# The Banality Of Genius



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

> You can identify a Very Important Person because they get the proper VIP treatment: they come surrounded by an entourage of PR gurus, secretaries, agents, media handlers and bodyguards. Access to the VIP is limited and controlled, their public appearances are stage managed, their speeches are delivered and reported in soundbites.
> 
> You can identify Very Important Culture - a piece of Great Art or literature or music - because it gets the same kind of treatment. You can almost never meet it alone or on your own terms; your experience of the Great Artwork is carefully mediated by interpreters with privileged access to its secrets. To properly appreciate the Great Artwork, you must observe a protocol that defines the acceptable range of responses. The Great Artwork frequently comes packaged in short snippets, edited and arranged ostensibly for your benefit. Something about it is deliberately kept mysterious and unknowable, forever beyond your reach.
> 
> This treatment is called mystification, and mystification is a means of asserting and maintaining power. It's the means by which charlatans hold power over their dupes, cults hold power over their adherents, and academics guard their areas of expertise from prying eyes. Mystification is the means by which high culture is secured in its role as the intellectual currency of an elite. And the key mystifying concept - high culture's 24-hour bodyguard - is the concept of artistic genius.


Full article here: http://plover.net/~bonds/genius.html

thoughts?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

The other quote:



> Mozart was a child prodigy pushed to the limit and hawked all over the courts of Europe by his maniacal father, the deputy Kapellmeister of the Archbishopric of Salzburg, who had decided to pursue his thwarted career ambitions through his son - in other words, Mozart was a kind of 18th century Michael Jackson. That accounts for his prodigious talent and his early exposure. The social and historical processes by which this talent and exposure turned into "genius" are rather more complex, an interplay of happenstance, individual ambitions, Austrian and German nationalism, moneymaking, and various conscious attempts to build a canon or claim a legacy. But they certainly can't be derived from Mozart's music and its "phrases of delight" and "unfulfillable longing" and "total invulnerability under relentless repetition". That way lies ********.


Absolutely - the reason why I (and other people) listen to Mozart and find something exceptional, profound and way beyond what numerous other artists can offer is result of happenstance, individual ambitions, Austrian and German nationalism, moneymaking, and various conscious attempts to build a canon or claim a legacy. In my case, it's mostly Austrian and German nationalism.

I'm taking a guess: the author wants to be seditious (perhaps these thoughts on arts have their source in his more general worldview) and has serious problems with appreciating art. Even reading it briefly and without intellectual effort, you can easily notice his errors and think of obvious contrarguments against his claims.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Interesting question. When I think about it, it isn't often that I disagree with the "canon" of revered classical works. For example I accept the great genius of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and all the other usual suspects. I like to think that my opinion isn't shaped by the opinion of the musical establishment, but if there wasn't such a musical establishment I might never have listened to these composers in the first place. So, when it comes to evaluating the established canon, I think it is difficult to form an opinion completely independently.

At the same time there are pieces of music which I firmly believe to be works of genius but which most other people have not heard of. I'm sure we all have a few personal favourites like that. Although the establishment might not agree with my claims to said work's genius, that doesn't stop me enjoying them just as much.

As for the question of mystification? Perhaps as a non-musician I can never have a fully intimate connection with the music. But at the same time I don't believe that a full appreciation of art is confined to the realm of elitist academics. I think everyone should have their own personal connection with the music on whatever level suits them.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Aramis said:


> I'm taking a guess: the author wants to be seditious (perhaps these thoughts on arts have their source in his more general worldview) and has serious problems with appreciating art. Even reading it briefly and without intellectual effort, you can easily notice his errors and think of obvious contrarguments against his claims.


There certainly seems to be a distinct element of straw-man arguing going on. Perhaps if he defined his understanding of "genius" as he uses it, some of his claims might make more sense.
GG


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Going by the thread title, I figured it was about me.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Everybody pretty much starts off being influenced by the canon and the establishment but then it's a matter of growing and having the confidence of making your own judgements. And more than ever now people are aware of the vast range of music out there beyond what has traditionally been famous.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Aramis said:


> Absolutely - the reason why I (and other people) listen to Mozart and find something exceptional, profound and way beyond what numerous other artists can offer is result of happenstance, individual ambitions, Austrian and German nationalism, moneymaking, and various conscious attempts to build a canon or claim a legacy. In my case, it's mostly Austrian and German nationalism.
> 
> I'm taking a guess: the author wants to be seditious (perhaps these thoughts on arts have their source in his more general worldview) and has serious problems with appreciating art. Even reading it briefly and without intellectual effort, you can easily notice his errors and think of obvious contrarguments against his claims.


Exactly - but if only it were his own thinking! Instead, his ideas are common cliches, and non-too-skillfully wielded either as you point out. A proper writer of this style would never make quite such _clear_ statements as he does, rather simply making condescending implications. Actual _assertions_ would terrify them, because the obvious counterarguments soon reveal the whole thing to be an ideological house of cards.

As for genius, perhaps this guy should cast his mind back before the 19th century (which is something like the serpent in the garden of eden for most of these people) and remember that the awe with which figures such as Aristotle and Sir Isaac Newton were treated makes that for Mozart or Beethoven seem pretty insignificant. German nationalism indeed!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

GraemeG said:


> There certainly seems to be a distinct element of straw-man arguing going on. Perhaps if he defined his understanding of "genius" as he uses it, some of his claims might make more sense.
> GG


Yes, I was thinking that anyone could support his argument _for a given value of the term 'genius'_.

Money quote for me:


> It's neither humble nor generous to bow before "genius"; it's quite the opposite. Worship is always demeaning to the object of worship. In declaring someone a genius, you're imposing your own schema on them, reducing them to a mere conduit for greatness, denying them a key feature of human agency: the ability to **** up and produce something flawed. In declaring someone a genius, you're attempting to control audience reaction to their work, to stifle opposition, to place some aspect of their work beyond question. In declaring someone a genius, you're attempting to validate your own tastes and your own ability to discern greatness - an act that betrays equal parts insecurity and vanity.


I agree with pretty much none of that.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2013)

Yeah, there are a lot of things wrong with this essay, not the least of which is his habit of relying on adjectives (snarky ones) to carry the weight of his arguments.

But generally he's right. The idea of artistic genius _is_ rather new. Late 18th century. This is congruent with another idea, which came early in the 19th century, that of "classical music" and its companion concept of "the canon." This latter took almost the entire century to become entrenched, by the way. There was plenty of resistance to both the notion of "classical" music and the notion of a "canon."

Modern ideas about genius in music didn't really solidify until late in the 19th century, had a good run for a couple of generations, began to be seriously questioned again and were rather thoroughly rejected by many creative artists throughout the twentieth century. The bulk of the group of people known as classical music listeners has continued to hold on to these discredited ideas, much like scientific ideas often become accepted and widely believed by non-scientists after those ideas have been discredited and replaced by the scientific community.

As for this opinion: "In declaring someone a genius, you're attempting to control audience reaction to their work, to stifle opposition, to place some aspect of their work beyond question. In declaring someone a genius, you're attempting to validate your own tastes and your own ability to discern greatness - an act that betrays equal parts insecurity and vanity," well, you see that kind of thing happening in online forums all the live long day.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

The article is a cumulus of démodé postmodernist ideas, only valid in some very limited contexts.
Certainly it's good to be skeptical when anybody calls another a "genius". But that's the only thing of interest I found in this article.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

some guy said:


> But generally he's right. The idea of artistic genius is rather new.


For the author, the idea of genius seems connected with notions of superhuman element, otherworldly inspiration. This is hardly a new idea, as we can track it back in antiquity.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Genius is a very overused and perhaps unhelpful word, the same with masterpiece. We'd probably all be happier if we just used the words very good, or even just good. As it is people often feel they have to describe a work they like as a masterpiece or it's creator a genius to make it sound any good. If you say something is just 'good' some probably think it's a relatively average work. Praise inflation you might call it.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starry said:


> Genius is a very overused and perhaps unhelpful word, the same with masterpiece. We'd probably all be happier if we just used the words very good, or even just good. As it is people often feel they have to describe a work they like as a masterpiece or it's creator a genius to make it sound any good. If you say something is just 'good' some probably think it's a relatively average work. Praise inflation you might call it.


All I will say about 'genius' or 'ingenious' is that they are not applied to me or my works - but I am confident that genius exists. As for 'masterpiece', perhaps the meaning has become hazy, or was hazy to start with. Is it _a piece that establishes/confirms its creator as a master of his trade_? Or, is it _his masterpiece_, signifying that its the best thing he created or has created so far? The latter concept does lessen the grandeur of the word.

So far in the thread, I think _Aramis_ has nailed the main subject. Nailed it using that framing hammer he seems to always have at hand.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

niv said:


> Full article here: http://plover.net/~bonds/genius.html
> 
> thoughts?


Interesting article. I agree with him, actually. I was never a fan of the 'genius' image - I judge a composer by their own music. Mozart, Beethoven and Bach are known as the 'best' but are not my favourite composers. I admit that they are good and extremely talented, but it is our right to choose what we like best.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> The article is a cumulus of démodé postmodernist ideas, only valid in some very limited contexts.
> Certainly it's good to be skeptical when anybody calls another a "genius". But that's the only thing of interest I found in this article.


a-Yep! It reads like one of those new and politically correct (which means a lot gets skewed or completely derailed) academic essays for which people get grades and eventually degrees. _Now the common untalented non-genius who nonetheless has a decent IQ while remaining innately vacuous gets to strut their stuff, has their day(s) [daze?] in the sun._

The more than frightening aspect of all this sort of syntax is that it is a manifestation of type which is no further than a stone's throw away from the same mentality which leads to book burning bonfires, or under Chairman Mao, "The Cultural Revolution." To many, of course, the writing is less than convincing petty academic drivel, but here it is, "published" and actually brought up as if something of it was really worthy of consideration, so it seems to have some force which I would not recognize.

...To pull out every additional bit of my big-guns elitist snobbery out of the hidden pockets where I stash my reserves, I truly often wonder if the kind of writing which is that cited is nothing more than the product of an unfortunate soul who is cursed with a relatively high IQ, an attraction to the arts and things creative, but who has bitterly realized they have not a scrap of real creativity within them -- so they turn to writing about art instead, and this paper is a form of a fashionable sociopolitical costume draped over a body "who has issues".

I think it was Berlioz, in an exquisite near rant about critics, who asked, (paraphrased) 
*"When did they give up the brush and then pick up the broom?"*

Yay.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> [...]
> ...To pull out every additional bit of my big-guns elitist snobbery out of the hidden pockets where I stash my reserves, I truly often wonder if the kind of writing which is that cited is nothing more than the product of an unfortunate soul who is cursed with a relatively high IQ, an attraction to the arts and things creative, but who has bitterly realized they have not a scrap of real creativity within them -- so they turn to writing about art instead, and this paper is a form of a fashionable sociopolitical costume draped over a body "who has issues".
> [...]


It's tempting to agree with you, but are there such people? Can one have those qualities you describe without also having 'a scrap of creativity'?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> It's tempting to agree with you, but are there such people? Can one have those qualities you describe without also having 'a scrap of creativity'?


Just as the idea of artistic genius has its own history, so may the idea of the uninspired scholar.

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300098402


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

The article is nothing but pseudo intellectual psychobabble at its worst .


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

This sort of writing makes me want to burn a bunch of academic books. I'm temped to quote the entirety of Hazlitt's essay entitled _On the Ignorance of the Learned_, but I'll simply post the start:

_The description of persons who have the fewest ideas of all others are mere authors and readers. It is better to be able neither to read nor write than to be able to do nothing else. A lounger who is ordinarily seen with a book in his hand is (we may be almost sure) equally without the power or inclination to attend either to what passes around him or in his own mind. Such a one may be said to carry his understanding about with him in his pocket, or to leave it at home on his library shelves. He is afraid of venturing on any train of reasoning, or of striking out any observation that is not mechanically suggested to him by parsing his eyes over certain legible characters; shrinks from the fatigue of thought, which, for want of practice, becomes insupportable to him; and sits down contented with an endless, wearisome succession of words and half-formed images, which fill the void of the mind, and continually efface one another. Learning is, in too many cases, but a foil to common sense; a substitute for true knowledge. Books are less often made use of as 'spectacles' to look at nature with, than as blinds to keep out its strong light and shifting scenery from weak eyes and indolent dispositions. _

Or, simpler, this maxim from Shaw: _A learned man is an idler who kills time with study. Beware of his false knowledge: it is more dangerous than ignorance._

To respond only with quotes is of course slightly ironic given the things I quoted, but unfortunately I have some other things to do, and I had to respond. I truly can't stand prose like this, it makes my eye-sockets want to vomit.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2013)

Yeah, it's badly written. We are all agreed on that.

It is not, however, in any way academic writing, so please leave your academic books unburned.

It is also, no worse than dozens, hundreds, of posts to online forums that pass for current.

It is, perhaps, getting savaged (in very general and generic terms--no one has yet tackled one particular idea to explain how, exactly, it is false) because it has touched a communal nerve.

Apparently it's something like "Genius is real and important and crucial to our experience of high art." Hmmmm. I would call it a great big old distraction from what our real task should be, engaging with and enjoying music. Does calling Bach a genius make his music sound any different to you? And if it does, doesn't that fact make you even a little bit queasy? Even more pertinent, does claiming that some other composer is not a genius, or not as big a genius as Bach make that composer's music sound any different? Never mind about "quality" or "good taste" or "aesthetic perceptivity" or anything else except how the music sounds and how you--not Shaw, not Boulez, not Taruskin, not Stephen Bond--engage with it.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

No it's not academic writing, it's wannabe academic writing. But it's the academic ideas people take exception to.

As for touching a nerve, personally, I've waded through enough pages of this kind of nonsense and then had to pretend to take it seriously to touch many nerves.

If the concept of genius is a problem for you, don't use it. Whatever works best. But I don't see that it's a real problem.

The basic error with the line of thought is that the reasoning is backwards. This article actually states the faulty premise as fact. The premise is that genius comes before earned recognition, rather than afterwards. Bach was not picked out of a hat in the 19th century - his music was ressurected because various people believed in its artistic quality. He was recognised for his genius because his music was good, not vice-versa. (Also, it doesn't matter whether his music is objectively good, or subjectively good for many people, because if it is the latter then it is the objective written page which makes it so.)

Most of what is behind this article is from a way of writing which tells other people how they listen to music, pretends the small facts they dig up are significant, and then picks up its pay-check. I really don't mind whether I enjoy the music because I think it's written by a genius, because of the qualities in the music, or because of the ice cream I ate earlier today - I enjoy it just the same. But I am pretty sure that the second is the most experientially convincing, followed by the third (maybe these the other way around), and the first a long way behind.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

> The D minor Concerto is almost as much myth as work of art: when listening to it, as to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, it is difficult at times to say whether we are hearing the work or its reputation, our collective image of it. It is probably not the most played of Mozart concertos. But even at a time when Mozart's reputation was low--when his grace obscured his power--the estimation of this work remained high. It is not a work, of course, that is much discussed (it excites no controversy) or much imitated; nor is it the favorite Mozart concerto of many musicians, just as no one's favorite Leonardo is the Mona Lisa. Like the G minor Symphony and Don Giovanni, the D minor Concerto may be said to transcend its own excellences.


--Charles Rosen, The Classical Style

Now, I think that is some excellent writing--from a scholarly book on my shelf that's not going into the fire (even if it's a bit dated). For the purposes of this discussion, it's also worth having a comment about a work of art that doesn't use the much-maligned word "genius," but that still addresses the difficulty of appreciating art in an unmediated way, and of getting to the heart of the mystery it has for (some of) us.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

some guy said:


> It is, perhaps, getting savaged (in very general and generic terms--no one has yet tackled one particular idea to explain how, exactly, it is false) because it has touched a communal nerve.


Please... one thing is the fair attack to some naive ideas and other this kind of pseudo-intellectualization based on cliché ideas about classical music and using even more cliché ideas from modern critical theory.
As I said, I agree with the idea of criticizing the notion of genius, but the absolute terms and the naive preconceptions of the article are pretty uninteresting.



> You can identify Very Important Culture - a piece of Great Art or literature or music - because it gets the same kind of treatment. You can almost never meet it alone or on your own terms; your experience of the Great Artwork is carefully mediated by interpreters with privileged access to its secrets. To properly appreciate the Great Artwork, you must observe a protocol that defines the acceptable range of responses. The Great Artwork frequently comes packaged in short snippets, edited and arranged ostensibly for your benefit. Something about it is deliberately kept mysterious and unknowable, forever beyond your reach.


This is utterly ridiculous. No, I simply go and listen. From my listenings I conclude that I don't like Mozart and that I like Ligeti. Nobody told me to say or to think that.



> This treatment is called mystification, and mystification is a means of asserting and maintaining power. It's the means by which charlatans hold power over their dupes, cults hold power over their adherents, and academics guard their areas of expertise from prying eyes. Mystification is the means by which high culture is secured in its role as the intellectual currency of an elite. And the key mystifying concept - high culture's 24-hour bodyguard - is the concept of artistic genius.


LOL, a world conspiracy of nerdy classical music aficionados?. Please, give me a break...
In some limited sense, yes, I could agree that some people have the tendency of deification of composers. But that paragraph is a nonsensical and quite paranoid generalization, and based on the cliché notion that classical music enthusiasts are a group of elitists whose only intention is to appear as cultured people to the rest of society, and particularly to enthusiasts of non-classical music.



> The contemporary usage of the word first gained currency in the Sturm und Drang era of German literary culture, when "genius" came to refer to a level of artistic talent that was almost supernatural: the spirit of a whole nation embodied in one mortal artist


This is quite anachronic and useless for any modern attempt to define genius. Instead, it's an excellent resource for a straw man fallacy when you have the agenda of a supposed elite trying to control people's musical taste. Of course, this elite would try to deify the composers so that nobody can say anything against. This gives the misleading idea of support for the idea presented in the agenda, when in fact that's the way the fallacy works.

Again, the article discuss more this idea of mystification. It's not that mystification is good and the article is bad. The article is right in saying that mystification is bad. But the thing is that mystification is really a very naive reading of the great composers, and to me it's just a minor detail, that does not addresses at all the actual music of those composers and what's behind that music.
Mystification is a ridiculous social construction, but it has nothing to do with the actual music, and with the question about why the great composers are great. It just addresses a part of the question, but not all. The reduction of the problem to just mystification is pretty short minded, and again, very useful for a fallacy if you have an agenda.



> Mozart was a child prodigy pushed to the limit and hawked all over the courts of Europe by his maniacal father, the deputy Kapellmeister of the Archbishopric of Salzburg, who had decided to pursue his thwarted career ambitions through his son - in other words, Mozart was a kind of 18th century Michael Jackson. That accounts for his prodigious talent and his early exposure. The social and historical processes by which this talent and exposure turned into "genius" are rather more complex, an interplay of happenstance, individual ambitions, Austrian and German nationalism, moneymaking, and various conscious attempts to build a canon or claim a legacy. But they certainly can't be derived from Mozart's music and its "phrases of delight" and "unfulfillable longing" and "total invulnerability under relentless repetition". That way lies ********.


LOL, so we are idiot.s Germanophiles. Please... even when I don't like Mozart that much, by only analyzing his scores I can see the brilliance of his writing.



> It's neither humble nor generous to bow before "genius"; it's quite the opposite. Worship is always demeaning to the object of worship. In declaring someone a genius, you're imposing your own schema on them, reducing them to a mere conduit for greatness, denying them a key feature of human agency: the ability to **** up and produce something flawed. In declaring someone a genius, you're attempting to control audience reaction to their work, to stifle opposition, to place some aspect of their work beyond question. In declaring someone a genius, you're attempting to validate your own tastes and your own ability to discern greatness - an act that betrays equal parts insecurity and vanity.


It's true that when you call someone a genius there's an intention of seeing the greatness of this composer as something objective. Is there any problem with that?. Nora the cat is equally good as Bach?. It's also true that I'm trusting on my taste when I say somebody is a genius. So what?. Trusting on my own judgement makes me a vain person?. That's nonsense, we are all vain persons then... and, in any case, you don't need to have a very sophisticated taste for recognizing the beauty and drama of, say, Bach's St John Passion for that matter.
Of course, the word objective in art has a bad reputation, and to some extent, justly acquired. But to say that they have never existed artists who were able to see beyond the ideas of their time, and people (listeners) who were able to appreciate that, is nonsense and not supported by history. I guess Stravinsky with his Rite was a social impostor then, and also Beethoven with his Ninth.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> It's tempting to agree with you, but are there such people? Can one have those qualities you describe without also having 'a scrap of creativity'?


Ha haaaaa haaaaaaa. You're having me on, of course.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Ha haaaaa haaaaaaa. You're having me on, of course.


Sort of; it was a test. Now I know that, for you, 'creativity' is reserved for 'the arts'. I consider both terms to be smeared with fudge, that smearing an easily recognizable symptom of decadence.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Sort of; it was a test. Now I know that, for you, 'creativity' is reserved for 'the arts'. I consider both terms to be smeared with fudge, that smearing an easily recognizable symptom of decadence.


"Now I know that, for you, 'creativity' is reserved for 'the arts'

_I beg your pardon, but when and where the hell did I say *that?*_


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> "Now I know that, for you, 'creativity' is reserved for 'the arts'
> 
> _I beg your pardon, but when and where the hell did I say *that?*_


Try reading your subject post, and extracting its meaning _only_ from what is written. I read it several times before I posted my question, and could get no alternative interpretation. If the interpretation was wrong, your response didn't correct it.

I will accept one half of the responsibility for my error, no more, and that because I am a really nice guy.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Try reading your subject post, and extracting its meaning _only_ from what is written. I read it several times before I posted my question, and could get no alternative interpretation. If the interpretation was wrong, your response didn't correct it.
> 
> I will accept one half of the responsibility for my error, no more, and that because I am a really nice guy.


I am a sloppy non exact / non academic writer, that is for sure. If anything, I was targeting the author of the article, whom by now has been poked and shot through in this thread more times than Saint Sebastian --

But, you cannot drive across a bridge without directly dealing with creativity, nor take antibiotics without owing something to creativity, etc. There are creative thinkers _everywhere_ and what they are creative about covers any and all disciplines, including the "new" disciplines which happen because of someone's creative synergy.

There is talent happening everywhere, too.

Both creativity and talent seem to utterly disregard race, nationality, class socio-demographics, and almost like a sport of nature, they just keep cropping up here, there, with no stopping them.

However, there are also many instances where both seem to elude those who wish to have or think they have them. That seems to be the case for the author of the essay. The most accurate thing about that is to call it an essay [Fr. essayer, to try]


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Well, I don't think of the article as an essay at all, actually more of a 'rant' considering the many swearwords, hehe. I don't think it's that bad of an article - it's a bit provocative but it makes you think about the criteria by which 'great' art is measured which isn't a bad thing. If the author claims that 'geniuses can go to hell', then why does he seem so informed about what other composers thought of Mozart's works? So I guess he likes classical too. If he doesn't like classical, he shouldn't listen to it. I'll continue though, because it's a great musical form with immense variety.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I took the time to read the article carefully and -- dare I say it? -- it is a work of genius! We are not worthy.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Thanks. Some bridges don't go beyond craftsmanship - or the lack of it - but your point is clear.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

The author does like classical. I think he's a Wagnerite.

I don't think he's against Mozart, rather, he's against the concept of "genius". I do think that he does many unproved assertions (but then again, who doesn't). The article struck a nerve with me... because while I do think the reasons of why Mozart is considered a genius might be actually related to the quality of what Mozart and not the reasons he thinks... I did find this part very interesting to me, because I once was a guy very obsessed to consuming the "greatest" art:



> "In declaring someone a genius, you're attempting to validate your own tastes and your own ability to discern greatness - an act that betrays equal parts insecurity and vanity."


In some ways, it is. Though then again, we're always attempting to validate our own tastes and our ability to discern greatness when we criticize art. The same happens when you call something a piece of ****. But I wonder if he's right that when we label Mozart as a genius, what we end up making is selling the idea of genius more than the music itself. Millionrainbows on this website said once that some people seem attracted to classical not only because they like how it sounds, but also because they like the "idea" of classical, the idea of "purity" and "genius"

I also found interesting the idea that maybe it's better to see those geniuses as every bit as human as we are. "Genius" would seem to be some sort of intrinsic quality. And perhaps Mozart was a prodigy, but I think that most of the artists that we label as "geniuses" were more often than not mere humans that were very hard workers.

Also, I think there is some overlap between the ideas presented here http://www.talkclassical.com/27953-classical-music-critic-who.html and this article


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I took the time to read the article carefully and -- dare I say it? -- it is a work of genius! We are not worthy.


Besides, I don't know about you, but listening to or reading the work of intellectuals I always get a headache within ten minutes, usually less.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Besides, I don't know about you, but listening to or reading the work of intellectuals I always get a headache within ten minutes, usually less.


Hah. I like to use a modifier - effete intellectual - mostly because I'm not sure what defines an unmodified intellectual.



Fellow member _niv_ in his post above, seems to define 'genius' differently than I do, too. I've known several geniuses, one of my friends is one. _niv_ probably knows several people who fit my understanding of the term. We may not each of us be an island, but we are pretty much isolated in our heads, and those string-connected soup cans can only do so much.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah. I like to use a modifier - effete intellectual - mostly because I'm not sure what defines an unmodified intellectual
> 
> Fellow member _niv_ in his post above, seems to define 'genius' differently than I do, too. I've known several geniuses, one of my friends is one. _niv_ probably knows several people who fit my understanding of the term. We may not each of us be an island, but we are pretty much isolated in our heads, and those string-connected soup cans can only do so much.


For effete applied to modify intellectual, the first two usages are the most apt...
1: _*no longer fertile*_

2
_*a : having lost character, vitality, or strength*_ <the effete monarchies … of feudal Europe - G. M. Trevelyan>
b : marked by weakness or decadence <the effete East>
c : soft or delicate from or as if from a pampered existence <peddled … trendy tweeds to effete Easterners - William Helmer> <effete tenderfeet>; also : characteristic of an effete person <a wool scarf … a bit effete on an outdoorsman - Nelson Bryant>

3: effeminate 1 <a good-humored, effete boy brought up by maiden aunts - Herman Wouk>

Usages one and two were the most common; the third, it seems is so past the ascendency it is now how I most often see it used, and think it an archaic usage, though, sexist to a ridiculous polarity, and it really "describes" nothing. and it seems it is now the most commonly in use.

Your unmodified intellectual, then, is pretty much the opposite of those parts of usage I heightened in bold... i.e. bearing fruit, effective.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Fellow member _niv_ in his post above, seems to define 'genius' differently than I do, too. I've known several geniuses, one of my friends is one. _niv_ probably knows several people who fit my understanding of the term. We may not each of us be an island, but we are pretty much isolated in our heads, and those string-connected soup cans can only do so much.


That happens with pretty much every word. But actually I wasn't talking about how I use the word genius, but rather how I percieve some people use it. As everything regarding language, things can get a little contextual.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

niv said:


> But I wonder if he's right that when we label Mozart as a genius, what we end up making is selling the idea of genius more than the music itself. Millionrainbows on this website said once that some people seem attracted to classical not only because they like how it sounds, but also because they like the "idea" of classical, the idea of "purity" and "genius"


Those who listen to classical music for that are those who also see it as a snobbish club they wish to join to look cool, and of course they request composers, pieces, lists of things that are considered the coolest.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I kinda dislike the concept of genius as well, and also the concept of talent. I find they really are kinda mystifying. It makes the process of making music into some magical, even sacred act. Now, I love music, but I find that a bit ridiculous. It cheapens the hard work involved in composing, and in developing that skill. I don't think there's no such thing as having natural attributes that would give somebody an advantage in a particular activity. Having really good memory for sounds and a good sense for how pitches interact in an intuitive sense are going to be very helpful for somebody wanting to write music, just as being taught by somebody skilled in it from an early age will be very helpful. But thats not all thats there, and I think this mythical genius concept really puts it in people's heads that it is, that talent is everything and if you're not "born to write music" then its beyond you. I hate that. If anything is important, it is the desire to create. The passion and the drive.

I also don't really care for the mythologizing of "The Great Composers". They wrote really great music, yes, but they're not the only ones who wrote really great music, and most that are put into that group belong to a pretty narrow musical tradition, which isn't inherently better than other, different traditions. I don't like the groupthink that goes into this mythbuilding, where if you say you think one of those composers is over-rated then your intellect or taste is called into question. Its just more unnecessary categorization for music.

TLDR: the article has a point, even if alot of it comes off as fighting snobbery with snobbery.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

The good news is, you can listen to Mozart's music in a concert hall, on the street being played by a busker, on an iPod on the subway, on the radio in your car or hidden away in your college room. Take your pick. I think sooner or later, it's difficult to not find great enjoyment in the music regardless of your knowledge of the courtrooms of Austria. That is the bottomline about music, it's MUSIC! It's just so free, already free of social cobwebs, we don't need to discuss it, great music is its own emancipation and ours too.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

And I don't think most like music because it comes from some otherworldly unfathomable genius but more because it comes from someone who is relatable as another human being.


----------



## Guest (Oct 2, 2013)

I know that I rarely if ever think about the person who wrote a piece when I'm listening to the piece.* 

I never think about abstract concepts like greatness or genius when I'm listening to music.

For me, anyway, the sounds are overwhelming. They're all there is.

*And I am acquainted with if not truly friends with dozens of my favorite composers.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> I kinda dislike the concept of genius as well, and also the concept of talent. I find they really are kinda mystifying. It makes the process of making music into some magical, even sacred act. Now, I love music, but I find that a bit ridiculous. It cheapens the hard work involved in composing, and in developing that skill. I don't think there's no such thing as having natural attributes that would give somebody an advantage in a particular activity. Having really good memory for sounds and a good sense for how pitches interact in an intuitive sense are going to be very helpful for somebody wanting to write music, just as being taught by somebody skilled in it from an early age will be very helpful. But thats not all thats there, and I think this mythical genius concept really puts it in people's heads that it is, that talent is everything and if you're not "born to write music" then its beyond you. I hate that. If anything is important, it is the desire to create. The passion and the drive.
> 
> I also don't really care for the mythologizing of "The Great Composers". They wrote really great music, yes, but they're not the only ones who wrote really great music, and most that are put into that group belong to a pretty narrow musical tradition, which isn't inherently better than other, different traditions. I don't like the groupthink that goes into this mythbuilding, where if you say you think one of those composers is over-rated then your intellect or taste is called into question. Its just more unnecessary categorization for music.
> 
> TLDR: the article has a point, even if alot of it comes off as fighting snobbery with snobbery.


(A lengthy quote, the entire message, but it feels necessary)

Put that all together, it says that hard work and craftsmanship are all there is in making music; talent is either unnecessary or a myth, and genius is a myth for sure. Do I have that right?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starry said:


> And I don't think most like music because it comes from some otherworldly unfathomable genius but more because it comes from someone who is relatable as another human being.


You think Mozart and Beethoven and Brahms spent most of their time wandering about being 'unfathomable'?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

> Mozart was a child prodigy pushed to the limit and hawked all over the courts of Europe by his maniacal father


While the author of this silly piece is busy Googling a workable definition of "genius", he might take the time to define "maniacal" too. I never read a single well-researched book on Mozart that describes his loving da this way...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> I kinda dislike the concept of genius as well, and also the concept of talent


I join with you here, as well as milions of other people who, like you and me, do not have neither genius nor talent. The least we can do is to dislike the concept.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

The article was a brash and crude rant, hmmm?

I agree with BurningDesire, Aramis and also moody. Like the judge penitent? But hopefully enough people here aren't so far removed as to end up with that perfectly muted and captivated audience at an Amsterdam watering hole.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I won't insist on the word "genius" but I'd be surprised if "the canon" is actually filled with works of no special merit other than their place in our cultural heritage. Probably not much to be gained by attacking them. But it really shouldn't need to be said that there are equally deserving works not in the ordinary canon, that the place of individual works and composers within the canon is often as dependent on historical factors as on musical ones, that time and chance happeneth to them all.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Aramis said:


> I join with you here, as well as milions of other people who, like you and me, do not have neither genius nor talent. The least we can do is to dislike the concept.


My own lack of genius and talent simply makes me more admiring of it in others. Of course, what individuals and works I think of as possessing "genius" is mostly my own business--so long as I don't use the word to forestall argument or inquiry I don't really see a problem with it.

Besides, it's not like anyone can _really_ explain the wonderful masterpieces we've been given to enjoy!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

niv said:


> "In declaring someone a genius, you're attempting to validate your own tastes and your own ability to discern greatness - an act that betrays equal parts insecurity and vanity."
> 
> In some ways, it is. Though then again, we're always attempting to validate our own tastes and our ability to discern greatness when we criticize art. The same happens when you call something a piece of ****.


As I said before, that's just a twist in the interpretation of the meaning of the word "declaration". Of course we are all trusting in our criteria when we express an opinion. The observation of this interpretation is just tautological. The interesting thing is the question if this is bad or good, something which that paragraph does not address, leaving that to the reader.
I don't have an easy answer for that, of course. But I do think that anyone can criticize whatever s/he wants. Otherwise we would end in some kind of intellectual elite à la Babbitt.



niv said:


> Millionrainbows on this website said once that some people seem attracted to classical not only because they like how it sounds, but also because they like the "idea" of classical, the idea of "purity" and "genius"


Well, yes. I even know physicists who study physics because of the "intellectual prestige" of it. Again, that's not the interesting question. The interesting question is if all the people in the classical music community is like that. The answer is, of course, a big NO.
Whoever saying the contrary has little experience in the classical music community then. Most people are just passionate about music.
That idea is extremely anachronic and completely superficial.



niv said:


> I also found interesting the idea that maybe it's better to see those geniuses as every bit as human as we are. "Genius" would seem to be some sort of intrinsic quality. And perhaps Mozart was a prodigy, but I think that most of the artists that we label as "geniuses" were more often than not mere humans that were very hard workers.


Indeed. And I think that almost everybody sees it in that way.

What's exactly your point?. That there is idiotic people in the classical music community?. Sure, like in everywhere else. That's hardly a novelty.
But the generalization of those things to all the community is something completely different, and only serves to give the typical cliché notion of it.

Personally, I use the word genius to express my admiration for some composer's mind. Is there any problem with that?. You will have to believe me that I do not have any hidden political intention when I express that admiration.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I find there has been a lot of over reaction here to an essay which while being mildly polemical in tone does contain some elements of truth. 
The concept of mystification of art is an old one and I first came by it in John Berger's classic 'Ways Of Seeing' written in the early 1970s.
It is not that there is a deliberate conspiracy by the 'elite' to mystify but that the process takes place for a number of complex reasons. This means that when confronted by a work of art that one knows to be regarded as a work of genius, it is hard to experience it entirely innocently and truthfully. If I remember correctly the Berger book talks about how the Mona Lisa has been the subject of such intense scrutiny and has been held up almost singularly as an icon, protected and coveted. It's fame is as much it's attraction as the thing itself for many people, especially the curious visitor. Is it deserving of it's position among Leonardo's work? (now there _was _a genius). Is it Ok to view the painting and think, mmm it's very good but....what's the big fuss? Would one feel ashamed to admit one didn't 'get' what makes it such a big deal?

A cute definition of genius, well one that works for me is...

Talent hits the target no one else can hit.
Genius hits the target no one else can see.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> I find there has been a lot of over reaction here to an essay which while being mildly polemical in tone does contain some elements of truth.
> The concept of mystification of art is an old one and I first came by it in John Berger's classic 'Ways Of Seeing' written in the early 1970s.
> It is not that there is a deliberate conspiracy by the 'elite' to mystify but that the process takes place for a number of complex reasons. This means that when confronted by a work of art that one knows to be regarded as a work of genius, it is hard to experience it entirely innocently and truthfully. If I remember correctly the Berger book talks about how the Mona Lisa has been the subject of such intense scrutiny and has been held up almost singularly as an icon, protected and coveted. It's fame is as much it's attraction as the thing itself for many people, especially the curious visitor. Is it deserving of it's position among Leonardo's work? (now there _was _a genius). Is it Ok to view the painting and think, mmm it's very good but....what's the big fuss? Would one feel ashamed to admit one didn't 'get' what makes it such a big deal?
> 
> ...


Well, we are two now then. 
I think it would have been a better idea to discuss the idea of mystification abstractly in that case instead of using this silly article, which presents also other ideas which are highly questionable and nonsensical.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> (A lengthy quote, the entire message, but it feels necessary)
> 
> Put that all together, it says that hard work and craftsmanship are all there is in making music; talent is either unnecessary or a myth, and genius is a myth for sure. Do I have that right?


No, there are of course those natural-born advantages that some people just have. I'm just saying that isn't the most important thing. Hard-work and passion are infinitely more important than raw talent.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Aramis said:


> I join with you here, as well as milions of other people who, like you and me, do not have neither genius nor talent. The least we can do is to dislike the concept.


I have the sneaking suspicion that this was meant as a derisive comment. And if thats the case... *shrug*


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> No, there are of course those natural-born advantages that some people just have. I'm just saying that isn't the most important thing. Hard-work and passion are infinitely more important than raw talent.


I have 'liked' this, and agree with the sentiment, but I think it's best not to under-do 'talent'. Having had passion, but not talent, and talent without passion, for different things, I know how important having both together is.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> For effete applied to modify intellectual, the first two usages are the most apt...


Famously used by a certain vice president: "..an effete corps of impudent snobs..." And oddly, he wasn't talking about TC!


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

I should probably say that I do understand the labeling of Mozart and others composers well established in the canon "geniuses". Hell, it's hard not to, after all, history ended up picking them from millions of other composers, and when you sit down and listen to them, they are pretty mindblowing. I have labeled them as geniuses as well, many times.



aleazk said:


> Well, yes. I even know physicists who study physics because of the "intellectual prestige" of it. Again, that's not the interesting question. The interesting question is if all the people in the classical music community is like that. The answer is, of course, a big NO.
> Whoever saying the contrary has little experience in the classical music community then. Most people are just passionate about music.
> That idea is extremely anachronic and completely superficial.
> 
> ...


I don't think the article was particulary targeted at the classical music community, it was about art in general. Not it was particulary about the word "genius", but rather, about the attitude of putting the myth, the idea of genius, above the actual art, the music itself. I don't think it's an idiotic attitude, though, I think it's pretty common and pretty human.

For some examples, I'll again refer to this article http://classicalmusiccritic.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/who-is-the-greatest-composer/



> Who is the greatest composer?
> I get this question a lot. It sounds frivolous, and in some respects it is, but once you start thinking about why someone would ask that question, and what they expect to hear, you can uncover some underlying assumptions.


Please let me remark upon the first sentence of the article. *I get this question a lot*. Why? Why are so many people obsessed with finding the "greatest" composer? Why don't we even question ourselves what does that mean, or whether if it's a worthy thing to look for?

Besides, this is my personal opinion, no one needs to agree with this but... I believe music (or should I say, art) is rarely written by an individual out of thin air. More often than not, any piece of art is based over many ideas already written before by many other artists. Even in the case of Mozart, or Beethoven, or Bach, the holy trifecta of the genius myth, their music was based on the preexisting music of their time. So when you highlight them as geniuses, a side effect is the neglect of the fact that they built their stuff over what their fellow humans did, even though we've forgotten how even those fellow humans were named (note that probably many of you people on here actually know who many of those comtemporaries are. But they are neglected by the general public).

Let me give you an alternative example, but not from art, but politics. Martin Luther King Jr., alongside Rosa Park and a few others, is heralded as the hero of the fight against segregation. And I'm not minimizing what the guy did, but when we hightlight him, what we're also doing is minimizing the fact that he wasn't the first one to fight for that nor the last. He was just one amongst many, perhaps one with a lot of influence, but that ultimately couldn't have done everything on his own.

Instead of highlighting him, we could highlight the work of a lot of people, most of which will go unnoticed by history even though every small action counted, because history is not the result of the actions of a small powerful, but rather the sum of the actions of everyone, even those that might seem small, just like even the strongest rain is made up of little drops of water. And I think the same goes for art. Even though the work of a few like Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach, IS pretty damn impressive.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Famously used by a certain vice president: "..an effete corps of impudent snobs..." And oddly, he wasn't talking about TC!


Yesyes: that famous VP who if he did not find agreement went instantly into offended betrayal mode 

I doubt if he could have distinguished, in many a matter, the effective intellectual from the ineffective -- all he was reacting to was resistance to some proposal or other he wanted to push through. Typical petty tyrannical characteristic reaction.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

niv said:


> any piece of art is based over many ideas already written before by many other artists.


In the Q & A after a lecture by Cage in Santa Cruz, someone called him the most innovative and influential composer of the twentieth century.

Cage said, repeatedly (as the guy wouldn't give up), "No. Those ideas were all around us at the time."


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> No, there are of course those natural-born advantages that some people just have. I'm just saying that isn't the most important thing. Hard-work and passion are infinitely more important than raw talent.


Have you heard of Susan Polgar? She is a brilliant chess player.


> Polgar and her two younger sisters, Grandmaster Judit and International Master Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, who sought to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age. "Geniuses are made, not born," was László's thesis.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> Have you heard of Susan Polgar? She is a brilliant chess player.


This is fascinating. Her father--László Polgár--seems to be a true eccentric:



> László Polgár (born 1946 in Gyöngyös), is a Hungarian chess teacher and father of the famous "Polgár sisters": Zsuzsa, Zsófia, and Judit. He authored well-known chess books such as Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games and Reform Chess, a survey of chess variants.
> 
> László is an expert on chess theory and owns over 10,000 chess books. He is interested in the proper method of rearing children, believing that "geniuses are made, not born". Before he had any children, he wrote a book entitled Bring Up Genius!, and sought a wife to help him carry out his experiment. He found one in Klara, a schoolteacher, who lived in a Hungarian-speaking enclave in Ukraine. He married her in the USSR and brought her to Hungary. He home-schooled their three daughters, primarily in chess, and all three went on to become strong players. An early result was Susan's winning the Budapest Chess Championship for girls under 11 at the age of four. Also his daughter, Judit, could defeat him at chess when she was just five.[1] He is an intense admirer of L.L. Zamenhof, the creator of the Esperanto language. Polgár's second language is Esperanto.


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

I like how he looked for a wife to help him with his "experiment."

Who can say, though, whether he provided good genes in addition to a good method in child-rearing? :lol:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

niv said:


> I don't think the article was particulary targeted at the classical music community, it was about art in general. Not it was particulary about the word "genius", but rather, about the attitude of putting the myth, the idea of genius, above the actual art, the music itself. I don't think it's an idiotic attitude, though, I think it's pretty common and pretty human.


Oh, I see. Then we read completely different articles it seems... or maybe I should learn to read... 



niv said:


> Besides, this is my personal opinion, no one needs to agree with this but... I believe music (or should I say, art) is rarely written by an individual out of thin air. More often than not, any piece of art is based over many ideas already written before by many other artists. Even in the case of Mozart, or Beethoven, or Bach, the holy trifecta of the genius myth, their music was based on the preexisting music of their time. So when you highlight them as geniuses, a side effect is the neglect of the fact that they built their stuff over what their fellow humans did, even though we've forgotten how even those fellow humans were named (note that probably many of you people on here actually know who many of those comtemporaries are. But they are neglected by the general public).


This is hot air. Again, a partial truth presented in a suggestive way, but without making any point. 
Yes, it's based on previous ideas... like every other human activity, from science, to culinary traditions. 
Is this a novelty?. Something we didn't know already?. Again, an old truth, but reworded for the effect.
The actual interesting question is if this fact lessens the role of individual _creativity_ in the creation of art by an individual.
You don't answer this in your comment, you leave that to the reader. So we don't even have something to discuss, since there's no opinion here.
But I will leave _my_ opinion and I would be interested in your answer to this in particular: in art, as well as in science, I think that individual creativity _is everything_. There's nothing more important in these disciplines than individual creativity. If you don't have this, you are a dead body in those fields.



niv said:


> Let me give you an alternative example, but not from art, but politics. Martin Luther King Jr., alongside Rosa Park and a few others, is heralded as the hero of the fight against segregation. And I'm not minimizing what the guy did, but when we hightlight him, what we're also doing is minimizing the fact that he wasn't the first one to fight for that nor the last. He was just one amongst many, perhaps one with a lot of influence, but that ultimately couldn't have done everything on his own.


Not a good analogy, really.
Art is not about fighting against injustice... is about creating _interesting_ works of art... 



niv said:


> Instead of highlighting him, we could highlight the work of a lot of people, most of which will go unnoticed by history even though every small action counted, because history is not the result of the actions of a small powerful, but rather the sum of the actions of everyone, even those that might seem small, just like even the strongest rain is made up of little drops of water. And I think the same goes for art.


Again, you are putting a lot of very different human disciplines, which require different sets of abilities, in a single and absolute (political) bag. Sorry, but it's not that simple.
In art and science, you need creativity. That's how Stravinsky came with the Rite... or Beethoven with the Ninth... or Planck with the quantization of energy. 
In politics you need a strong will, moral rectitude, the support of the masses, the individual is less important because political changes are a sociological thing. 
In art, the individual is more important, even when the work of art is presented to society later, and when it's based on the knowledge from the past. But the act of creation is made by one individual.
In politics, the idea may be coined by an individual, but for "creating" the social revolution, other people is needed.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> ...Yes, it's based on previous ideas... like every other human activity, from science, to culinary traditions. ...Is this a novelty?. Something we didn't know already?. Again, an old truth, but reworded for the effect.
> The actual interesting question is if this fact lessens the role of individual _creativity_ in the creation of art by an individual.
> ...There's nothing more important in these disciplines than individual creativity. If you don't have this, you are a dead body in those fields.
> ...In art and science, you need creativity.
> ...In art, the individual is more important, even when the work of art is presented to society later, and when it's based on the knowledge from the past. But the act of creation is made by one individual.


Perhaps the author would feel less of an emotional need to pull down the statues of those handful of great and innovative artists, ahem -- those individuals, if there were in almost every town also statues of the "Everyman" who was 'just part of the scene.' ? 
But then patrons don't fund such efforts, the subjects not being distinguished, and those undistinguished subjects aren't of much interest to artists, either.

zOMG! It's a conspiracy of the elitists, unjustly ignoring the yearning, longing and struggle of those who were / are to be pitied for making lesser contributions, or were simply less important and / or mediocre 

Of course, if anyone wanted to not walk through life only knowing about the trifecta, as it is called, they could do a little reading beyond what the on-line or one-semester college music history courses requires.

Maybe the whole rant (beg pardon, essay) is actually a plea for a mandatory more than five minutes long music history education for the masses?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Perhaps the author would feel less of an emotional need to pull down the statues of those handful of great and innovative artists, ahem -- those individuals, if there were in almost every town also statues of the "Everyman" who was 'just part of the scene.' ?


Good point. One feels especially after a recession a certain communal lack of interest in the arts, which only makes the culture vultures seem more unsavory. This is a good time to be supporting the work of those poor and generous souls that fill galleries and concert spaces with works nobody will take three steps out of their way to see.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> Good point. One feels especially after a recession a certain communal lack of interest in the arts, which only makes the culture vultures seem more unsavory. This is a good time to be supporting the work of those poor and generous souls that fill galleries and concert spaces with works nobody will take three steps out of their way to see.


and, like the poor, they will always be with us.

Hey! I'm poor, and more than likely not a great or important composer. Where the hell is the citation on me in the tomes? Where is the statue of me in the town square?

_Waaaaaah! I demand my recognition, now!_


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> and, like the poor, they will always be with us.
> 
> Hey! I'm poor, and more than likely not a great or important composer. Where the hell is the citation on me in the tomes? Where is the statue of me in the town square?
> 
> _Waaaaaah! I demand my recognition, now!_


That's the kind of attitude we need around here - pumping up that egocentricity .


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Blancrocher said:


> One feels especially after a recession a certain communal lack of interest in the arts


Really? I think there's always been interest in the arts whatever the economics. General interest doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as funding arts with money.


----------

