Beethoven

Can you pick out Mariah Carey's melodic line that goes "A full moon is waiting in the twilight"? Or a melodic lick by the classic rock band Kansas? They're in there.

Do the clefs imply pitch or mode in any way, or are they just for decoration? I am not sarcastic.

The clefs are just so that you can know if you have the tiles upside down or not or even backwards. That is useful to be able to do which is also why they're on clear plastic. When you turn them upside-down or backwards, you can still see the notes.

Anyone can talk about repeating patterns and formulaic music but until I hear music written today that begins to approach the quality and depth of music by Mozart and Beethoven these theories don't really amount to much.

The end result demonstrates (rather painfully) that the degree of knowledge and analytical skill is not positively correlated with creative genius.

Musical knowledge doesn't make a musical genius, I agree. But the fact that most musically knowledgeable people aren't considered musical geniuses doesn't mean there's no correlation. Just no simple causality.

I think the point was that solely theoretical ideas could never have produced Mozart's Requiem.

However, there are plenty of other 'masterful' pieces throughout history that could not have been written through a mathematical or entirely theoretical approach, including some very recent music.

The way I see it, is that you don't have to be 'musically knowledgable' to be able to imagine incredibly complex music, but if you want to actually get it down on paper, then you do!

I know this is slightly off-topic now but check this out:

YouTube - Derek Paravicini - The Musical Genius Part 2

Derek is autistic and unable to comprehend musical theory.

I think the point was that solely theoretical ideas could never have produced Mozart's Requiem.

However, there are plenty of other 'masterful' pieces throughout history that could not have been written through a mathematical or entirely theoretical approach, including some very recent music.

The way I see it, is that you don't have to be 'musically knowledgable' to be able to imagine incredibly complex music, but if you want to actually get it down on paper, then you do!

Well, if you truly can imagine this music in all detail, with every single voice, exact instrumentation etc. then you don't need much musical knowledge to write it down. You just need to be able to read/write notes, which you can learn rather quickly.

But such imagination is also something you can develop, partly through training (and this doesn't necessarily have to be "learning music theory"). I don't think anybody is born with an infinitely detailed and complex musical imagination.

Musical knowledge doesn't have to be verbal, or theoretical. If an ever so autistic guy is producing music that makes sense (writing or playing), I would say that he does "comprehend music theory"--he just doesn't know the terminology, and the concepts might be on a somewhat less conscious level. It's just a matter of nomenclature. I would say that you do need to be "musically knowledgeable" to make music--however, it doesn't necessarily matter if you get that knowledge from a book, from a teacher, from listening to stuff, or whatever; and it doesn't matter if you know the names of the concepts you know.

Take Johann Sebastian Bach, for instance. He learned his craft from studying scores, and from listening and occasionally talking to other musicians. It is perfectly conceivable (though I'm just speculating) that he couldn't name any of the concepts he would use in a fugue, nor pass the entrance exams for a modern conservatory. (Consider that of the fairly large amount of didactic material he produced, only the forewords are in German--the rest is music.) Yet would you say that he lacked knowledge of counterpoint? And a jazz musician of the old school (before jazz was accepted in educational institutions) may have no idea what the scales he's playing are called, but he still possesses a great deal of knowledge, even though he has no words for it.

Musical knowledge doesn't have to be verbal, or theoretical.

HANDWORK,

AND PRACTICE.

That's all you need to write like Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, whoever you want to name. Or, well, more importantly? Yourself.

(I'm agreeing with you 100%, too. I was able to write fugues and general counterpoint-style pieces without being able to name anything I was using in "scholar" terms just by diligently studying scores and copying, copying and more copying until the thing just "clicked" after so much practice. I actually failed an entry exam in counterpoint (which shocked everyone!) but that's just one of the million flaws with institutions that "teach" music. Specially music theory.

Bach picked up everything he knew just like I did (I copied his method actually, lol) Copy, copy, copy, copy. You pick up all the "rules" just by virtue of repetition and, well, developing what I call the "handwork". It's the only way to really master a particular musical idiom in my opinion.)

HANDWORK,

AND PRACTICE.

That's all you need to write like Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, whoever you want to name. Or, well, more importantly? Yourself.

No offense SSC but many have made the above claim yet no one has ever been able to prove it. Simulating the style is one thing, producing music that's genuinely inspired and moving is something else all together. There are combinations of patterns that these composers have produced that can only come from a mind that has the capacity to imagine on a scale that's simply beyond most of us. By analyzing such music we can determine most or all of those patterns but reverse engineering the feat through a step by step process has thus far proven impossible. Just ask Robert Levin. I'm sure he worked hard. I'm sure he practiced alot.

Having said that I do agree that one can learn a lot by copying. However knowing rules has nothing to do with being a good composer. There have been good composers who care nothing for rules yet countless others who know all the rules and produce pedantic garbage. Just because I know the rules and theories behind tennis doesnt mean I can win Wimbledon. Ultimately it just comes down to talent. This applies in just about every sphere of life, from sports to business to art.

No offense SSC but many have made the above claim yet no one has ever been able to prove it.

Goes to show you probably never tried it yourself.

So, let's have this conversation in a couple of years after you've done it.

I think you're talking about different things. The way I read SSC's post (of course, SSC can correct me if I'm wrong), the point is that you don't need book smarts, as it were, just handwork and practice. Seraphim's point is that you also need creative talent. Is anyone really disagreeing with anyone?

I think you're talking about different things. The way I read SSC's post (of course, SSC can correct me if I'm wrong), the point is that you don't need book smarts, as it were, just handwork and practice. Seraphim's point is that you also need creative talent. Is anyone really disagreeing with anyone?

I don't know if he actually understood what I said, honestly. It just seems to me that he's prone to discrediting any study what so ever in the name that "It's pointless unless you're a genius." :>

So, really. Dunno.

Without acquired knowledge and skills, even a genius is indistinguishable from any nobody. The difference is that the genius, once having begun to learn, has the capacity to go further.

While it's quite possible that "solely theoretical ideas could never have produced Mozart's Requiem", it is also clear that solely creative "genius" could never have produced it either. Immense technical skill was needed as well. Without "genius" qualities (whatever those are), not everyone may be capable of acquiring that amount of technique, but it's still technique.

Not even to mention that one person's "genius" is another person's "bleh". Respecting, loving, or admiring the quality of the output of those composers is one thing, worshipping them as supreme beings another. I find critical study and reflection much more worthwhile than a personality cult.

Without acquired knowledge and skills, even a genius is indistinguishable from any nobody. The difference is that the genius, once having begun to learn, has the capacity to go further.

While it's quite possible that "solely theoretical ideas could never have produced Mozart's Requiem", it is also clear that solely creative "genius" could never have produced it either. Immense technical skill was needed as well. Without "genius" qualities (whatever those are), not everyone may be capable of acquiring that amount of technique, but it's still technique.

I wouldnt use the term "technique" because that implies something that can be taught. Imagination is not a technique. One either has it or one does not. No amount of teachable techniques can recreate the great works of a true genius.

Anyone who has has read the mathematician G.H. Hardy's description of his experience interacting with the math genius Ramanujam would begin to understand the difference between someone who is extremely skilled and a true genius. People with that kind of capacity are not born every day and few of them will ever have the opportunity to develop their genius.

My objection is to the claim that training can somehow create a capacity that did not exist before. Training can only maximize the potential that's already there. Often that's good enough. But between people like Mozart, Handel or Bach who have both genius and skill and someone who is highly skilled but lacks genius the gap in performance is vast and obvious.

Read my post again. When I say "technique", what I mean is technique, not imagination. I agree that imagination is needed as well, but that's a different thing. Or are you saying that Mozart's or Bach's music could have been written with imagination alone?

My objection is to the claim that training can somehow create a capacity that did not exist before. Training can only maximize the potential that's already there. Often that's good enough. But between people like Mozart, Handel or Bach who have both genius and skill and someone who is highly skilled but lacks genius the gap in performance is vast and obvious.

Too bad that, like Gardener pointed out, unless you strictly define what "genius" is, your objection means nothing. One person's genius can be another's trash.

I personally don't think Mozart or Bach were geniuses, just people who had training and ideas. Anyone can come up with ideas and practice. The extent of what they do shouldn't be measured against anything existing, since nobody can be Mozart or Bach. They're already dead and gone. Likewise, comparing is for children. Art isn't a competition and treating it like one is counter productive.

People who talk so much of talent clearly have no idea what talent means, or they simply want to view the world in a light where unless you just "got lucky" and were born with whatever definition of talent is in fashion you're fucked to being forever "mediocre" and living in the shadow of the monoliths people make certain composers to be.

Lame and useless.

Without acquired knowledge and skills, even a genius is indistinguishable from any nobody. The difference is that the genius, once having begun to learn, has the capacity to go further.

While it's quite possible that "solely theoretical ideas could never have produced Mozart's Requiem", it is also clear that solely creative "genius" could never have produced it either. Immense technical skill was needed as well. Without "genius" qualities (whatever those are), not everyone may be capable of acquiring that amount of technique, but it's still technique.

Absolutely! Without theoretical training there is no way Mozart could even have begun to get his ideas down on paper.

The problem I find with Seraphim's argument is that he makes the assumption that everyone holds Mozart as an absolute, unquestioned genius. What about guys like me who just really never enjoyed Mozart's music or saw what the big deal was? I understand he had a lot of original ideas for the time and he was an innovator but when it really comes down to it, I just don't enjoy his music very much.

I'm not trying to put Mozart down or anyone who does enjoy his music. I simply am saying that I find arguments that are entirely based on assumed points just aren't very good. Technically speaking, there is no "good" art and there is no "bad" art. One piece of art can't be better than another from an objective point of view. If I made a group of people listen to Mozart's first piano sonata in C Major and then Berio's piano sequenza, most people would probably choose the former. Most people would probably not even call it "music" and just banging on the piano. But there is no objective, unbiased way to argue that Berio's piano sequenza is any less musical than Mozart's piano sonata.

If I made a group of people listen to Mozart's first piano sonata in C Major and then Berio's piano sequenza, most people would probably choose the former. Most people would probably not even call it "music" and just banging on the piano. But there is no objective, unbiased way to argue that Berio's piano sequenza is any less musical than Mozart's piano sonata.

the problem with this particular example, is that it is at its root, subjective and biassed.

"most people" are not equipped to understand the subtleties required to truly judge music at anything more than a perfectly superficial level.

therefore, you would be creating a flawed demonstration were you to use this particular group of people.

They would not be basing their evaluation of the Mozart and the Berio on anything more than their own previous experience with music, which in most cases will not have included any contemporary music. Add to that, "most people" have the misguided belief that "I like it, therefore it is good". And the corollary "I don't like this, therefore it is bad".

On the other hand, people with the requisite training in music, will be able to differentiate between which aspects of their initial reaction is subjective and based on personal experience, and which are based on analytical process.

If your only goal is to say "people LIKE this better than that", then you succeed with your example.

If you are looking for some objective quantifiable evaluation of the qualities/faults inherant in both of the works proposed, then you are establishing an experimental environment that is biassed and doomed to failure.

Too bad that, like Gardener pointed out, unless you strictly define what "genius" is, your objection means nothing. One person's genius can be another's trash.

I personally don't think Mozart or Bach were geniuses, just people who had training and ideas. Anyone can come up with ideas and practice. The extent of what they do shouldn't be measured against anything existing, since nobody can be Mozart or Bach. They're already dead and gone. Likewise, comparing is for children. Art isn't a competition and treating it like one is counter productive.

People who talk so much of talent clearly have no idea what talent means, or they simply want to view the world in a light where unless you just "got lucky" and were born with whatever definition of talent is in fashion you're fucked to being forever "mediocre" and living in the shadow of the monoliths people make certain composers to be.

Lame and useless.

Yes, and people who are thinking along that same paradigm are purposely limiting their development in music. (or ANYTHING) "Gee.. I can't write counterpoint for scraggy, wish I was Bach."

Why do some people insist on making gods out of composers/musicians? "Well.. he's no Mozart." Yeah, he's no Mozart because he's NOT Mozart, Mozart died a long time ago and isn't coming back any time soon. Why is it as a guitar player gets older, there are less and less posters on his wall? Is it "maturation"? or is he just realizing the people he idolized for so long are just as human as he is, and what seemed so unattainable before is now almost at his fingertips.

Writing in any style requires some kind of natural ability, otherwise composers would only be able to quite literally copy other people's work. However, as Mozart could write music as a 'sow pisses' by hearing it all in his head and transcribing it perfectly you have to admit that not just anybody would ever be able to achieve this regardless of training.

I find a lot of Mozart's work to be quite boring save from a few pieces, but the fact remains that he had it all in his head and he got it down. Also in regards to the video I posted earlier, Derek Paravacini can listen to a piece of very complicated music he has never heard before and play it all back note for note. I know for a fact that I will never be able to do this, nor would I be able to do this if I was taught to be a brilliant pianist from a young age. If I was to deny that Derek's musical memory was greater than my own I would be quite literally delusional. Aside from his memory, his ear is almost perfect. Are you telling me you could teach a tone deaf person to improvise on a piano like he does?

The problem I find with Seraphim's argument is that he makes the assumption that everyone holds Mozart as an absolute, unquestioned genius. What about guys like me who just really never enjoyed Mozart's music or saw what the big deal was? I understand he had a lot of original ideas for the time and he was an innovator but when it really comes down to it, I just don't enjoy his music very much.

Genius is not a product. Music is a product and there are a million different reasons why we like or dislike certain products.

Genius is a mental capacity. To imagine the kinds of things that Mozart, Bach, Handel, Beethoven, etc were able to imagine one needs a kind of mental capacity (genius) that is truly extraordinary. Those composers would not have been able to produce what we see as their best music if they lacked that seemingly superhuman capacity a math genius mght be able to calculate a cube root faster than a calculator.

Music is such a subjective thing, you could never say the above composers you mentioned Serephim were the 'best', but their mental musical capacity is certainly measurable to an extent. Consider the fact that Bach used to regularly improvise fugues. To be able to do this - even if you don't like the sound of fugues - is surely unbelievably impressive by anybodies standards. Unless there are people who can improvise 2 seperate fugues in different keys at once :P?

There are countless examples of organists who regularly improvise fugues at the organ. It's nothing absolutely stupendous, it's part and parcel of the training.

I've met quite a few church organists for whom improvising a fugue, on the fly, is nothing any more complicated than sight reading any piano score is for me. So training and skill ARE important factors.

Let's try and not confuse "things that *I* can't do" with "things that only super-humans can do".