Greatest composer who was not a genius?

[Beetzart]

Just read Michel Foucault   

[jochanaan]

This is not true of all philosophers. The philosophy of science is a lively and varied branch of philosophy. While this field is sometimes scorned by scientists, the philosopher Karl Popper's doctrine that a theory is scientific only insofar as it is falsifiable, and should be given up as soon as it is falsified, has been widely respected and accepted by many scientists. Another very influential 20th C. philosopher was Thomas Kuhn, whose The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, was and is widely read though rejected by many scientists. In another area, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead labored for years trying to provide a philosophical foundation for mathematics, resulting in their massive Principia Mathematica. So many philosophers have shown repsect for hard math and science, and the antithesis you are describing does not quite exist.

That's good to know.

What you have to say about the breakdown of music into different disciplines is right on the mark. But this may exist mostly in classical music, which is to a large extent a semi-living relic of the 18th and 19th centuries. In jazz, rock, rhythm and blues and other popular-oriented musics, these divisions hardly exist at all. Here  improvisation is alive and well, the performer's knowledge of harmonic theory and chord relations may be better than the classical performer's, and the composer is often the key interpreter of her own music.

Indeed this is true.  I've done a lot of jazz recently, and most of the musicians there can play, improvise, lead a band, and write too. And some of them are even better at connecting with an audience than some classical performers.

[Ten thumbs]

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

I don't think you're wise to make comments like this about something of which you know nothing. For one thing although there was some interchange her music is quite distinct in style from her brother's. Her voice leading is masterly and the continuity of her music is at least as good as Beethoven's. Her main innovations were in harmony through which she maintains a high level of tension. You seem to imply that she was untrained. This is very far from the truth and, I might add, she was renowned for the breadth of her musical knowledge. What is more, besides being a highly skilled composer, she was one of the finest pianists of her day, a more than competent conductor and a promoter of the works of other composers, including your beloved J.S. Bach, through concerts in her own home. As for genius, certainly there are moments of genius in her music, passages that no ordinary composer could possibly have written.

[Josquin des Prez]

Her voice leading is masterly and the continuity of her music is at least as good as Beethoven's.

Sometimes i wonder why i even bother. Ho yes, there isn't much left for me to do.

[karlhenning]

I'd say it was quite an assertion, only one isn't necessarily sure what is meant.

[Josquin des Prez]

Where do you see improvisation in rock music? You got bands like King Crimson but other then that its a recording driven industry where performers rarely deviate from written music except when the musicians aren't good enough to reproduce whats on the record live, which i would hardly call improvisation.

[greg]

Where do you see improvisation in rock music? You got bands like King Crimson but other then that its a recording driven industry where performers rarely deviate from written music except when the musicians aren't good enough to reproduce whats on the record live, which i would hardly call improvisation.

I can think of a few.

[jowcol]

Where do you see improvisation in rock music? You got bands like King Crimson but other then that its a recording driven industry where performers rarely deviate from written music except when the musicians aren't good enough to reproduce whats on the record live, which i would hardly call improvisation.

Ever hear either of the Live Cream albums?
Live Dead?
Allman Brothers at the Fillmore East?
Santana's Lotus?
Happy Trails by Quicksilver Messenger Service?

There is a whole genre of Rock dedicated to improvisation, where the artists rely more on their live work, and their studio albums tend to be their weaker work.  They may not be your cuppa tea, but the Grateful Dead, Allman Bros, Phish, Widespread Panic, all are(were)  dedicated to NOT reproduce the record, but to shake it up every night.  The "jam band" scene has grown a lot over the last two decades.

I'll admit, the quality varies across these groups,  and they have their own cliches and stereotypes just as the metal bands do, but they tend to encourage non-profit trading of their shows, and each performance of a given song may vary dramatically in terms of solos, tempo, length, dynamics, etc.

There must be hundreds of jam bands (although, IMO, way too many Dead cover bands....) and this has been a pretty active scene.  Same major bands are listed here-- there are a few I really love, and others I can't stand, and some have been retroactivelly called Jam bands because of the amount of improvising they brought to their live shows. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jam_bands

Some of these bands have been a refuge for frustrated jazz musicians who couldn't make as much many playing jazz.

If you're coming from a metal background, you may not care for some of these bands. (although early Gov't Mule managed, IMO, to really effectively integrate blues and metal with a lot of improv).  And, across the board, you've going to find bands that just noodle and don't sustain the material well.  But the effective groups DO Improv, a lot, and I tend to prefer some of them to the King Crimson live material I have.

[Chaszz]

I don't think you're wise to make comments like this about something of which you know nothing. For one thing although there was some interchange her music is quite distinct in style from her brother's. Her voice leading is masterly and the continuity of her music is at least as good as Beethoven's. Her main innovations were in harmony through which she maintains a high level of tension. You seem to imply that she was untrained. This is very far from the truth and, I might add, she was renowned for the breadth of her musical knowledge. What is more, besides being a highly skilled composer, she was one of the finest pianists of her day, a more than competent conductor and a promoter of the works of other composers, including your beloved J.S. Bach, through concerts in her own home. As for genius, certainly there are moments of genius in her music, passages that no ordinary composer could possibly have written.

Also, she was hampered by her father's and, to a certain extent, her brother Felix's imprecations against her being a composer. She was told her place  was in the home as wife and mother and she shouldn't publish under her own name. Having to struggle against these factors should be weighed in the balance of what she did and did not accomplish.

[Chaszz]

Where do you see improvisation in rock music? You got bands like King Crimson but other then that its a recording driven industry where performers rarely deviate from written music except when the musicians aren't good enough to reproduce whats on the record live, which i would hardly call improvisation.

I think there's a lot of good live improvising in the Dave Matthews Band.  I have to admit my other experience with rock is older rather than recent. I've just gone through a pretty intense period with the Rolling Stones' Exile on Main Street and find a lot of very good blues-based improvisation there. Also, the two guitars playing together while improvising is pretty powerful, actually a form of counterpoint, which Keith Richards calls "the ancient art of weaving." I love this although don't find it elsewhere in rock besides this band. My experience with jazz is also of older eras. But I assume in both cases that the improvising tradition remains and as with any other music some are good and some are mediocre. I think it would be a pretty large leap to say that with all the live touring going on all over the world, there is categorically no worthwhile improvising going on. Too much you haven't heard, including tons of third-world music in which ancient improvising traditions are merging with American-influenced rock, blues and jazz. And in rock supposedly the business is being reconfigured as a touring business because recordings are becoming more profitless and free due to internet sharing/piracy. With all that nightly concert activity, how can you know definitively what's going on? In London? Istanbul? Capetown? Des Moines? LA? Jakarta? Oshkosh? Honolulu? Ashtabula? Miami? Prague? etc. etc.

Also my main point was not that such and such a specific rock solo is equal in worth to an improvisation by Beethoven, but the general point that the tradition of a musician being harmonically knowledgeable, a composer, an improviser, and an interpreter all in one, which was the norm in Baroque and Classical times, is alive much more in pop-related music than in classical.

I think I'm overstating the case slightly because the composer/singer is often not the featured instrumental soloist in a rock band. But he or she could probably play a better improvised solo, if called upon, than the average classical player. Or even many classical solo stars.

[Szykneij]

Well, not literally. Arensky's music is still being played (probably has been revived?). I saw a performance of his piano trio in March, and it was ok (but yes, the other works on the program grabbed me more, Arensky's trio couldn't even begin to catch up to Schubert's 1st trio). After hearing that work, and it's rather conservative idiom, I'm in no hurry to hear more Arensky. It was a "one off."

Replacing a failing set of shelves over the weekend that houses most of my classical vinyl, I rediscovered a long-forgotten recording of Arensky's "Trio No. 1 in D Minor" on Melodiya/Angel that I've been listening to the last couple of days.  I have a  much more favorable opinion of the piece. The interplay between the violin, cello, and piano, especially in the second movement, is delightful and several beautiful themes are nicely developed. I find the third movement "Elegie" particularly moving.

[Sid]

Replacing a failing set of shelves over the weekend that houses most of my classical vinyl, I rediscovered a long-forgotten recording of Arensky's "Trio No. 1 in D Minor" on Melodiya/Angel that I've been listening to the last couple of days.  I have a  much more favorable opinion of the piece. The interplay between the violin, cello, and piano, especially in the second movement, is delightful and several beautiful themes are nicely developed. I find the third movement "Elegie" particularly moving.

Yes, well that Arensky trio certainly has it's moments but I still prefer other ones I've heard so far (the piano trio is fast becoming one of my favourite genres, & part of this has been me going to recitals - I'm gearing up to see the Tchaikovsky & Ravel on the same program in the next few weeks). I suppose it is also quite unfair to judge Arensky, because he died so young (in his 40's, I believe)...

[RJR]

Yesterday I just happened to pick up a recording of Saint-Saens' Carnival of the Animals (coupled with Prokofiev's Peter & the wolf - what else?). I had never heard the narrated version before & it's quite witty, the rhymes fit the music well. I'm looking forward to seeing the chamber version of this performed live (I don't think there'll be a narrator, I would love that, but it will still be good to see the purely instrumental version, too). I think that this work is unique for some of the novel textures, colours and sounds that Saint-Saens uses (I especialy like aquariums). The work was supressed until after his death, he didn't want it to eclipse his other more serious works. Saint-Saens may not be my favourite composer, but I still enjoy some of his works.

& composers can be cruel to eachother. Eg. Rimsky Korsakov said of his pupil Arensky that he would quickly be forgotten.

Listening to Peter and the Wolf is a great way to start your day. Take that Kelloggs!

[RJR]

My father has ADHD, and i myself suffer from the inattentive type. When i first read about Beethoven i recognized the signs instantly.

The point is that intelligence doesn't always correlate with learning. I do not subscribe to the idea each individual possesses different types of intelligence. I think intelligence is an inherent individual quality, so that if Beethoven was able to show great intelligence in one instance, then that is the measure of his general intellectual powers. That he couldn't apply his intelligence in other fields are then due external reasons. A learning disability, a poor education or plain simply a lack of interest. If he was truly unable to understand basic mathematical operations because of his lack of intelligence, then he would have never been able to write complex music as well, for the same reasons.

Your last sentence is right on the money. Fugues, counterpoint, his capacity to build up themes, key modulation, the organic nature of most of his works, all these and more point to a highly developed intelligence.

[drogulus]

    Concerning Beethoven and math, there's a difference between applying principles in a set of cases and knowing what the principles are in their generalized abstract form. Whether these are different types of intelligence or not I can't say. Some people seem to be fabulously good at extracting underlying rule sets from a variety of situations while others burrow into the particulars of a skill, an art, what have you, using rules without knowing them in detail.

    So the question of one or many intelligences probably marks a hasty distinction. It's both depending on where you look, before or after they branch and separately develop.