Beethoven

Well then I better start practising :) I didn't realise it was such a common thing, very interesting.

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.

That's pretty funny, considering that a lot of these composers' contemporaries could also as well be called geniuses since, well, Bach directly copied a lot of his early style right off Buxtehude and Pachelbel, ETC ETC. Mozart took CPE Bach and the Galant Style and sorta went in that direction (later coming back to counterpoint thanks to Bach and, well, age.) All composers wrote what they COULD write based on the time they lived and influences they had.

Like Marsbars said, with experience and practice things become a lot clearer. All the "magically unimaginable" stuff start being quite imaginable if you've been exposed enough to the same influences. Sure, you'll never write just like Mozart because you are not Mozart. But who's to say that's something bad or undesirable? If anything it's realistic.

It's also very unrealistic to talk about Mozart this way because Mozart's actual compositions tell a very different story. He was no "genius", and rather, he was someone who studied and worked his way into composing everything he did. After a certain point in his life, he was composing much less music than before because he began seeing an evolution in his own style. As the compositional problems he approached became more and more clear, the time needed to write each piece also increased since he was unsure of what to write, what direction to go for. He looked at Bach for inspiration and experimented mixing things. The results can clearly be seen in the late pieces for keyboard, which speak for an entirely different Mozart than the "flowing, automatic" one that everyone is used to.

Less genius, more human.

If one looks at it with perspective and knowledge, it's easy to see why modern composers' output is usually summed up to a fraction of what Mozart, Bach, H

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.

True, they would be better able at looking at different aspects of a composition and examine the techniques behind them, but in the end, when it's about a judgement of quality, it's still subjective. In contrast to a person who can merely say "I liked it" or "I hated it" they might be able to describe the nature of the instrumentation, the form, the harmony, the dramaturgy, etc. but they still couldn't give an objective judgement of quality. You can say "the instrumentation is extremely thick and the textures opaque and always similar. It is harmonically very simple and formally incoherent." But there's no objective criterion to determine whether these aspects make the piece good or bad.

The only concept for an "objective" judgement of a piece that seems more or less adequate to me is "does the result correspond to the intent of the composer?" I find it adequate, but not entirely sufficient, personally. Not even to mention the problem of generally not knowing the intent of the composer in the first place. So in the end we're still stuck with lots of subjectivity.

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".

We have plenty of people who are at least as learned in composition, practiced just as hard if not harder (and with far more experience) as anyone in this forum, such as Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Mendelsohn, Brahms, Beethoven, who held up Mozart, Handel, Bach, etc as geniuses.

Yet, we have people in this forum continue to insist that they (or at least their teachers) are better placed to judge the abilities of Mozart, Bach and Handel than Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Mendelsohn, Brahms, and Beethoven.

I can't prove that that these fellow forumites are wrong. However, most would reckon that such a tall claim would take some proving.

That's pretty funny, considering that a lot of these composers' contemporaries could also as well be called geniuses since, well, Bach directly copied a lot of his early style right off Buxtehude and Pachelbel, ETC ETC. Mozart took CPE Bach and the Galant Style and sorta went in that direction (later coming back to counterpoint thanks to Bach and, well, age.) All composers wrote what they COULD write based on the time they lived and influences they had.

Like Marsbars said, with experience and practice things become a lot clearer. All the "magically unimaginable" stuff start being quite imaginable if you've been exposed enough to the same influences. Sure, you'll never write just like Mozart because you are not Mozart. But who's to say that's something bad or undesirable? If anything it's realistic.

It's also very unrealistic to talk about Mozart this way because Mozart's actual compositions tell a very different story. He was no "genius", and rather, he was someone who studied and worked his way into composing everything he did. After a certain point in his life, he was composing much less music than before because he began seeing an evolution in his own style. As the compositional problems he approached became more and more clear, the time needed to write each piece also increased since he was unsure of what to write, what direction to go for. He looked at Bach for inspiration and experimented mixing things. The results can clearly be seen in the late pieces for keyboard, which speak for an entirely different Mozart than the "flowing, automatic" one that everyone is used to.

Less genius, more human.

If one looks at it with perspective and knowledge, it's easy to see why modern composers' output is usually summed up to a fraction of what Mozart, Bach, H

Well then I better start practising :) I didn't realise it was such a common thing, very interesting.

Many consder someone who has 100th percentile (a loose description since thats not actually possible) talent in a certain area to be a genius. Unfortunately, true genius in fields like music require such distinction in more than one area. The probability of that kind of talent is very small.

All this seems to be assuming that "genius" is a term with a clear definition, whereas I see it as fuzzy enough to border on meaningless. Since you seem to be approaching this in a rather scientific manner, would you mind providing a clear definition of what exactly "genius" means to you?

All this seems to be assuming that "genius" is a term with a clear definition, whereas I see it as fuzzy enough to border on meaningless. Since you seem to be approaching this in a rather scientific manner, would you mind providing a clear definition of what exactly "genius" means to you?

From the Oxford English Dictionary

AskOxford: genius

genius

/jeeniss/

• noun (pl. geniuses) 1 exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability. 2 an exceptionally intelligent or able person.

The reality is that some people are simply better at certain things than others. Some people can hit a 95mph fast ball. Most people, no matter how much training they have, will not be able to hit one that's faster than 85mph. Hitting a 95mph fastball requires superior ability (not all if it mental) in more than one area. It's not just reflexes (actually, reflexes only play a small part in it), but visual processing that includes spatial tracking and projecting future relative position in time and space, physical coordination (again, related to a certain type of brain power), and of course, the muscle speed and appropriate tendon elasticity required to accelerate the bat. In fact, there's more involved but this is hardly the time or place for a dissertation on the subject and I think this sufficiently conveys the gist of it.

I also have the OED. I asked what you mean when you say "genius". The definition you link to does not touch upon your criterion of "[requiring] distinction in more than one area".

We have plenty of people who are at least as learned in composition, practiced just as hard if not harder (and with far more experience) as anyone in this forum, such as Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Mendelsohn, Brahms, Beethoven, who held up Mozart, Handel, Bach, etc as geniuses.

Yet, we have people in this forum continue to insist that they (or at least their teachers) are better placed to judge the abilities of Mozart, Bach and Handel than Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Mendelsohn, Brahms, and Beethoven.

I can't prove that that these fellow forumites are wrong. However, most would reckon that such a tall claim would take some proving.

OH?

I said this before, I'll say it again. You're not defining genius in any concrete way as how it applies to music. Such as, for example: "Genius is anyone who can write 20 sonatas in 2 minutes!" Otherwise, well, none of your arguments hold water since "genius" is whatever you want, and conveniently you can also disqualify genius perceived by others by the same standard. Really lame!

And, who the hell cares if Schubert or Brahms thought X and Y were geniuses? That's still just an opinion even if the people saying it are famous.

You really need to clear up what you define as genius (and how it DIRECTLY and CONCRETELY applies to music composition) otherwise this is all just nonsense.

As for your claim "However, most would reckon that such a tall claim would take some proving" You never really explain HOW that can be proved because you never establish, again, what genius means according to YOU. The only way to counter your argument is to know what the hell your argument IS!

And, uh, I can't PROVE that Mozart was or wasn't a genius because of the subjective term in use (see above). But, I did elaborate why I thought he wasn't a genius in my OPINION. You have failed to really state your case.

In fact it sorta makes me feel silly that I'm even engaging in this seeing as you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about; your only real counter to my elaboration on Mozart's history and analysis is "PSST anyone should be able to do it!" and you even go as far as to say people who can't should as well be called something other than "composers."

Fail.

Then don't engage in anything at all if you feel it necassary to imply people doing nothing more than expressing THEIR opinion are 'lame and useless'!. Number 1 it's unbelievably rude and number 2 it's severely hypocritical for someone who believes in subjectivity of opinion. Please don't bother to do that in future.

Then don't engage in anything at all if you feel it necassary to imply people doing nothing more than expressing THEIR opinion are 'lame and useless'!. Number 1 it's unbelievably rude and number 2 it's severely hypocritical for someone who believes in subjectivity of opinion. Please don't bother to do that in future.

First, I lol'd.

Second: the problem is, he don't really treat it as "his opinion" does he? Plus we keep asking the dude to define what he's saying or we can't even understand what his point is. He hasn't.

For all the claims and opinion, either you put your money where your mouth is and elaborate or explain what you mean, or dump into the "It's my opinion!" bin and we can all safely ignore/move on without thinking too much about it.

I don't see how it's rude to expect people to stand behind their opinions and explain what they mean with them. Otherwise, why bother stating them? Specially opinions which WILL gear a lot of criticism.

And I also don't see how it's hypocritical. I may have an opinion too, but I attempted to elaborate and explain what I meant with it, including how and why I disagreed with what he said.

The points I raised were not addressed and clearly he's avoided answering the simple "What do you mean with this?" questions. Specially when concerning "talent" and "genius" which are two terms that NEED to be defined CLEARLY in context with what is being said. Bringing up a dictionary definition which has no connection to what is being talked about doesn't work.

And, if you remember the other thread where this guy also went on about talent and scraggy, it was the exact same story. It's impossible to have any sort of communication when I have to assume half of what he's trying to say which obviously leads into problems.

So it's just a repeat from that time. Obviously, it's pointless to talk about it since he's unwilling to cooperate in at least trying to explain what he's talking about to a degree that is understandable.

But well. I guess I'm rude and hypocritical, LOL.

It does try my patience to invest in this nonsense, which is why I said I shouldn't have bothered.

OH?

I said this before, I'll say it again. You're not defining genius in any concrete way as how it applies to music. Such as, for example: "Genius is anyone who can write 20 sonatas in 2 minutes!" Otherwise, well, none of your arguments hold water since "genius" is whatever you want, and conveniently you can also disqualify genius perceived by others by the same standard. Really lame!

On the contrary, I provide a very precise definition of what I mean by genius. I use the same definition as the oxford dictionary (or just about any brand of dictionary you choose).

And, who the hell cares if Schubert or Brahms thought X and Y were geniuses? That's still just an opinion even if the people saying it are famous.

Ah, well ... I'm sorry I didn't realize I was having a discussion with a composer who is so accomplished and knowledgeable in the art of music composition that they can summarily dismiss the opinions of Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Mendelssohn, and Beethoven.

Truly ... it's an honor to make your acquaintance.

On the contrary, I provide a very precise definition of what I mean by genius. I use the same definition as the oxford dictionary (or just about any brand of dictionary you choose).

Ah, well ... I'm sorry I didn't realize I was having a discussion with a composer who is so accomplished and knowledgeable in the art of music composition that they can summarily dismiss the opinions of Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Mendelssohn, and Beethoven.

Truly ... it's an honor to make your acquaintance.

..... Eh.

Ok, last time. Your definition is useless because it doesn't define anything specific to our argument. THAT IS, how does THAT definition translate into MUSICAL elements that I can actually see and hear.

I don't care if you think Mozart is a genius, I want you to tell me HOW in his scores and music you identify that "it's genius." Again, how does your definition apply to music itself. Neither of us have MET Mozart, and all we have is whatever is known of the history and the music left behind by him.

And, likewise, that definition given by the dictionary doesn't account for art which is in itself subjective.

If you instead wish to attempt mockery because you can't understand the simple principle that popularity != authority (and that indeed, WHO can claim to be an authority on something that changes from person to person with infinite different conclusions), then I'm afraid that it's impossible to continue the dialogue, if there ever was one.

In case you weren't aware, the composers you named as "authorities" on the matter of Mozart's genius were not aware of the entire output of Mozart as a composer by virtue of distribution of his lesser known works (single works were never published, and indeed, they were relatively unknown until the 20th century, though the exact date is obviously hard to pinpoint.)

The image of Mozart himself as a person has changed over time as more information and more research has been put into it. The same goes for Bach, we now know much more than Mozart or Brahms ever did about Bach.

So, any musicologist today can dismiss Brahm's or Beethoven's opinions as they clearly had limited knowledge from which to base their opinions. Not only this, but the world they lived in is entirely different from our world now, so what they perceived as impressive then today is nothing more than a footnote in a history book. It doesn't mean they can't be agreed with but it's good to remember that these are, after all, only opinions when related to the subject of "genius" or "talent" and they must be looked at within a specific frame of historical context for them to be properly understood.

Bach spoke wonders of H

..... Eh.

Ok, last time. Your definition is useless because it doesn't define anything specific to our argument. THAT IS, how does THAT definition translate into MUSICAL elements that I can actually see and hear.

Don't take my word for it, take the word of people who are much better placed to make such judgements, like Beethoven, Schubert, etc... Why do they feel those composers were geniuses? Perhaps because Beethoven, Schubert, etc felt incapable of writing music as high in quality (in fact they said so) as that of those they deified. If those composers felt Mozart's music was the work of a genius then who are we to disagree?

In fact, anyone who listens carefully can easily hear the compositional struggles of Beethoven in his music when played on the same program with Mozart. I once had the opportunity to hear Beethoven's 7th played (by the superb Boston Baroque) immediately after an unplanned performance of Mozart's 29th (which substituted an aria when singer had called off at the last minute) and the contrast in quality was incredible. I'm not saying Mozart's 29th is better music (it's certainly less ambitious) but it certainly had a level of polish and cohesiveness that Beethoven's 7th lacked in comparison. It was like stepping out of a Rolls Royce and into a rickshaw.

You request a simplistic analysis of musical elements as if music is nothing more than a sewage diagram from the city planning office. In reality, the work of an artistic genius is much like porn ... you know it when you see it.

Hard work and training can only get one so far if they lack genius. Just look at poor Robert Levin who bravely put his music right in the middle of Mozart's Requiem. Can you, using your analytical methods identify which is the work of genius? If not, it's not because Levin is as capable as Mozart but because your analytical methods are lacking.

I don't care if you think Mozart is a genius, I want you to tell me HOW in his scores and music you identify that "it's genius." Again, how does your definition apply to music itself. Neither of us have MET Mozart, and all we have is whatever is known of the history and the music left behind by him.

You really need to stop confusing products with people. Works of music are never themselves "genius" but when they are the product of a genius it's quite apparent. Someone with a good ear and mind upon hearing a similar work of Haydn and Mozart back to back would know which is Mozarts. There is a range of expression, a freedom and sophistication in the melody and counterpoint that is uniquely Mozart's. If you ever watched tennis, you can immediately identify who's got the most natural ability. Technique is great but there's no substitute for natural ability.

And, likewise, that definition given by the dictionary doesn't account for art which is in itself subjective.

No work of art is a genius because only people can be geniuses. What you like or dont like is subjective. However it's perfectly easy to identify a piece of music or work of art as something only a genius could have produced.

If you instead wish to attempt mockery because you can't understand the simple principle that popularity != authority (and that indeed, WHO can claim to be an authority on something that changes from person to person with infinite different conclusions), then I'm afraid that it's impossible to continue the dialogue, if there ever was one.

You are now further attempting to prove that you and your cohorts represent a higher authority than the composers I listed. There really are absolutes in this world. Some people really are more capable than others, sometimes to such an extent that no amount of training an hardwork will help someone else catch up.

In case you weren't aware, the composers you named as "authorities" on the matter of Mozart's genius were not aware of the entire output of Mozart as a composer by virtue of distribution of his lesser known works (single works were never published, and indeed, they were relatively unknown until the 20th century, though the exact date is obviously hard to pinpoint.)

One does not need to know the entire output. If mrs x leaps over an elephant unassisted on her first attempt and dies of a joy upon landing on the other side the fact that she had an incredible talent for jumping elephants is as indisputable as if she had been jumping elephants all her life.

The image of Mozart himself as a person has changed over time as more information and more research has been put into it. The same goes for Bach, we now know much more than Mozart or Brahms ever did about Bach.

We've certainly accumulated a mountain of facts and theories, none of which has helped anyone produce anything as intricate and sublime as Bach's best and most complex works.

So, any musicologist today can dismiss Brahm's or Beethoven's opinions as they clearly had limited knowledge from which to base their opinions.

Musicologists who cannot compose music as sophisticated as that of Brahms or Beethoven will not be able to understand Mozart and Bach as well as Brahms and Beethoven no matter how many facts and theories they have accumulated. It takes a genius to truly understand one. The same is true in sports. For all the training people get nowadays, the only ones who can hit like Babe Ruth are the ones taking steroids.

Not only this, but the world they lived in is entirely different from our world now, so what they perceived as impressive then today is nothing more than a footnote in a history book. It doesn't mean they can't be agreed with but it's good to remember that these are, after all, only opinions when related to the subject of "genius" or "talent" and they must be looked at within a specific frame of historical context for them to be properly understood.

Not at all. Genius has nothing to do with time. A person who can outrun a Cheetah in 10,000 BC is just as much a physical genius as someone who can outrun a Cheetah in 2008, perhaps more, since that person would not have had access to modern training methods, coaches, physiotherapists, sports psychologist, and Gatorade.

Bach spoke wonders of H

...Nope, not good enough. You still fail to answer what I asked, so I guess this ends here. :>

...Nope, not good enough. You still fail to answer what I asked, so I guess this ends here. :>

This is surprisingly feeble rhetoric from who towers above Brahms, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Schubert, and Mendelssohn. :D

Don't take my word for it, take the word of people who are much better placed to make such judgements, like Beethoven, Schubert, etc... Why do they feel those composers were geniuses? Perhaps because Beethoven, Schubert, etc felt incapable of writing music as high in quality (in fact they said so) as that of those they deified. If those composers felt Mozart's music was the work of a genius then who are we to disagree?

First of all, this implies circular logic. You base the claim that certain composers are geniuses on the fact that other composers called them such. And the judgement of those latter composers is valid because they are geniuses themselves. You're basing your justification of genius status on genius status.

Also, since you imply that everyone who is called a genius by somebody you acknowledge as a genius is actually a genius, that means for example composer A (say, Schumann) declares B a genius (say, Bach), who declares C a genius (Buxtehude), who again declares other people (maybe his teachers, no idea who they were) geniuses, etc. So everybody in this possibly huge line is by your definition a genius. But not only that: You imply that if a composer finds another composer a genius or better than themselves that they actually are, so Buxtehude must in fact be better than Bach and the people Buxtehude admired must in fact be better than Buxtehude and so on. I think, by that logic you'll eventually find that the first humans were the universally acknowledged greatest composers of all times and the ultimate geniuses and everybody else is nothing compared to them...

You request a simplistic analysis of musical elements as if music is nothing more than a sewage diagram from the city planning office. In reality, the work of an artistic genius is much like porn ... you know it when you see it.

Hard work and training can only get one so far if they lack genius. Just look at poor Robert Levin who bravely put his music right in the middle of Mozart's Requiem. Can you, using your analytical methods identify which is the work of genius? If not, it's not because Levin is as capable as Mozart but because your analytical methods are lacking.

Nice contradiction between those two paragraphs. First you say the work of a genius is something "you just see" and doesn't need to be defined theoretically. Then you say that recognizing a "non-genius work" withing the "genius work" by Mozart depends on your analytical methods. Shouldn't by your logic everybody just spot which parts of this expanded Requiem are written by a genius and which not, "just like porn"?

First of all, this implies circular logic. You base the claim that certain composers are geniuses on the fact that other composers called them such. And the judgement of those latter composers is valid because they are geniuses themselves. You're basing your justification of genius status on genius status.

Reaching a bit aren't we? Where did I call all these composers geniuses? In fact, I provided an example contrasting Beethoven's obvious compositional struggles with the polish of Mozart's composition.

Also, since you imply that everyone who is called a genius by somebody you acknowledge as a genius is actually a genius, that means for example composer A (say, Schumann) declares B a genius (say, Bach), who declares C a genius (Buxtehude), who again declares other people (maybe his teachers, no idea who they were) geniuses, etc. So everybody in this possibly huge line is by your definition a genius.

Rubbish based on the mistaken premise from your first paragraphs.

However, it is true that a genius is much better placed to judge someone else as a genius than a regular man or woman. The composers I listed aren't necessarily all outright geniuses but because, as I mentioned in an earlier post, at least as hard working, better trained, and far more accomplished than anyone one this forum they are better placed to judge the geniuses than any of us.

But not only that: You imply that if a composer finds another composer a genius or better than themselves that they actually are, so Buxtehude must in fact be better than Bach and the people Buxtehude admired must in fact be better than Buxtehude and so on. I think, by that logic you'll eventually find that the first humans were the universally acknowledged greatest composers of all times and the ultimate geniuses and everybody else is nothing compared to them...

Bach had high regard for Buxtehude but obviously considered himself better otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to improve on Buxtehudes work, which he did. Bach had high regard for a lot of composers. He sometimes took entire passages from pergolesi, vivaldi and others then modified it for his own use. However, Bach always knew (justified or not) that he was greater. Those that came after him certainly thought he was and they are in a far better place to judge than you and I. People like Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven, Brahms, and Mendelssohn.

Nice contradiction between those two paragraphs. First you say the work of a genius is something "you just see" and doesn't need to be defined theoretically. Then you say that recognizing a "non-genius work" withing the "genius work" by Mozart depends on your analytical methods. Shouldn't by your logic everybody just spot which parts of this expanded Requiem are written by a genius and which not, "just like porn"?

Actually I never say it depends on your analytical methods. I say that analytical methods (such as the stuff they teach in schools nowadays, something I've spoken of in earlier posts) are insuffucient to capture the workings of a true genius and are incapable of reproducing that method. Being able to describe an invention in great detail does not provide one with the ability to create it. My point is that analytical methods are just that, analytical methods. This is precisely what I've been saying in this thread and others. Just because you can analyze doesnt mean you can create anything worthwhile. The great modern example is Robert Levin who bravely put his music in the middle of Mozarts.

I don't see how you could say Mozart is a genius but Beethoven isn't. If the definition of musical genius is to be able to hold and improvise an entire orchestra in the mind (and it's up to you if you agree or disagree), then Beethoven was a genius. When he wrote his ninth symphony I believe he was deaf. How could he possibly write such a work without any external reference?

Also, the notion that Mozart's work was more polished than Beethoven's is subjective for one thing!

In fact, anyone who listens carefully can easily hear the compositional struggles of Beethoven in his music when played on the same program with Mozart. I once had the opportunity to hear Beethoven's 7th played (by the superb Boston Baroque) immediately after an unplanned performance of Mozart's 29th (which substituted an aria when singer had called off at the last minute) and the contrast in quality was incredible. I'm not saying Mozart's 29th is better music (it's certainly less ambitious) but it certainly had a level of polish and cohesiveness that Beethoven's 7th lacked in comparison. It was like stepping out of a Rolls Royce and into a rickshaw.

You have an overly active imagination.

You are letting your personal bias show.

Which of course, removes a great deal of crediblility from your stance on this whole discussion.

Simply because you are unable to appreciate the Beethoven for what it is, a masterpiece, and have the perfectly subjective notion that the Mozart is "more polished", will not make it an objective comparison nor material to support a stance like the one you've been promoting in this thread.

All that to say that, basically, you have just proven yourself wrong with a single phrase.

Reaching a bit aren't we? Where did I call all these composers geniuses?

Point taken, I thought that was what you implied. Apparently not.

The composers I listed aren't necessarily all outright geniuses but because, as I mentioned in an earlier post, at least as hard working, better trained, and far more accomplished than anyone one this forum they are better placed to judge the geniuses than any of us.

Hard working? Beethoven certainly worked hard, but so did thousands of others.

Better trained? I think you depreciated the expertise of musicologists a couple of posts ago, saying that training alone doesn't qualify for anything. "Musicologists who cannot compose music as sophisticated as that of Brahms or Beethoven will not be able to understand Mozart and Bach as well as Brahms and Beethoven no matter how many facts and theories they have accumulated. It takes a genius to truly understand one."-> See, that's why I assumed you were talking about geniuses to judge other geniuses. Since according to you they're the only ones who can truly judge other geniuses. But SSC has already pointed out that composers of the last centuries inherently were less trained in certain musical aspects than we are today. Not only had they no clue about all the musical developments that happened after their time until today, they usually also had a very limited knowledge of music history and knew next to nothing about music in other cultures. Not even to mention the lack of knowledge about acoustics. Their knowledge might have been excellent in their particular musical field, but it was a specialised and narrow knowledge in comparison to what is expected from the average musicologist and musician today.

Far more accomplished? What does that mean? Famous? Able? If you mean the latter, we're already back in the realm of the undefineable.

You haven't named any real criterion why Brahms and Beethoven should be better suited at judging "geniuses" than less famous people. Or are you just going to give us a list of people who are in your opinion able to classify others as geniuses? And what if they disagree with each other?

Sorry, but I just find it a bit naive to think famous composers automatically have a perfect ability to judge themselves and others accurately. They are subjective individuals too, born into a certain culture, grown up with certain music and certain teachers, with individual characters and tastes (and not even just musically: just see how Mendelssohn's Judaism made Wagner depreciate his music). There's no "supreme council of composers" who all share the same musical ability and are able to judge who's a good composer and who isn't. It's a lot of individuals, all with individual weaknesses and individual ideas about what music should be. Vincent d'Indy might have classified different composers as geniuses than Pierre Boulez, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Jean Baptiste Lully or Leonin.

You request a simplistic analysis of musical elements as if music is nothing more than a sewage diagram from the city planning office. In reality, the work of an artistic genius is much like porn ... you know it when you see it.

Hard work and training can only get one so far if they lack genius. Just look at poor Robert Levin who bravely put his music right in the middle of Mozart's Requiem. Can you, using your analytical methods identify which is the work of genius? If not, it's not because Levin is as capable as Mozart but because your analytical methods are lacking.

You really need to stop confusing products with people. Works of music are never themselves "genius" but when they are the product of a genius it's quite apparent. Someone with a good ear and mind upon hearing a similar work of Haydn and Mozart back to back would know which is Mozarts. There is a range of expression, a freedom and sophistication in the melody and counterpoint that is uniquely Mozart's. If you ever watched tennis, you can immediately identify who's got the most natural ability. Technique is great but there's no substitute for natural ability.

No work of art is a genius because only people can be geniuses. What you like or dont like is subjective. However it's perfectly easy to identify a piece of music or work of art as something only a genius could have produced.

As the final nail in this discussion's coffin, all that you're implying is that you can tell Mozart was (AS A PERSON) a genius only by listening to his music in comparison to Haydn and Beethoven.

That's so amazingly absurd I can't even begin to describe it. Nope, can't do it.

And you fall prey to your own argument; you're talking about characteristics in Mozart's music that identify it as "music written by a genius", yet you fail to specify what these characteristics mean.

What do you call "expression, a freedom and sophistication in the melody and counterpoint"??? If you're unable to provide real concrete substantial definitions for this, your argument is (once again) gone out the window.

And no, you can't just handwave it by saying "well you know when you see it." You're treating this as borderline magic by now and it's quite sad to see.

FURTHERMORE!

I'm not the one confusing "Products with people", you're the one doing it, as clearly evidenced below. Observe your quite-hilarious contradiction:

"You really need to stop confusing products with people. Works of music are never themselves "genius" but when they are the product of a genius it's quite apparent. Someone with a good ear and mind upon hearing a similar work of Haydn and Mozart back to back would know which is Mozarts. There is a range of expression, a freedom and sophistication in the melody and counterpoint that is uniquely Mozart's."

Did you catch it?

No?

OK, let's try again:

"You really need to stop confusing products with people. Works of music are never themselves "genius" but when they are the product of a genius it's quite apparent. Someone with a good ear and mind upon hearing a similar work of Haydn and Mozart back to back would know which is Mozarts. There is a range of expression, a freedom and sophistication in the melody and counterpoint that is uniquely Mozart's."

Now you see it? It's very funny that you're saying "WAIT, works of music are never themselves genius!" but you're using the work of music to DEFINE genius in favor of the composer! If Mozart had written NO MUSIC and was yet the same genius you claim he is, would you still be able to magically recognize it? NO.

Absolute and utter fail.

PS: And with that, I hope this discussion stops. There's really no point in any of this and by now you have absolutely no credibility in anything you say by virtue of all this crap. Nevermind that if you even resort to mocking when, indeed, your arguments are plain sad it doesn't invite further conversations with you.

I don't see how you could say Mozart is a genius but Beethoven isn't. If the definition of musical genius is to be able to hold and improvise an entire orchestra in the mind (and it's up to you if you agree or disagree), then Beethoven was a genius. When he wrote his ninth symphony I believe he was deaf. How could he possibly write such a work without any external reference?

Also, the notion that Mozart's work was more polished than Beethoven's is subjective for one thing!

I never realized the relative lack of polish in Beethoven's music until i heard Mozart's 29th played just prior to it. That last minute change in the program ruined the rest of the concert for me.

As for genius, in my opinion (and that of countless other composers), Beethoven certainly was a genius (who has written anything of the same class since?), but there are degrees of genius. Beethoven's music was often powerful, beautiful, even sublime, but his struggle to remember and write down everything that he heard in his head is apparent (especially once you know that he admitted to this). He knew that the range and breadth of his imagination and creativity was second to none who was alive but he had to struggle to turn that into music. Yet what he did produce, even if not as good as what he knew it to be, influenced countless generations of musicians since, even modern musicians, who go to incredible lengths (like writing shockingly bad music) to try and be the next Beethoven.

In his final hours he revealed that it was Handel who he held above all others, even higher than Mozart. The following quote has been attributed to Beethoven:

"Handel was the greatest composer that ever lived. I would uncover my head, and kneel before his tomb." Supposedly he also said that if there was a doctor who can help him "his name would be Wonderful."

Interestingly, both Beethoven and Mozart seem to have been similarly inspired by Handel, and the Messiah in particular. Mozart even took Handel on directly, using the subject from the fugue "and with his stripes" (Messiah) to forge his own double fugue in the Requiem and then expressing a dramatic range and language beyond that of the original. Yet don't his aria's pale in comparison to Handel's?

Perhaps Handel, really was the greatest of them all.

As the final nail in this discussion's coffin, all that you're implying is that you can tell Mozart was (AS A PERSON) a genius only by listening to his music in comparison to Haydn and Beethoven.

That's so amazingly absurd I can't even begin to describe it. Nope, can't do it.

And you fall prey to your own argument; you're talking about characteristics in Mozart's music that identify it as "music written by a genius", yet you fail to specify what these characteristics mean.

What do you call "expression, a freedom and sophistication in the melody and counterpoint"??? If you're unable to provide real concrete substantial definitions for this, your argument is (once again) gone out the window.

And no, you can't just handwave it by saying "well you know when you see it." You're treating this as borderline magic by now and it's quite sad to see.

FURTHERMORE!

I'm not the one confusing "Products with people", you're the one doing it, as clearly evidenced below. Observe your quite-hilarious contradiction:

"You really need to stop confusing products with people. Works of music are never themselves "genius" but when they are the product of a genius it's quite apparent. Someone with a good ear and mind upon hearing a similar work of Haydn and Mozart back to back would know which is Mozarts. There is a range of expression, a freedom and sophistication in the melody and counterpoint that is uniquely Mozart's."

Did you catch it?

No?

OK, let's try again:

"You really need to stop confusing products with people. Works of music are never themselves "genius" but when they are the product of a genius it's quite apparent. Someone with a good ear and mind upon hearing a similar work of Haydn and Mozart back to back would know which is Mozarts. There is a range of expression, a freedom and sophistication in the melody and counterpoint that is uniquely Mozart's."

Now you see it? It's very funny that you're saying "WAIT, works of music are never themselves genius!" but you're using the work of music to DEFINE genius in favor of the composer! If Mozart had written NO MUSIC and was yet the same genius you claim he is, would you still be able to magically recognize it? NO.

Absolute and utter fail.

PS: And with that, I hope this discussion stops. There's really no point in any of this and by now you have absolutely no credibility in anything you say by virtue of all this crap. Nevermind that if you even resort to mocking when, indeed, your arguments are plain sad it doesn't invite further conversations with you.

1) Your analytical ability is clearly limited by your imagination

2) You are making a fool of yourself by comparing yourself to these composers

3) Some of the things you say simply make no sense whatsoever. It's like your just lashing out wildly.

"If Mozart had written NO MUSIC and was yet the same genius you claim he is, would you still be able to magically recognize it? NO. "

Take a deep breath, say the following 20 times over, then have a delicious, moist chocolate chip cookie with a glass of milk (Lactaid brand if you're lactose intollerent). Hopefully you'll feel better thereafter.

"It's ok that I have the talent of Mozart's toenail clippings and being resentful and rude won't change that"