who are the baroque composers on this forum?

[Zetetic]

Any old idiot can write in counterpoint .... there are a rather amazing lot of people who could (and can) write in counterpoint just as well as Bach could.

The only way I can imagine you believing this is if you've not studied any of Bach's monothematic cycles. I don't think anyone, least of all the people who can write passable Bach counterpoint, would agree that there are 'a rather amazing lots of people who can write in counterpoint ... as well as Bach'. At a stretch there are a few composer who might be considered the 'master' of their respective style of counterpoint, like Schoenberg to serialist counterpoint.

PS: Renaissance heralded waves of artistic advancement, but practically knocked out science for a century? What the jesus? Because surely, inventing god-damn industrial design altogether, advancing the field of medicine, ETC, are all anti-scientific things!

Industrial design? Advancements in medicine?! The Papacy tried to ban anatomical drawing; renaissance scholar accepted the writings of Galen in the midst of their symbolist-frenzy, perpetuating and propagating such atrocities as bloodletting and trepanning; the only scientific discovery of any note is Copernicus' theory of the revolution of the planets, which simply reiterated what most serious monastic scholars already knew.

Newton's writings on light take off where 'Opius Majus' finishes. There's hardly anything in between.

[SSC]

The only way I can imagine you believing this is if you've not studied any of Bach's monothematic cycles. I don't think anyone, least of all the people who can write passable Bach counterpoint, would agree that there are 'a rather amazing lots of people who can write in counterpoint ... as well as Bach'. At a stretch there are a few composer who might be considered the 'master' of their respective style of counterpoint, like Schoenberg to serialist counterpoint.

Industrial design? Advancements in medicine?! The Papacy tried to ban anatomical drawing; renaissance scholar accepted the writings of Galen in the midst of their symbolist-frenzy, perpetuating and propagating such atrocities as bloodletting and trepanning; the only scientific discovery of any note is Copernicus' theory of the revolution of the planets, which simply reiterated what most serious monastic scholars already knew.

Newton's writings on light take off where 'Opius Majus' finishes. There's hardly anything in between.

Leonardo da Vinci - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hi. And other countless people who did their work hidden the hell away from silly church.

Second, way to work yourself up in a corner with nonsense worship. Transport Bach's music as if it was written today, and a lot of people would think it was gibberish compared to the other greats anyways. All you need to write exactly like him is just copy his system, what's the big deal with that?

You know why you think anyone who is able to write like Bach would not think many people can write like Bach? Because it's symbol of circle jerk of academic penis-measuring contests.

"OH I WRITE COUNTERPOINT, I AM BETTER."

This is where I say, basically, that since we have THOUSANDS of examples of what "is great", all you need is a little research, some time to practice, and you'll be writing Bach-counterpoint in no time. I don't think Bach was a master of anything, he did what he could (with what he had), and he wrote music I enjoy. I don't put people on retarded pedestals of grandeur they don't deserve. I'm as good as a composer as him, the guy next to me, or Chopin.

It's OBVIOUS if anyone puts effort into using all the available material, they'll be writing in practically any style "as well as the masters". Why? Because that scraggy is just systems and formulas. I don't think Bach is any better or worse than Krebs or Pachelbel, or Frescobaldi. He wasn't "better" at counterpoint than any of them. He did his own thing (which I liked), that's all.

I don't personally think it's a requirement to write Atonal music like Schoenberg and Fugues like Bach. Much less if it's for penis-measuring purposes, like a lot of people treat something like counterpoint, or whatever other system.

Bach was handicapped by the system he used, as was Schoenberg. Schoenberg however DID do a lot of things outside of the very system he created. Bach couldn't as there was nothing else at the time (either that he liked, or that existed.)

No composer is a superhero or a monolith of perfection. Except me.

[Zetetic]

It's OBVIOUS if anyone puts effort into using all the available material, they'll be writing in practically any style "as well as the masters".

I'm abandoning the musical argument now. I think you're slightly delusional. Whilst I used to hope the above was true, experience and wider reading is revealing that innate talent makes up about 99.9% of someone's musical ability. I'll revoke everything if you compose a lengthy composition that any reputable baroque musicologist mistakes for Bach, or tutor someone who's tone deaf to compose brilliant music. The strongest argument in favour of your stance would be that a number of Bach's works are of disputed authorship, though this number is undeniably small in comparison with other, similarly prolific composers.

In order to rebutt my 'renaissance' argument, you've linked me to a page about Leonardo Da Vinci, one of the greatest painters who ever lived, and referred to 'other countless people', whom you've failed to name. Unable to speak Latin, Leonardo published no scientific treatises. A respected primer on the History of Mathematics says that "[his] published jottings on mathematics are trivial, even puerile, and show no mathematical talent whatever." The wikipedia article article also fails to suggest that Da Vinci made any definite contributions to technology, science or medicine. Imagining a flying machine doesn't constitute great science. Neither does saying that copying Bach perfectly will result in a perfect copy of his work.

[SSC]

I'm abandoning the musical argument now. I think you're slightly delusional. Whilst I used to hope the above was true, experience and wider reading is revealing that innate talent makes up about 99.9% of someone's musical ability. I'll revoke everything if you compose a lengthy composition that any reputable baroque musicologist mistakes for Bach, or tutor someone who's tone deaf to compose brilliant music. The strongest argument in favour of your stance would be that a number of Bach's works are of disputed authorship, though this number is undeniably small in comparison with other, similarly prolific composers.

In order to rebutt my 'renaissance' argument, you've linked me to a page about Leonardo Da Vinci, one of the greatest painters who ever lived, and referred to 'other countless people', whom you've failed to name. Unable to speak Latin, Leonardo published no scientific treatises. A respected primer on the History of Mathematics says that "[his] published jottings on mathematics are trivial, even puerile, and show no mathematical talent whatever." The wikipedia article article also fails to suggest that Da Vinci made any definite contributions to technology, science or medicine. Imagining a flying machine doesn't constitute great science. Neither does saying that copying Bach perfectly will result in a perfect copy of his work.

As finishing remarks to your back-pedaling:

Sucks to be you then, if you think 99%(?) of someone's musical ability is made out of "talent". Good luck with that, I hope you have lots of "talent" for the sake of your argument.

And, Da Vinci's contributions are pretty big. Also, Renaissance humanism saw no difference between art or science. Most of these people did what they could with their knowledge. If a mathematician thinks Da Vinci did was trivial, then maybe it only applies to the field of mathematics (like his music isn't that noteworthy to music historians.) But overall, I would think twice about saying he did nothing of scientific value.

I think a musicologist who would mistake any of my pieces for Bach cannot and should not be of any renown. As far as tutoring, I've taught people to compose*, and I've motivated people to get past your anti-logic that art is all about talent because otherwise they wouldn't have done anything.

Nevermind that: "...saying that copying Bach perfectly will result in a perfect copy of his work" makes no logical sense. Copying someone perfectly SHOULD result in a perfect copy, by logic of the statement. I mean, really now should I really be pointing this out?

If you think all of this because of "experience and wider reading", time to live some more and maybe read different things. I hope you don't ever become a composition teacher if your attitude is to think people are either born with talent or they'll never amount to the "greatness" of whatever composer you put on a undeserving pedestal.

Hell, furthermore, I could as well say that probably the reason you even think such bullshit is because you find yourself unable to live up to your own wet-dream of being as great as Bach. It's the case with A LOT of people who claim such things, so really. I hope you do grow out of it and find that you're able to produce things on-par with Bach, if only you let yourself do so, talent notwithstanding.

* Technically, I don't think anyone can teach anyone else to "compose", but I've taught music theory, blah blah blah, and done enough to help point people in the direction of their tastes. Helped with analysis, etc etc. But why bother learning and studying, if that's only 1% of one's musical ability eh?

[SimenN]

Now you wait a second there, son. Music has PROGRESSED, as in, IMPROVED since Bach's time. This is evidenced by the fact I can write a concerto for doorknob and spoon and be taken seriously.

Right, and that is the sick part, you can write music for a doorknob and a toilet seat and be taken for serious art.

There is no need for counterpoint in the new music, and I have evidence of this, as a test for a composition professor.

I gave him som of my seroius music, and he was not impressed, in frustration I played like a wild dork on the piano, just rubbish, pressing down all sorts of keys, recorded and he listend, and he said to me, wow, I did not know you had it in you. What i did could a deaf, blind and half dead person do, if you die and fall over the piano and record, then you are a good composer, realy sick but that is a fact. And back to the blacklisting of baroquian composers. Yes that is a fact too. The cultural elite dont want to go back in time, and offcourse they know that the Atonal music is not popular with the majority. So that is why composers who dont compose thier kind of music will never get in too any concervatories. A fellow composers of mine, who composes classical music gave some of hes music to the Mozarteum. Their response was, we dont want music like this, we want modern compositions. This is too old, you can use this as exercises but not a serious compositions.

Is that liberty of composition? no way, not at all.

I belive the "kings" of composition as the professors see them self is afraid of the old music, because it shows them how much they suck. No there are not many who can write music like Bach? why do you think Bach is a musical milestone. Bach is regarded as the father of music, he developed the music from the rennesiance, he helped develope the fortepiano, he had was one of the first to use the tempered tuning.

Everything is art these days, a bucket of water, a red line on a white background and music with and no melody, no tonality nothing, just randomly pressed down keys. If you want to be an artist in 2008 you dont need any skill, you need a talent for explaining the meaning of your work. Connect some piano noise to a feeling or a state of mind, and some people will love you "oohhh this is nice", "that red line, ohhh i represents fear and insecurity, wow now I see".

I dont call that improvement, I call that destruction, and yes music has lost is real appeal, what is music now? A girl with big boobs half naked and showing hear body, with some music composed by a monkey in the background? a guy who sings "I love youuuuuuu, I miss youuuu" and playing hes two chords on the guitar? he dont even know what singing is?

Note: I dont talk about all the modern music, just about the most extreem cases of music and art.

[SSC]

Right, and that is the sick part, you can write music for a doorknob and a toilet seat and be taken for serious art.

There is no need for counterpoint in the new music, and I have evidence of this, as a test for a composition professor.

I gave him som of my seroius music, and he was not impressed, in frustration I played like a wild dork on the piano, just rubbish, pressing down all sorts of keys, recorded and he listend, and he said to me, wow, I did not know you had it in you. What i did could a deaf, blind and half dead person do, if you die and fall over the piano and record, then you are a good composer, realy sick but that is a fact. And back to the blacklisting of baroquian composers. Yes that is a fact too. The cultural elite dont want to go back in time, and offcourse they know that the Atonal music is not popular with the majority. So that is why composers who dont compose thier kind of music will never get in too any concervatories. A fellow composers of mine, who composes classical music gave some of hes music to the Mozarteum. Their response was, we dont want music like this, we want modern compositions. This is too old, you can use this as exercises but not a serious compositions.

There ... ah, screw it. Maybe that thing you played on the piano was the only real show of your creativity, since writing in cute little systems is easy as gently caress. It's an exercise in studying a formula and doing it well.

Your friend there? Good he wasn't accepted, because we don't live in the 19th-18th-and so on century. If your repertoire as a composer is just a bunch of recreations of style, you can forget anyone in the academia (which in THIS CASE I find has a proper attitude) is going to give a scraggy.

Why? Because modern music is a representation of our times, and it doesn't matter if you hate it or don't like it. You can write your Mozart/Bach/? copies on your own, and there's a lot of people who actually want to try and do things different and they deserve the chance to get their pieces played, study, etc more than a person who has no sense of respect for modern art (or indeed, the world we live in and its history!)

Someone who is just worshiping the past has no place in today's world for a good reason. Either you get on with the times, or just stay away from people who actually want to participate in what represents, again, our modern times.

[SimenN]

Haha, well if writing in a cute little system is "easy as gently caress" as you well put it, well then the other stuff is even easyer, if pressing random at the piano show creativity haha oki. I dont get it, but sure sounds like you do. A composer is here for the people, the gift of composition is to please the people and not a small "interlectual" group that get something of noise. And what about this copy thing? is writing in a style copy? what kind of sick attitude is that? then everything someone do is copy everything. Just to use pen and paper is copying the inventor.

And you talk about ouer modern time? what is that? what? is ouer modern time atonal music? or is the modern time something else? is it the libery too choose what you want to write? regardles of what style? everything written today is modern, even if you write in classical, romantic or anything else? there is always a new day? then yesterday is old? and not a part of ouer modern time?

There is a few people that break the stream, like Bach did with the reneasiance, Mozart/Haydn with the Baroque, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann with the classical etc. If everything is so old and not accepted, the period we live in is not closed, to every kind of musical style should be accepted.

[SSC]

Haha, well if writing in a cute little system is "easy as gently caress" as you well put it, well then the other stuff is even easyer, if pressing random at the piano show creativity haha oki. I dont get it, but sure sounds like you do. A composer is here for the people, the gift of composition is to please the people and not a small "interlectual" group that get something of noise. And what about this copy thing? is writing in a style copy? what kind of sick attitude is that? then everything someone do is copy everything. Just to use pen and paper is copying the inventor.

And you talk about ouer modern time? what is that? what? is ouer modern time atonal music? or is the modern time something else? is it the libery too choose what you want to write? regardles of what style? everything written today is modern, even if you write in classical, romantic or anything else? there is always a new day? then yesterday is old? and not a part of ouer modern time?

There is a few people that break the stream, like Bach did with the reneasiance, Mozart/Haydn with the Baroque, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann with the classical etc. If everything is so old and not accepted, the period we live in is not closed, to every kind of musical style should be accepted.

Old territory here. A composer is here for the people? Says who, you? ETC.

And sure, banging keys on a keyboard is easy! Writing something easy can also be a proper composition. Nobody says otherwise, and really, after you dominate even the most complex of counterpoint forms it'll be cake to write in it, since you'll be used to it.

To clarify:

COMPOSITION DOES NOT NEED TO BE "HARD" OR "DIFFICULT" TO BE VALUABLE, INTERESTING OR WORTHWHILE.

Modern times mean taking into account all that has happened in music history, INCLUDING the 20th century. As to why banging keys on a piano shows creativity? Simple, because when given total freedom and context, you can tell the measure of someone's creative output much better than if they're following a little system that writes music FOR them.

Yes, that's right, if you haven't realized, composition techniques and systems, formulas and styles can write all your music for you, without a single drop of creativity. That's why a true composition prof won't bother to look at formulas, they'll bother to look where you can't have your music written for you by any given system or technique. Banging on a piano, for example!

...and... Bach did what again with the Renaissance? He's MUCH, MUCH, MUCH later than the Renaissance period.

He's late Baroque, even! What he did was absolutely nothing NEW at the time, and that's precisely why nobody gave a scraggy either and he ended up passing into obscurity if it weren't for a few people who showed interest in his music.

Where do you people get your history?

[Gardener]

And neither did Mozart, Haydn, or Schumann "break a stream". The pioneers of the classic period were before Mozart and Haydn and romanticism was pretty much established in Schumann's time (he was only 18 or so when Schubert died). Beethoven and Schubert I'll accept.

This is of course irrelevant to the topic, but if we use historical references, at least pick them with care!

[SimenN]

Hes fugue writing? the brandenburg concertos ? art of fugue? to play in all keys? oh yes he did, the tuning you hear today is work by Bach. And haydn, yes he came up with the alberti bass, but the pioneer of classical is C.P.E Bach, Mozart said "hes the father and we are the children". Schumann is not classical, he is in the late classical beginning of the romantic era.

And as for the other things you said, i dont agree there, i have said it earlyer, and i dont need to repeat myself. And tonal freedom yes? but you dont have to use it ? you can write tonal music, and its still modern, you can write baroque in 2008 and its still modern.

[SimenN]

And I dont know why this thread became a warzone, I was only looking for Baroquian Composers, not to start the third world war.

If there are more Baoquian out there please name yourself, i would like to listen to your music :)

[Marvelous]

Sucks to be you then, if you think 99%(?) of someone's musical ability is made out of "talent". Good luck with that, I hope you have lots of "talent" for the sake of your argument.

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.

[Gardener]

That's a difficult topic, especially if you're using I.Q. as an example, as the abilities measured by an I.Q. test have only very remotely to do with what's needed to compose. (Even though some of them, like the ability to recognize and connect patterns, certainly have relevance for composing.)

While some form of intelligence may correlate with musical/artistic ability, I doubt I.Q. directly does. And that's merely on a technical level too, leaving (artistic) creativity aside, which definitely isn't something measured by I.Q.

But anyways, what we like/admire about Bach isn't just his contrapunctual mastership, as there I agree with SSC that many have had and still have a similar mastership of counterpoint. It is the combination of such technical mastership with creativity, musicality, or whatever you want to call it.

A complex 4 part triple-fugue doesn't make a great piece per se. Using such techniques in service of exciting music does. The same applies to other composing techniques like serialism.

[Marvelous]

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...

[spherenine]

Creativity is measured by beta waves.

Easy. :D

[Marvelous]

Creativity is measured by beta waves.

Easy. :D

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]

I think we just can't assume that an I.Q. test completely and accurately measures every form of "intelligence" that isn't learned. It is a test devised by humans, with the limited knowledge humans have of their own minds. And as there clearly are different aspects of what is commonly called "intelligence", I.Q. is strongly defined by how these aspects are weighted.

Even if the aspects that matter for music or creativity are in some way measured in an I.Q. test, it is very dubitable that they are weighted in a way that correlates with what defines creativity, so you can't really draw any conclusions from I.Q. to creativity.

And I've never seen any I.Q. test question which actually involved creativity. Most of it can be solved by knowing the general principles of I.Q. tests, recognizing patterns and direct logic. (This may also be because the people who write the tests generally don't seem to be very creative and just use the same few questions in different disguises again and again.)

The main reason why an I.Q. test never really measures creativity however is that it's always designed with specific answers in mind. In many cases you could actually come up with different solutions that -do- make sense in a more abstract way, but simply aren't what the questioners had in mind. Creativity is not awarded. Thinking like the person who devised the test is.

[SSC]

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...

I have no idea what all this gibberish is supposed to mean. You're saying artistic creativity doesn't exist? So you're saying essentially art doesn't exist? If you use creativity ( creativity - Definitions from Dictionary.com ) to create art, wouldn't that creativity be called, oh, say, artistic creativity by virtue of logic? Or get rid of the "artistic", does it make any difference at all?

I don't think anyone can measure creativity what-so-ever, period. This is a more philosophical argument altogether, but regardless of whether or not you got a bone to pick with the art world, if you deny creativity as a part of art, you're just denying art altogether.

In fact, you can as well say art is a result of casual determinism, so something like creativity doesn't exist at all given people will do what they do regardless of any ability or quality. Having creativity in this case is no requirement to write a symphony, since the person is going to write it regardless if they're creative or not as they can't do otherwise. (I personally don't agree with this view.)

ETC, let's not go there.

[Zetetic]

SSC, you're not completing any of the arguments you begin. Every post you've made has found some new, seemingly random topic to debate. Can we just get back to talking about baroque composers? It's far more interesting than having to read a series of bizarre, irreverent and irrelevant polemics.

[SSC]

SSC, you're not completing any of the arguments you begin. Every post you've made has found some new, seemingly random topic to debate. Can we just get back to talking about baroque composers? It's far more interesting than having to read a series of bizarre, irreverent and irrelevant polemics.

Eh? I wasn't the one that started on IQ or creativity. I'm just responding to what people say, nothing else. Plus, there's not much to "get back to", if anyone wants to go respond to the OP, they can. They have always been able to.

And it's funny someone who gives up on a discussion half way is talking about not completing any arguments. So, really now. If you don't want to read "bizarre, irreverent and irrelevant polemics" don't! Nobody's forcing you to.

FURTHERMORE, I was not the one that derailed the thread in the first place by talking about personal feelings towards music! In fact, YOU DID.

Music after 1750's one long, upsetting downhill slide.

Remember this?

PS: Nevermind that the above quote statement is a bizarre, irreverent and irrelevant polemic statement, on its own.

[Zetetic]

I don't mind at all. I thought it was a fairly straightforward way of affirming my interest in the baroque period, and is obviously highly personal. You never finished explaining why you thought renaissance science was worth defending, why you thought Bach was so easy to imitate, or why you consider musical talent dynamic rather than innate. Instead, you just flittered onto something else contestable.

[SSC]

I don't mind at all. I thought it was a fairly straightforward way of affirming my interest in the baroque period, and is obviously highly personal. You never finished explaining why you thought renaissance science was worth defending, why you thought Bach was so easy to imitate, or why you consider musical talent dynamic rather than innate. Instead, you just flittered onto something else contestable.

... ? I couldn't finish if I was discussing by myself. You bailed out of the discussion and now you blame me for not finishing it? Hahaha, that's wonderful.

Nevermind that I already explained all of what you mentioned. To go further, I'd need to actually start teaching you history apparently. That you don't accept it or think otherwise, that's not my business. Moreover, the things I'm saying are supported not only by historical evidence (the renaissance's advancements in science, History of science in the Renaissance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and also: Scientific Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) but also in logic (Bach's easy to imitate due to well-known formulas and systematic composition methods which can be analyzed and reproduced. Hence the term "historical recreations of style.")

Though, science in the Renaissance apparently took a more sociological/cultural spin than otherwise, there were still things done, though not in the same great swing as what came later. The Renaissance is also a pretty long period of time, so though the early periods could be regarded as backwards, things changed.

About talent? It's a simply practical argument. It doesn't do anyone any good to believe in talent, as the only thing it's good for is either inflating people's egos or destroying them altogether. In reality, talent is as subjective as taste when it comes to music, save for things such as motor-coordination needed to play an instrument. Such things are objective, but on the point of composition talent is entirely tied to taste.

One person may claim John Cage was very talented, while another will say he was not. They are judging based on their tastes for his music, not in anything that can be accurately and objectively measured.

A child who has a gift for playing piano will play pieces with a high degree of difficulty which is not normal (that is to say, not the statistical majority) for someone of his age, it can be said he has a "talent" for playing the piano. It is a statistical measure of various factors, all of which can be in some way or another measured objectively.

Such is not the case with composition. Therefore, I render the use of the word "Talent" completely useless when it comes to a composer and musical composition by virtue of its lack of verifiability when faced with objective parameters of judgment.

You can attempt to equate "skill" with talent in composition. A child who writes a symphony when he is 5, could be thought to be talented, but less because of the actual symphony as music and more because of his skill to learn patterns, formulas and systems at a rate faster (or earlier) than the established perceptual majority.

Thus, the child is not talented at "composition" per say, but at the other mentioned abilities (learning patterns, formulas, etc) which all can be measured against an established frame of reference.

If the child slams the keys of a piano when he is 5, musically, his talent is equivalent to the same child writing a symphony, as the parameter being analyzed has no objective frame of reference or judgment. Surely, this child may not display the same pattern recognition/formula understanding, etc skills as the symphony example child, but this is irrelevant when we're talking about the musical product.

If both children grow up, and for the sake of argument, one is still writing symphonies and the other is not, without previous knowledge it can't be said that the symphony writing adult in this case is talented, as anyone of his age (say, 30) can come to understand the aesthetic, formulas, ETC of what constitutes a symphony. His skill is not longer valued unless it's viewed in context to his historical statistical frame of reference (he was talented at these things when he was young.)

The other adult who doesn't write symphonies, can't be said to be "less talented" than the one that does, as the statistical probability of him learning the ability to write symphonies is rather large (keep in mind both are 30.) He only chose not to, and again, the outcome of the musical product of both can't be judged, just as it couldn't be judged before as neither age nor training have anything to do with the reception of a piece in the matters of taste or aesthetics.

So, really, I think by now it's quite clear that no "talent" is needed to write like Bach. You only need the proper information, the education necessary, the time and with these things the probability of being able to manipulate the musical idiom increases greatly.

But manipulating and using a musical idiom according to rules and formulas may or may not account for "good" music, or "Bach-rivaling" music as these things are not established by concrete and objective parameters.

Thus, that anyone can write "like" Bach is in no way saying that anyone can be PERCEIVED to write "as good" as Bach, despite how close both composers' styles are academically, and how good one follows the formulas learned from Bach himself in his composition practice and examples (his work.)

Any questions? ;P

[Marvelous]

I have no idea what all this gibberish is supposed to mean. You're saying artistic creativity doesn't exist? So you're saying essentially art doesn't exist? If you use creativity ( creativity - Definitions from Dictionary.com ) to create art, wouldn't that creativity be called, oh, say, artistic creativity by virtue of logic? Or get rid of the "artistic", does it make any difference at all?

I don't think anyone can measure creativity what-so-ever, period. This is a more philosophical argument altogether, but regardless of whether or not you got a bone to pick with the art world, if you deny creativity as a part of art, you're just denying art altogether.

In fact, you can as well say art is a result of casual determinism, so something like creativity doesn't exist at all given people will do what they do regardless of any ability or quality. Having creativity in this case is no requirement to write a symphony, since the person is going to write it regardless if they're creative or not as they can't do otherwise. (I personally don't agree with this view.)

ETC, let's not go there.

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.

[SSC]

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.

I refuse to respond to what you posted on grounds you're a hypocrite~ Way to respond to what you claim is an ad hominem, do one yourself!

[Zetetic]

This is all rather fun.

It appears we fundamentally disagree as to the nature of composition. I believe that a large degree of the creation of any art is unconscious and intuitive, even if it relied upon external influences to obtain the 'information and rules' of which you speak. I agree there are unspoken rules (within each genre) which govern what will and what will not sound pleasant, but I do not agree that everyone is naturally capable of applying these rules with the same affinity. Neither do I agree that all these rules can be quantified or taught. They must be inferred by the individual. This is where we disagree fundamentally.

SSC, you also say claim that the weight of historical evidence is on your side with regards the renaissance-science debate, yet this suggests you haven't actually read the page to which you have linked me. The introduction states that, "the Renaissance is usually seen as one of scientific backwardness....Historians like George Sarton and Lynn Thorndike have criticized how the Renaissance affected science, arguing that progress was slowed." In fact, there are several other historians (for example, Dr Jeremy Brotton and James Franklin) who've argued exactly the same thing, in fact, it's the prevailing current opinion. Your view is not supported by the 'weight of historical evidence'. If you wish to convince me (and, indeed, yourself) that you are correct, I suggest you construct your own argument rather than shooting yourself in the foot with wikipedia articles.

The truth is, until the renaissance starts crumbling to the Enlightenment, there are no important scientific breakthroughs at all (with the possible exception, as I've already mentioned, of Copernicus). The supposedly scientific discoveries listed are:

1) Alchemy (this one rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?)

2) The discovery of America (which proved rather uninteresting to most Europeans until the late 16th-century)

3) Astronomy (which, as I've said, only really kicked off once the renaissance's ludicrous obsession with symbolism and mysticism wore off)

The Scientific Revolution was a product of the long overdue collapse of the Renaissance.