Marvelous

I tried to improvise Bach, and this is the result... cawk.mid

I'm self-taught, but I have a familial ancestor who is a composer-- James Horner. (The probability that I'm lying is high, so don't believe this.) Also, I once exchanged e-mails with Yasunori Mitsuda and received compositional advice, if this qualifies...

If "it" refers to claiming the misuse of half of your working vocabulary, then I was speaking hypothetically; meaning that I didn't do "it" anyway. Otherwise, clarify. (This is becoming marvelously petty!)

Do you realize that you've opened with ad hominem remarks? . . . Perhaps I should claim that you don't know the definitions of, let's say, half of the vocabulary that you've used, which not only implies that you're stupid (in the least, uneducated), but is totally beside the point and further ensures that we get nowhere.

Let me rephrase. Creativity and "artistic creativity" are the same thing; not something mutually exclusive. Artistic creativity is simply creativity that's being applied in a limited way. The differing views frequently cited (like Gardener's) suggest that it requires something beyond the human brain to create "art" as if it's divined from God himself. These are superstitions, and they're frankly ridiculous. I have similar opinions of people who use specious logic to denounce the veracity of psychometric tests and, in doing so, essentially spit on a century of scientific labor. This is not to say that you or Gardener are totally wrong, but alternative hypotheses for intelligence exist, and none have displaced the current, because, when tested, they don't consistently produce positive results. Regarding my gibberish, you are the sort of person who writes a dissertation that can be condensed into one sentence-- one very pretentious, ad hominem statement. I've read some of your posts, and you seem to argue from one premise, which is that you must absolutely win (perhaps in order to prove your own worth). I don't think that your opponents are equally so passionate. You shouldn't expend such energy on needless excessive force.

It's true that there are correlations between beta wave activity and creative behavior. But creativity in this context is defined as divergent thinking, and this is measured by standard I.Q. tests. My question, by the way, was how does one measure ARTISTIC creativity? I contend that such a thing doesn't exist. It's a mystical re-actualization of creativity as it's scientifically understood, so to say "There's something good and fruity about us that is infinite and grows based on how many drugs we take." No offense to anyone who disagrees, but I think that "artistic creativity" is a term used by semi-intellectuals who can't do physics, so they create metaphysical constructs wherein they are relative gods who have mastery over the only things that "matter" from their subjective viewpoints. These things coincidentally happen to be the very things in which they exhibit talent...

Gardener, at the most abstract level, every skill we perform logically depends on the abilities measured by an I.Q. test, which is to say: divergent/convergent thinking, short-term or "working" memory, etc. If we aren't using fluid intelligence (I.Q. or 'g') then we utilize crystalized intelligence (learned information, education). At least, that's the conclusion of contemporary psychological research, and it's supported by current theories in neuroscience. Anyway, what is "artistic" creativity, and how do we quantify it? If we can't accurately define it, or measure it, then we shouldn't claim that it exists...

Hi. Assume that unassisted creativity is a function of intelligence. I've read that the correlation between I.Q. and years of education is 0.55, which doesn't suggest a causal relationship, i.e. that education is responsible for variations in I.Q. While a person can be taught what constitutes musical ability (by some arbitrary standards), I think that someone with very high general intelligence is going to have a permanent, potentially huge advantage. 99% of the world population probably can't write Bach-level music or be taught to do it. Whether a person can alter their innate intelligence in a significant way has never been demonstrated, but there are hereditary differences between people.

Please help me to understand the purpose of piano music being in anything besides C major or A minor, if the piano is used as a solo instrument... (baring special cases like Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier)... Thanks. :toothygrin: