php?s=dd5efe7074ab1d091d2824f4b414bb69&t=650
OK, so maybe the great old masters weren't so intellectually narrow after all. :) But could any of them have designed something like this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philips_Pavilion
And there does seem to be a trend in the 20th century towards more multi-talented, polymathic, eggheaded composers.
Quote from: Leon on March 25, 2011, 06:33:17 AM
I think intelligence is overrated and not the most important gift a composer must have.
I think that ties in with this here:Quote from: Apollon on March 25, 2011, 04:59:44 AM
Back to topic . . . do most of us accept the idea that there are different types of intelligence? (Or is that 'received science' at this point?) Therefore, isn't the 'quest' for most intelligent composer front-loaded with a bias towards a specific type of intelligence?
Or, I think that intelligence is certainly of service to the composer, only it depends on the type(s) of intelligence . . . .
Quote from: Apollon on March 25, 2011, 05:01:19 AM
And in all events, Prokofiev's 'inter-personal intelligence' wasn't as sharp as it might have been . . . .
I agree with that. ;D
For a composer "intelligence" is somewhat beside the point, there is a creative vision or impulse which probably distinguishes the great composers and there is a technical skill required to implement that impulse. When I read in the linear notes of my CDs how one composer or another used "advanced" mathematics to inform their composition it always sound so simple-minded that you could give it as a homework assignment to a class of computer science freshmen.
I think conductors may require more of what is conventionally called intelligence, since they have to be able to look at a complex score and imagine how it should sound. They also need to communicate this to the orchestra. It is one thing for us to sit here and make self-important comments like "Boulez's recording has a clarity that eluded Karajan," or "Karajan's recording has a sensuality that is lacking in Boulez's cold reading." It is another thing to know what to tell the viola section, the principal bassoon or the second horn player to achieve that sensuality or clarity.
And there is that ol' isorhythmic motet . . . .
Quote from: Leon on March 25, 2011, 08:23:30 AM
While I generaly agree with your post, it is interesting that serial techniques did not originate in the 20th century. Mozart, Haydn and others wrote music called "dice game music" or something like that in which serial techiques were developed to produce music in the Classical style.
Yes, but Haydn and Mozart realized it was a joke. ;D
Everyone focuses on Schoenberg's use of a tone row. Whenever I read about the rules that Schoenberg had invented to define what an acceptable tone row is (something about choosing six tones, then the second six tones should be the inversion of the first six, offset by a fifth, with the constraint that no tones are duplicated) it strikes me as complicated, but not intelligent. Schoenberg wrote some great works, but the numerology strikes me as beside the point. Sort of similar to Bach, who would embed all sorts of numerology in his compositions, as though the challenge of writing music wasn't enough. Supposedly the number of measures in various parts of the St Matthew Passion correspond to the scripture numbers where different passages appear in the gospel, etc.
Quote from: Leon on March 25, 2011, 08:23:30 AM
While I generaly agree with your post, it is interesting that serial techniques did not originate in the 20th century. Mozart, Haydn and others wrote music called "dice game music" or something like that in which serial techiques were developed to produce music in the Classical style.
This link (http://books.google.com/books?id=TMdf1SioFk4C&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=Haydn+Dice+compositions&source=bl&ots=1IoRpw8Z0j&sig=gou91_zJLZn9EdPBmNEzQeNdA9w&hl=en&ei=e8CMTamCFvC60QGk_IioCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CD0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Haydn%20Dice%20compositions&f=false) for a Google book of the Harvard Dictionary of Music explains it better than I could.
They aren't serial techniques, though. Mozart's disc-game music is really a very simple thing - essentially a set of possible 'bar 1s' all conforming to to the same harmonic progression, a set of possible 'bar 2s' ditto, etc. etc. All the dice do is select which of the possible bar 1s is chosen. (Ha, just clicked on the link, it says the same thing) If one wishes I guess one can try to find a parallel here to serialism, but to do so is very much using hindsight to try to find a precursor where there isn't one (as also when people state there's a twelve tone row in the great G minor symphony - no there isn't!). As Scarpia said, the dice game was just a bit of fun to Mozart, much like the Mirror-Duet he wrote for 2 violins (a more impressive but still basically simple musical game, nothing like as sophisticated as the canons in the Musical Offering)
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 25, 2011, 08:53:00 AM
Everyone focuses on Schoenberg's use of a tone row. Whenever I read about the rules that Schoenberg had invented to define what an acceptable tone row is (something about choosing six tones, then the second six tones should be the inversion of the first six, offset by a fifth, with the constraint that no tones are duplicated) it strikes me as complicated, but not intelligent. Schoenberg wrote some great works, but the numerology strikes me as beside the point. Sort of similar to Bach, who would embed all sorts of numerology in his compositions, as though the challenge of writing music wasn't enough. Supposedly the number of measures in various parts of the St Matthew Passion correspond to the scripture numbers where different passages appear in the gospel, etc.
Berg similarly, of course...
Quote from: Luke on March 25, 2011, 08:58:38 AM
Berg similarly, of course...
Reminds me of Kurtzweil, the "nanotechnology" futurist who claims that humans and computers will merge in around 2050 in an event called "the singularity." He has been anointed a genius by the popular media, but when he talks he seems more like a blithering idiot to me. In any case, his first claim to fame was an appearance on an American TV game show called "I've got a secret." His secret was that the piece of music he played on the piano was "composed" by a computer.
. . . where people would just have supposed it had been written by an incompetent human ; )
Quote from: Leon on March 25, 2011, 09:52:34 AM
I find that serialism has been demonized as being overly artificial, when it is no more artificial than, as you suggest, Bach's use of them.
Or indeed, as if the root of artificial were not art ; ) Id est, there may always be people who feel that the music they like is somehow natural, but that other stuff which they cannot abide, ew, it's artificial.Quote from: Leon on March 25, 2011, 09:52:34 AM
Unless, the fact that 20th century music is atonal is what causes the problem.
I'm sure that is the subtext for many.
Quote from: Sid on March 24, 2011, 08:46:04 PM
Holst - knew Sanskrit, had an interest in astronomy (hence, The Planets).
Wow, that then makes me a most intelligent non-composer. ;D BTW, Holst's interest was in astrology rather than astronomy. They two are universes apart.
Quote from: Opus106 on March 25, 2011, 10:08:01 AM
Wow, that then makes me a most intelligent non-composer. ;D BTW, Holst's interest was in astrology rather than astronomy. They two are universes apart.
And how does the fact of Holst knowing sanscrit make him intelligent? Just shows he had a lot of time on his hands. :)
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 25, 2011, 10:37:06 AM
And how does the fact of Holst knowing sanscrit make him intelligent? Just shows he had a lot of time on his hands. :)
Have you ever tried to learn Sanskrit? It's no intellectual walk in the park.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 25, 2011, 11:53:13 AM
Have you ever tried to learn Sanskrit? It's no intellectual walk in the park.
So difficulty=intelligence?
Quote from: Grazioso on March 25, 2011, 11:53:13 AM
Have you ever tried to learn Sanskrit? It's no intellectual walk in the park.
Given the number of people who have learned it as their native language, I can only assume that a person of reasonable intelligence can learn it. :P
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 25, 2011, 12:03:13 PM
Given the number of people who have learned it as their native language, I can only assume that a person of reasonable intelligence can learn it. :P
Learning a second language is a compleeeeeeeeeeetely different story, though. Try learning Spanish or Dutch and then try learning Cantonese. ;)
Speaking of Berg, Bach, etc. I was thinking of starting a thread about all of the palindromes used that anyone could find.
There's Bach's Canon 1 à 2 from The Musical Offering, Berg's palindrome in the Chamber Concerto, Webern's palindrome in the Symphony (something I discovered myself one day while studying the score), and I heard there is one used in Bruckner's 7th. I'm sure in serial music there are a lot, though I'd be mostly interested in findings that aren't serial music.
I tried writing one myself (in the way Bach wrote his crab canon), and I noticed that there is a certain trick to it which made it easier...
Well, I think that the more languages one learns, the more one has an ability to understand other cultures. Learning a language is not only a matter of the rules of grammar and the like. It is also a matter of learning about the cultures, customs and traditions attached to the language being studied. This not only requires a good memory, but being able to apply the knowledge you have gained about the language in practical situations, whether it is ordering food in the native language in a restaurant or composing the music to a text in a foreign language (as Holst and many other composers have done throughout the ages). I am speaking from experience here, I am bilingual and have also studied a third language at tertiary level as an adult - but that was over 10 years ago, and I haven't retained it much. However, if I went to China next week (I studied Mandarin), I'd probably be able to pick the language up in no time!...
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 25, 2011, 12:03:13 PM
Given the number of people who have learned it as their native language, I can only assume that a person of reasonable intelligence can learn it. :P
Well, Classical Sanskrit is a dead language, so it must have been so hard that it killed them all ;)
Quote from: Philoctetes on March 25, 2011, 11:59:25 AM
So difficulty=intelligence?
If something is intellectually complex and demanding, then, yes, it requires some level of intelligence to master it. A dumb person is not going to master calculus or structural engineering or ballistics. Learning a foreign tongue--or mastering one's own--does require intelligence. Further, linguistic mastery is necessary to express intellectual concepts with any degree of subtlety and differentiation. We wouldn't have philosophy, theology, etc. as we know them were it not for the development and mastery of sophisticated languages.
Btw, Sanskrit is a bear: different language group (for most of us on this board), different writing system, different phonemes, complex grammar with eight cases and three genders, etc.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 26, 2011, 06:13:58 AM
Well, Classical Sanskrit is a dead language, so it must have been so hard that it killed them all ;)
In decline, but dead?
QuoteBtw, Sanskrit is a bear: different language group (for most of us on this board), different writing system, different phonemes, complex grammar with eight cases and three genders, etc.
I didn't say it was easy. But I interpreted to topic as calling attention to composers of
extraordinary intelligence, not simply composers who are not dumb. I assume anyone that can write classical music is not dumb.
Learning a language takes exposure/study time. That's about it. Even with a poor memory, you can learn a new language, no matter how different... if you have sufficient time with it.
Most examples mentioned, apart from people with aptitudes in things like design, or conducting, are more properly erudition, than intelligence.
For intelligence qua intelligence, anyone like Haydn or Bach composing highly complex music on a weekly basis tops my list. For intelligent composition, I think most high-profile Germanic symphonists, and certainly Sibelius, displayed remarkable intelligence in their output. As did Alkan and Medtner for the piano.
Quote from: Greg on March 24, 2011, 08:21:37 PM
By intelligent, I mean in the scholarly sense.
Two of the smartest ones I can think of:
1. Xenakis- fluent in at least 4 languages, an expert on Greek mythology, an architect, a math expert, the guy who wrote "Formalized Music," a pioneer in electroacoustic music... if any composer can top him in book smarts, I'd be surprised.
2. Prokofiev- a chess master, knew 3 languages (though I can't remember how well his English was), and according to what I've read, the guy once was listening to some other guy play his piano concerto at a recital (the guy's piano concerto, not Prokofiev's). The guy forgot how a passage went and stopped playing. Then, Prokofiev came onstage and finished it off. Not sure how true it is, but if it is, then wow!
Like many intellectuals, Greg, you are conflating intellectualism with intelligence. They are no more necessarily related than brown eyes and a fondness for foot massages. But, happily, you recognize something fishy about this, as indicated by your qualifier, "in the scholarly sense."
That's consistent with the "logical/mathematical" and "linguistic" intelligences identified by Howard Gardner as the dimensions of intelligence most rewarded in traditional schools and measured on traditional IQ tests. (see http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm )
Charles Ives comes to mind of the top of my head as an unusually gifted man who wrote notable music.
Quote from: JoshLilly on March 26, 2011, 07:28:02 AM
Learning a language takes exposure/study time. That's about it. Even with a poor memory, you can learn a new language, no matter how different... if you have sufficient time with it.
But linguistic aptitude varies dramatically with individuals. Some pick up new languages with relative ease and can master all the nuances (one thinks of Conrad, who wrote masterpieces in his third language), while others struggle their entire lives to sound remotely like an educated native speaker. Lots of people have difficulties with their native tongue in its advanced spoken or written manifestations.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 26, 2011, 06:55:21 AM
In decline, but dead?
Afaik, yes for Classical Sanskrit, which survives only as a liturgical/scholarly language, not an evolving spoken one.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 26, 2011, 06:55:21 AM
In decline, but dead?
Pretty much. In many ways, it is similar to the present state of Latin. You can still hear it being chanted during sacred Hindu rituals (including weddings and such), as lyrics in some Carnatic compositions, but nowhere else beyond that. It was never really a "native language" as you said earlier, not in the recent past anyway. Different regions of India have (more or less) different languages of their own, and although influenced by Sanskrit they are not as rigorous. Sanskrit classes in school rarely dealt with using it for practical purposes. I remember there was letter-writing in Sanskrit ;D, but otherwise it was usually stories and couplets (with concatenated words as a long as a sentence -- and it's usually a pleasure to listen to someone who can read those flawlessly), along with grammar.
Quote from: Opus106 on March 26, 2011, 11:00:38 AM
Pretty much. In many ways, it is similar to the present state of Latin. You can still hear it being chanted during sacred Hindu rituals (including weddings and such), as lyrics in some Carnatic compositions, but nowhere else beyond that. It was never really a "native language" as you said earlier, not in the recent past anyway. Different regions of India have (more or less) different languages of their own, and although influenced by Sanskrit they are not as rigorous. Sanskrit classes in school rarely dealt with using it for practical purposes. I remember there was letter-writing in Sanskrit ;D, but otherwise it was usually stories and couplets (with concatenated words as a long as a sentence -- and it's usually a pleasure to listen to someone who can read those flawlessly), along with grammar.
I see. Glad you could clarify the matter. :)
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 26, 2011, 08:34:03 AM
Like many intellectuals, Greg, you are conflating intellectualism with intelligence. They are no more necessarily related than brown eyes and a fondness for foot massages. But, happily, you recognize something fishy about this, as indicated by your qualifier, "in the scholarly sense."
That's consistent with the "logical/mathematical" and "linguistic" intelligences identified by Howard Gardner as the dimensions of intelligence most rewarded in traditional schools and measured on traditional IQ tests. (see http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm )
Charles Ives comes to mind of the top of my head as an unusually gifted man who wrote notable music.
Yeah, I guess you could say, "Most Intellectual Composers." In other words, people who may know much about several very complex fields of study, other than composing.
1. JSB
2. WAG
3. LvB
Brahma? Overrated. Don't judge a genius by one work. Quality + Quantity counts.