# Mozart DNA



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

A bit of fun...

http://sinfinimusic.com/uk/features/other-features/mozart-clone-news-story

Obviously an April Fool joke ...and it sounds absurd anyway, but I assure you, it's not beyond the realms of possibility. Recent advances in forensic science have enabled crime investigators to extract DNA from the most unlikely sources, even in decades old crime cases, centuries old bones and hair... for example Copernicus from 1543, and of course Richard III.

Also, recently, a new technique has made it possible to extract DNA from hair shafts (whereas hair bulbs were once required). In fact, hair is now considered one of the best sources of intact DNA, unless it has been exposed to prolonged sunlight, in which case the DNA will be destroyed.

There are locks of Mozart's hair still in existence, but it is not clear if these have intact DNA, or if it's been sequenced.

There are two or more locks of Beethoven's hair and skull too, but it is not at clear whether Beethoven's DNA has been sequenced yet. (It could at least put an end that rumor that he was black!)

You may think it's utterly pointless, but a recent series of programmes now on UK (CH4) television called 'Dead Famous DNA' has mananged to extract DNA from Charles Darwin, Elvis Presley, and Hitler (next week) so far. They've determined that Elvis had genes for gloucoma, obesity, and faulty heart muscle... all of which confirm his illnesses and early death.

Charles Darwin had a mystery life-long illness he tried to cure with many different doctors, which has now been determined to have been Crohn's disease.

It's pretty fascinating, though I'm not sure what to make of it morally, especially the aim to create a 'DNA ark' of geniuses, like they do for endangered animal species.

I'm pretty sure 'genius' isn't what people think it is, that it requires upbringing compatible with genes (which might not get expressed in every clone) and VERY specific aptitudes and traits. For example, I don't think Mozart was a particularly original genius, though his craftsmanship was unsurpassed and his imagination was astonishing. (In fact, not wanting to outrage anyone, you could argue that Hendrix was more original than Mozart!)

I think if they managed to clone these people, it would become clear that genius isn't simply genetic, even if the potential to be one is.

But even if it was a high potential present at birth, surely it could have been something that happened in the womb, during birth ... a lack of oxygen in some part of the brain that suppresses creativity perhaps...?

It could also be that Mozart's particular gift was well-suited to the classical era, but maybe not the modern era. At the time, the Baroque style was dying and Mozart found himself in a musical world waiting to be remade, redefined, full of competition. Just like you can have a dominant and shy pair of identical twins (even gay and straight twins!) surely the competitive spirit may require exact events to unfold.

Also, having a father that was an excellent composer and musician, who could demonstrate such gifts to present an example to the young children must have inspired him. He had a clear idea of what it meant to be a 'working composer' and musician in THAT time, whereas now, there simply isn't the same culture to compete in. Would he have been satisfied with piano competitions? I doubt he would even choose classical music!

Similarly, Einstein was known to be a single-minded thinker, obsessed with a narrow field of physics... so it is possible that his talent might not be compatible with today's climate. Also, being a patent clerk for years, pouring over inventions and designs with basic pay, may have been the cause of his genius! It may have actually rewired his brain!

If they do ever manage it, it's pretty creepy to think that a Mozart clone will probably be taught to play Mozart's music!


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Minona said:


> I'm pretty sure 'genius' isn't what people think it is, that it requires upbringing compatible with genes (which might not get expressed in every clone) and VERY specific aptitudes and traits. For example, I don't think Mozart was a particularly original genius, though his craftsmanship was unsurpassed and his imagination was astonishing. (*In fact, not wanting to outrage anyone, you could argue that Hendrix was more original than Mozart!*)


You've failed. This upsets me.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

Minona said:


> A bit of fun...
> (In fact, not wanting to outrage anyone, you could argue that Hendrix was more original than Mozart!)


Well, obviously *you* could argue that.

Thanks for this. Best laugh I've had all day.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Mozart, Einstein etc were true greats but they had their day 
They could never meet the expectations that would be put upon them, think about child stars as an example.
Look forward not back for inspiration


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

Dustin said:


> You've failed. This upsets me.





CypressWillow said:


> Well, obviously *you* could argue that!


It's pretty accepted that Mozart wasn't so much 'original'... it's the wrong word. It's like saying Elvis was 'inimitable'. Clearly he wasn't!

You only have to listen to Haydn and his brother Michael, Handel, Schutz, Leopold Mozart, J C Bach, C.P.E Bach, Martini, and so on, and probably composers that have since been forgotten.

Okay, first let me change Hendrix to CPE Bach then, who made genuine innovations in orchestration and style, which Mozart gave him credit for. I think Mozart's genius was his imagination, his ability to pour out new melodic material that was particularly well crafted... but despite that, not terribly original in style or technique! That is, he used the same techniques as the aforementioned composers only he did it better (on the whole) and was more effective in his use of known conventions.

But many of the 'innovations' he is credited with ('sudden beginnings', piano part beginning before the orchestra, etc) were not original and can be found in the work of other/earlier composers, or else if they are they're pretty easy to arrive at with simple logic. (For example: "What do most composers do? They begin with an orchestral intro. Okay, I want to be original and engage the audience... so I'll NOT do that!")

Should I bother defending Hendrix in a classical forum, if many musicians are fixated on music as it is written down? Many classical listeners would describe Hendrix as 'noise', yet might be happy to listen to 'noise' compositions constructed by some cerebral European composer. You might be surprised how well respected Hendrix is by composers and musicians such as Zappa, Boulez, Gil Evans, Miles Davis (who said Hendrix had the quickest ear he'd witnessed).

Also, he seems to have had something 'in him' that in interesting in terms of genetics. His teacher said that he wanted a guitar so badly that it was 'damaging him psychologically'. When he eventually got one, he went to the music store strummed the guitars, then went home and tuned his from memory. He learned to play off his own back, from records, and though left-handed was somehow able to play a right-handed guitar the wrong-way (for him) which was upside-down too, etc.

So I mention this because classical musicians are so keen on the notion of innate talent, I wonder... if Mozart had been brought up in another musical tradition, do you think he would not have accepted it and gravitated towards classical?

I agree that Hendrix's blues-rooted style of music is completely different and many people are put off by things lack of tuning precision, etc, ...but that was often considered to add to the music than take away.

So on originality... where before Hendrix would you have heard the likes of Voodoo Chile, or (his version of) All Along the Watchtower...? That whole style and sound simply didn't exist... anywhere! It's a fact that you can not say about Mozart. (Sorry) But I'm not saying originality is everything either.






(Those interested in musicianship, just listen carefully to the intricate and rhythmically fluid guitar work (flutters, bends, etc) some of which is rather quiet during the verses.)



CypressWillow said:


> Thanks for this. Best laugh I've had all day.


Good, it wasn't meant to be deadly serious, and the rest of it is just a bit of of the cuff fodder to spark something interesting.


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

Haydn man said:


> Mozart, Einstein etc were true greats but they had their day
> They could never meet the expectations that would be put upon them, think about child stars as an example.
> Look forward not back for inspiration


True, but with children of known talent, someone might argue that the talent was 'watered down'. But I do wonder that if Leopold had been brought up by himself o) if he might also have been a genius, but I think personality has a lot to do with it. I find it hard to believe Einstein would not become brilliant at something. Isaac Newton and Nikola Tesla, however, it's hard not to think he had a defect that might be responsible. Newton was born premature, Tesla had hallucinations, and some kind of illness.

But then Van Gogh? Where on earth did that come from at such a late age?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Cool. a bit of it should be sent off to National Geographic's DNA ancestry program, the one that goes back millennia and shows those long ago ancestors no one remembers, like you may be a Caucasian north European now, but like many have found, they have a distinct and further remote ancestry, say, in a specific African pygmy tribe (as found out one strawberry blond, fair-haired, milk white-skinned Scotsman!)

This should be done simply because it would more than irritate tens of thousands of people... something I'm near certain Wolferl would have been up for


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Minona said:


> It's pretty accepted that Mozart wasn't so much 'original'... it's the wrong word. It's like saying Elvis was 'inimitable'. Clearly he wasn't!
> 
> You only have to listen to Haydn and his brother Michael, Handel, Schutz, Leopold Mozart, J C Bach, C.P.E Bach, Martini, and so on, and probably composers that have since been forgotten.
> 
> ...


Well I was halfway joking anyway and you do make some good points. I love Hendrix as well because blues guitar used to be my main interest so I even learned to play some of his stuff pretty well. Like you said, originality and quality of the work are two different things so what you said could definitely be argued.

So as a side note, I just think that as original as Hendrix was, Mozart's music is greater and more genius.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

It's an interesting OP. I often wonder it with tennis, if they cloned Gonzalez, Laver, Borg, Sampras and Nadal (okay, Federer, too) and grew them all under equal conditions, and they're the same age, would these clones have the same aptitude for the sport? And if so, what would the fifth set score in the final between Rafa and Pete be? 

But also, if you cloned two Nadal's, how would they face each other?

And going back, if you cloned Fulfie, would the clone think the same way as the original?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kieran said:


> It's an interesting OP. I often wonder it with tennis, if they cloned Gonzalez, Laver, Borg, Sampras and Nadal (okay, Federer, too) and grew them all under equal conditions, and they're the same age, would these clones have the same aptitude for the sport? And if so, what would the fifth set score in the final between Rafa and Pete be?
> 
> But also, if you cloned two Nadal's, how would they face each other?
> 
> And going back, if you cloned Fulfie, would the clone think the same way as the original?


Nadal, Fulfie and Wolfie, one day.... LOL.

Clones are initially going to be totally blank slates. More than boring, and needing all sorts of tending, rearing, teaching for the now prescribed ca. 18 years minimum. They may show an innate inherent aptitude, but where would be the rest of the more happenstance and circumstantial influences which would also make them obsessive and singularly focused enough to care, let alone be more than inclined to be competitive.

It is nearly as attractive a thought as tractor beams, until the reality sinks in


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

Well, we can sort of get an insight from identical twins separated at birth ...who are essentially clones of each other. They reveal there is some strong evidence for the 50% influence of genes on personality, thought patterns, preferences, etc. 

I don't think there are enough cases to know what extent this is true. Also, it could even depend on the 'specimens'. Perhaps some people are even genetically pre-dispositioned to be more adaptable to upbringing, more changeable, more like 'blank canvases', while others are stubbornly influenced by their genes ('strong personality'). Remember, even insects have complex instincts guiding them, so why not something as complex as a human?

Certainly things like hormone levels can be affected by genes but also by conditions in the womb.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Minona said:


> Well, we can sort of get an insight from identical twins separated at birth ...who are essentially clones of each other. They reveal there is some strong evidence for the 50% influence of genes on personality, thought patterns, preferences, etc.
> 
> I don't think there are enough cases to know what extent this is true. Also, it could even depend on the 'specimens'. Perhaps some people are even genetically pre-dispositioned to be more adaptable to upbringing, more changeable, more like 'blank canvases', while others are stubbornly influenced by their genes ('strong personality'). Remember, even insects have complex instincts guiding them, so why not something as complex as a human?
> 
> Certainly things like hormone levels can be affected by genes but also by conditions in the womb.


W.A.Mozart and W.B. Mozart are separated immediately after their birth. W.A. remains with Musician Dad, becomes the Mozart we know. W.B. gets placed with a barrel wright and his wife, who naturally bring their child up to become apprentice to his father's trade. 
W.B. we find, has some very parallel traits to W.A. Both are right-hand dominant, a bit anti-social, quick-minded, use the same brand of toothpaste, have similar tastes in dress (with the economic differences between family A and B determining much of what is actually bought and worn,) and they share some other identical idiosyncratic physical gestures and facial expressions.

W.B. does have an innate aptitude for music, and becomes a beloved amateur singer and mandolin player who, after work, plays in a collective band of amateurs who play in pubs and occasionally get hired for parties. His main repute when he is alive is as a good barrel maker who also happens to be a pretty damned good amateur pop musician. Other than as a barrel maker who was a good amateur musician, he is forgotten by all but his family within one generation after his death.

So, yeah


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

There have been cases where 'strength of intelligence' seems to have overwhelmed very ordinary circumstances. Isaac Newton was by all accounts, just clearly different from his family from the beginning on. He was in line to run the family farm, but his brother just saw how absurd it was and convinced the family to let him go to university.

Also, there's the case of Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss as the son of poor working-class illiterate parents. He was a child prodigy and there are many anecdotes about his precocity while a toddler. He made his first ground-breaking mathematical discoveries while still a teenager.

So it's possible that W.B.Mozart would have attended some kind of school and found an aptitude for something creative, perhaps design, architecture. He was good at maths and languages, so perhaps he would have become a writer, and a linguist. Who knows. I don't think he would necessarily be likely to remain a barrel-maker's son.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Semi-confirmed fact: Some hundred millions of people have a share of Genghis Khan's DNA!


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

Well, I think it's confirmed by how few people there were back then, compared to now, so if you imagine a pyramid of descendents, it's just extremely likely given how many offspring he had.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Minona said:


> There have been cases where 'strength of intelligence' seems to have overwhelmed very ordinary circumstances. Isaac Newton was by all accounts, just clearly different from his family from the beginning on. He was in line to run the family farm, but his brother just saw how absurd it was and convinced the family to let him go to university.
> 
> Also, there's the case of Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss as the son of poor working-class illiterate parents. He was a child prodigy and there are many anecdotes about his precocity while a toddler. He made his first ground-breaking mathematical discoveries while still a teenager.
> 
> So it's possible that W.B.Mozart would have attended some kind of school and found an aptitude for something creative, perhaps design, architecture. He was good at maths and languages, so perhaps he would have become a writer, and a linguist. Who knows. I don't think he would necessarily be likely to remain a barrel-maker's son.


Not bashing the optimism of your wishful thinking, but simply stating one of several ways it could have gone. Maybe WB only learned to read enough to keep the books, and was brought up in a way to quash a native curiosity which never then bloomed -- a scenario just as likely as your hypothetical scenario, or dozens of others 

As for the talent 'sport' within a given family or gene pool, that is a truth I like the fact of, and Philip Glass said it very well, "Talent can happen anywhere."


----------

