# Who Is / Was the Craziest Most Insane Composer of All Time



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Most Genius composers were/ are either somewhat crazy, totally crazy or even evil crazy. Who is your pick as the craziest- either musically/ or personally?

I'll start of by Nominating some:

Richard Wagner - In 1839 he was forced to flee Riga, Russia(money issues) then flee Germany because there was a warrant out for his arrest (revolt) etc affairs with married women and on and on...

Robert Schumann - attempted suicide, angelic visions / demonic visionsSchumann finally confined to a mental institution after he attempted suicide by throwing himself from a bridge into the Rhine River. Rescued by boatmen he asked to be taken to an asylum for the insane.

Alessandro Stradella - hired assassin took care of him

Smetana - Spent his last months in the Prague Insane Asylum

Hugo Wolf - Attempted to drown himself ended up in a insane asylum - seems a very familar theme

Mozart and Salieri ????

Peter Warlock - died of asphyxiation pic below:








Your turn.......


----------



## Mahlerian

Sorabji, definitely.

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

EDIT: Stockhausen also had his weird moments, claiming he was from Sirius, for example.


----------



## KenOC

My vote: Hans Rott, who wrote a popular first symphony. "Rott's mind snapped in October 1880, whilst on a train journey. He was reported to have threatened another passenger with a revolver, claiming that Brahms had filled the train with dynamite. Rott was committed to a mental hospital in 1881, where despite a brief recovery, he sank into depression. By the end of 1883 a diagnosis recorded 'hallucinatory insanity, persecution mania-recovery no longer to be expected.' He died of tuberculosis in 1884, aged only 25."


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Mahlerian said:


> Sorabji, definitely.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaikhosru_Shapurji_Sorabji
> 
> EDIT: Stockhausen also had his weird moments, claiming he was from Sirius, for example.


Interesting the occult, amoungst other things including Peter Warlock mmm


----------



## BurningDesire

I don't think its fair to count somebody as insane for believing in the occult. If you're gonna do that, every single religious composer needs to be thrown in there too.


----------



## ArtMusic

Brahms? He was really in love with Clara. Didn't marry her because of Robert even though he died. Dirty old geezer ... 

Bruckner was a bit strange too.

But they both wrote beautiful and great music.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

BurningDesire said:


> I don't think its fair to count somebody as insane for believing in the occult. If you're gonna do that, every single religious composer needs to be thrown in there too.


Agreed - except were it involves blood lust and virgins - Good god which religion am I refering too ??!! I'll leave that up to you to decide and your god(s), who ever that may be


----------



## aleazk

BurningDesire said:


> I don't think its fair to count somebody as insane for believing in the occult. If you're gonna do that, every single religious composer needs to be thrown in there too.


That's the reason why I "throw" religious _and_ people who believe in the "occult".


----------



## KenOC

aleazk said:


> That's the reason why I "throw" religious _and_ people who believe in the "occult".


You're insane only if your irrational convictions are unusual...


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> You're insane only if your irrational convictions are unusual...


You're insane only if you have irrational convictions...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

aleazk said:


> You're insane only if you have irrational convictions...


I think I get it now- but wait I have a thought "There is an idea, the basis of an internal structure, expanded and split into different shapes or groups of sound constantly changing in shape, direction, and speed, attracted and repulsed by various forces."
I'm I crazy too
Cognitive therapy may help........


----------



## aleazk

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I think I get it now- but wait I have a thought "There is an idea, the basis of an internal structure, expanded and split into different shapes or groups of sound constantly changing in shape, direction, and speed, attracted and repulsed by various forces."
> I'm I crazy too
> Cognitive therapy may help........


But that's not irrational, it's just a visualization, a visual metaphor, of a musical idea, it's subjective by nature, although it may be or not be understood in a more direct way. Art is not irrational, it is just art. Irrational would be, for example, saying that there's a god who created the world without giving any philosophical or scientific support for that affirmation.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

aleazk said:


> But that's not irrational, it's just a visualization, a visual metaphor, of a musical idea, it's subjective by nature, although it may be or not be understood in a more direct way. Art is not irrational, it is just art, rational thinking is not a central thing. Irrational would be, for example, saying that there's a god who created the world without giving any philosophical or scientific support for that affirmation.


Very good point you make - and I course I will agreed with it - why wouldn't I, unless I was crazy. 
Note the quote I'm made was not from my current reincarnated form but from the original Edgard Varese (thought i'd better share that).


----------



## aleazk

What about Carlo Gesualdo and his famous murders?.


----------



## clavichorder

aleazk said:


> You're insane only if you have irrational convictions...


Then everybody is by definition insane. There, is that so bad?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

aleazk said:


> What about Carlo Gesualdo and his famous murders?.


Good one - now the list is growing

You mean Gesualdo da Venosa (Venosa, 8 March 1566 - Gesualdo, 8 September 1613), Prince of Venosa and Count of Conza, was an Italian nobleman, lutenist, composer, and *murderer*
Gesualdo returned to the palace, caught them in flagrante delicto and murdered them both in their bed - tasty indeed!


----------



## clavichorder

Berlioz was probably somewhat insane, but mostly just a wild man and a narcissist. And yet I still think he must have been an awesome person.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

clavichorder said:


> Berlioz was probably somewhat insane, but mostly just a wild man and a narcissist. And yet I still think he must have been an awesome person.


Hmmmm Hector Berlioz11 December 1803 - 8 March 1869) French Romantic composer, (so far so good- am I gameto read any further) - He became proficient at guitar, flageolet and flute (seems safe so far)- While yet at age 12, as recalled in his Mémoires, he experienced his first passion for a woman (more interesting but not insane), by age twelve he had learned to read Virgil in Latin and translate it into French under his father's tutelage (getting a bit crazy I suppose), Despite his parents' disapproval, in 1824 he formally abandoned his medical studiesto pursue a career in music (hmm trouble brewing musics always spells trouble mm), He immediately became infatuated by both actress and playwright (told you music was trouble), I was finishing my cantata when the revolution broke out (more trouble music again), I dashed off the final pages of my orchestral score to the sound of stray bullets coming over the roofs and pattering on the wall outside my window (mmmmm), 
and finally 
During his stay in Italy, he received a letter from the mother of his fiancée informing him that she had called off their engagement. Instead her daughter was to marry Camille Pleyel (son of Ignaz Pleyel), a rich piano manufacturer. Enraged, Berlioz decided to return to Paris and take revenge on Pleyel, his fiancée, and her mother by killing all three of them. He created an elaborate plan, going so far as to purchase a dress, wig and hat with a veil (with which he was to disguise himself as a woman in order to gain entry to their home (that proves it music is evil- or causes insanity and he didnt even go thru with this - why even tell anyone later!!)
Not going to reveal how this ends you'll need to read for yourselves....


----------



## KenOC

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> You mean Gesualdo da Venosa (Venosa, 8 March 1566 - Gesualdo, 8 September 1613), Prince of Venosa and Count of Conza, was an Italian nobleman, lutenist, composer, and *murderer*
> Gesualdo returned to the palace, caught them in flagrante delicto and murdered them both in their bed - tasty indeed!


Any fan of Gesualdo should watch Werner Herzog's "Death in Five Voices," a documentary. Well, really a documentary? With Herzog, it's sometimes difficult to tell...

More recently Herzog plays a deadeyed killer in "Jack Reacher" and has gotten some very good reviews for his role.


----------



## moody

Scriabin was nutty for sure.


----------



## DrKilroy

Do we mean crazy/insane in medical terms? What about Erik Satie? Perhaps he was not mental, but...

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Weston

What about Tchaikovsky who allegedly held his own head while conducting for fear it would fall off? Do I have this story correct?

Of course some of this behavior is probably considered eccentric, not necessarily insane.


----------



## moody

ArtMusic said:


> Brahms? He was really in love with Clara. Didn't marry her because of Robert even though he died. Dirty old geezer ...
> 
> Bruckner was a bit strange too.
> 
> But they both wrote beautiful and great music.


I would have thought that Brahms was extremely uncrazy---is that a word?


----------



## Mahlerian

BurningDesire said:


> I don't think its fair to count somebody as insane for believing in the occult. If you're gonna do that, every single religious composer needs to be thrown in there too.


That wasn't even what I had in mind when I chose Sorabji. He was an all-around eccentric, in his compositions and in his withdrawing his compositions from the public eye.


----------



## tdc

Didn't Mahler and Schoenberg both have some rather odd superstitions about numbers?


----------



## matsoljare

>ctrl-F
>no Percy Grainger


----------



## Arsakes

Liszt, for caring too much for demons, the dead. Still I like his works.

Also all composers who admire Nietzsche.

And Schoenberg's and his students Heresy against sane music put him among crazy composers!

Certainly many heavy rock and metal composers since 1970s.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> Didn't Mahler and Schoenberg both have some rather odd superstitions about numbers?


I seem to remember that Schoenberg had triskaidekaphobia. But he was evidently less fearful of 12...

PS -- Percy was a fine man, and he loved his mother.


----------



## Arsakes

Robert Schumann was less insane compared to those I mentioned above; because voluntary madness is worse than the involuntary one.


----------



## palJacky

If only Peter Warlock's music was half as interesting as Peter Warlock the man.

keep in mind the olds saying:
"they don't lock you up for BEING crazy, they lock you up for ACTING crazy"


----------



## PetrB

Schumann, Rott, Smetena were 'certifiable,' -- Wolff, it is almost certain the disturbance was due to syphilis, resulting in madness, where with Schumann it seems that more than syphilis was in his genetic disposition to insanity.

Syphilis was very common up through the early 1900's and later. In the 1800's, large numbers of the populace were affected, the vast majority not 'artists.' It is the famous or notorious from those eras who had syphilis that we hear about, not the huge numbers of 'everyone else.'

So common was it to have the disease that Syphilis emerges as highly topical in works from the era. In Ibsen's 'A Doll's House,' (1879) the character Dr. Rank has congenital syphilis. Syphilis is the central underlying theme of the plot silently affecting the dramatis personae of Arthur Schnitzler's play, "Reigen," (1897, privately printed in 1900) made into a film in 1950 by Max Ophuls, (Fr. Title 'La Ronde.') Author Isak Dinesen (Karen Blixen 1885 - 1962) after treatment, still suffered from excruciating pain in her spine for her entire life as aftermath to having had syphilis.

I think Syphilis / mental condition, whether documented or not, might account for some of those 'crazier' composers of the romantic era, or later.

'Eccentric,' though, is not barking mad as in "cart them away to Bedlam 'mad.'" Scriabin had a messianic complex, while (dancer) Nijinsky was certifiably schizophrenic -- huge difference.

_*There is often a romanticized glamorization about eccentricity, madness,*_ smaller ticks like OCD, ADHD, Tourettes, and all the other larger and smaller 'tics,' _*as attached to 'artists' and 'being creative.'*_

For every category of mental disturbance, from certifiable schizophrenic to the lesser disorders, there are far many more people who have those conditions who are "average," non-genius, non-creative than there are those few giants in the arts.

What is beyond irresponsible about putting the eccentricities or 'madness' front and center regarding creativity genius, is it allows many with those disorders to think they are 'creative geniuses' and use that argument as a rationale to not do anything about what is, after all, a condition which needs some 'fixing.' It allows 'normal' people to assume that 'all artists are crazy,' while most artists are, of course, not 

O.C.D, ADHD, Tourettes syndrome, Asbergers, and all those other mental tics did not 'create' genius, but rather, *those geniuses who happened to have the burdens of those disorders still managed to produce coherent works despite those disorders*.


----------



## BurningDesire

Arsakes said:


> Certainly many heavy rock and metal composers since 1970s.


Care to name any? Or is this just based off of stereotypes and no real basis in reality?


----------



## Mahlerian

Arsakes said:


> Also all composers who admire Nietzsche.


You realize this includes the younger Mahler, right?



Arsakes said:


> And Schoenberg's and his students Heresy against sane music put him among crazy composers!


I'll let James Huneker, no friend of the man, who wrote a book called Ivory Apes and Peacocks (1917), take care of that.

"I fear and dislike the music of Arnold Schoenberg....One man, a sane person, was positively purple with rage (evidently he had paid for his seat), and swore that the composer was verruckt....To call him 'crazy', is merely amusing. No man is less crazy, few men are so conscious of what they are doing, and few modern composers boast such a faculty of attention."

His book is also severely dated by the following:
"a contemporary of Debussy, and an equally gifted musician[!], Martin Loeffler, was experimenting before Debussy himself in a dark but delectable harmonic region."



BurningDesire said:


> Care to name any? Or is this just based off of stereotypes and no real basis in reality?


Given the above, I'd assume so.


----------



## Sid James

Weston said:


> What about Tchaikovsky who allegedly held his own head while conducting for fear it would fall off? Do I have this story correct?
> 
> Of course some of this behavior is probably considered eccentric, not necessarily insane.


Yes, its said he did do that, but I don't know the exact reason. In any case, there is a photo and statue the shows him with that pose. Maybe he just liked to do it, it was a habit?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyC149oFhqLlhJJIkZN_v3BgzY-gTEVCiy9p2mZ_lG9prhdhcd9g

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKl1-2EF7KeLj1dRHqXJipgqxLj1fz6owH5mO1Ts9N6RsIzn-YNNyPtsdq

But of course as we know, his life had a lot of emotional turmoil, esp. the time he tried to committ suicide when he married to try and cover his homosexuality. It was a disaster. He ended up in winter wading in the freezing cold river, he wanted to catch pneumonia, but ended up not even getting a cold!

But so many composers suffered from depression - Beethoven, Rachmaninov, Sibelius easily come to mind. But its not insanity, its not losing your mind totally or nearly.

In terms of eccentrics, I think people like Satie and Grainger can be described as that. But let's face it, that time (100 years back) was a very conservative/rigid system in many ways. It was intolerant, overall, of diversity or people not conforming to so called 'normality.' Well, as we know, many events of the 20th century proved how so called 'normality' was just a smoke screen for various types of repression.

But I would say Scriabin had this Messianic complex. But so did many others. Call it megalomania if you will. Wagner, yes. Even Schoenberg in his younger years. They all had various claims that their music would do great things, change the world. But again, subsequent events tell me that if anything, music didn't live up to any of those hopes and aspirations.

I would say that *Giacinto Scelsi,* who was very much a recluse. He had aristocratic lineage and spent years (decades?) holed up in some castle. Some say he would play the same note on the piano hour after hour. He was also hospitalised for some psychiatric disorder. & the music I've heard by him reflects this in some ways, its just wierd and quite different to other things of the time (mid 20th century). Some see him as a precursor to things like minimalism & trends in avant-garde, etc. A visionary (many composers who where 'characters' where that, undobutedly).


----------



## Sid James

PetrB said:


> ...
> O.C.D, ADHD, Tourettes syndrome, Asbergers, and all those other mental tics did not 'create' genius, but rather, *those geniuses who happened to have the burdens of those disorders still managed to produce coherent works despite those disorders*.


I agree with that. Just like with physical illness, there are periods in psychological illnesses of 'remission.' Schumann had many periods when he was coherent and lucid and able to compose. Maybe that's why he did things in 'bursts.' Eg. the year he did the majority of his great chamber works (I think it was in the 1840's, 1842?). Of course, back then, psychology being in its infancy as a science, people did not understand this. I know Brahms and Joachim worked to prevent the premiere of Schumann's violin concerto after his death. They said it was the ramblings of a madman, they wanted to protect his reputation as a composer. They thought they where doing him a favour. Given hindsight, they where wrong, but I can understand how at that time they saw psychological problems differently. There was a lot of stigma and it was a taboo topic. So they shoved it under the carpet. That said, both those guys loved Schumann and they did what they thought was good for his legacy. I think that violin concerto was only premiered in the 20th century, long after even Brahms & Joachim where long dead. Subsequent generations see this in a different, more informed light, than they did.


----------



## KenOC

Sid, thanks for that! I had no idea. Checked wiki -- Georg Kulenkampff gave the first performance on 26 November 1937 with the Berlin Philharmonic.

Amazing.


----------



## Crudblud

BurningDesire said:


> based off of stereotypes and no real basis in reality


You were expecting something else from Arsakes?


----------



## Weston

BurningDesire said:


> Care to name any? Or is this just based off of stereotypes and no real basis in reality?


I get a little touchy about this subject too. What bothers me when I watch old concerts on YouTube is the more frenetic or flamboyant performances are labled as being on drugs -- the eternally sober Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull comes to mind because of his insane stage presence back in the day. Whereas those who really did a lot of drugs could scarecely move on stage.

So insane stage antics is no indication of insanity or of drug use. It was just the Monty Pythonesque showmanship of the day, which I daresay is sorely lacking in today's performers.


----------



## Arsakes

Pfft.. 'I' create the stereotypes!

And on the contrary of what you think I've studied enough to understand and therefore investigate the influences of something/someone over those who are influenced individually. ... finally realized some stereotypes are actually true.

Also to add something interesting to this thread:

"There was never a genius without a tincture of madness." -Aristotle


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Arsakes said:


> Pfft.. 'I' create the stereotypes!
> 
> And on the contrary of what you think I've studied enough to understand and therefore investigate the influences of something/someone over those who are influenced individually. ... finally realized some stereotypes are actually true.
> 
> Also to add something interesting to this thread:
> 
> "There was never a genius without a tincture of madness." -Aristotle


Touche'
There is an element of madness in muso and heavy metal/ rock are now better worse than say opera singers- Now there is a Hole (band name of crazies too) new line of craziness etc
Anyway- without crazy rock bands there would have been no Spinal Tap and we cant have that .......


----------



## clavichorder

PetrB said:


> O.C.D, ADHD, Tourettes syndrome, Asbergers, and all those other mental tics did not 'create' genius, but rather, *those geniuses who happened to have the burdens of those disorders still managed to produce coherent works despite those disorders*.


There is something to be said for this because people do get annoying misconceptions about creative originality and aspergers. No, you don't get to be a genius just because a psychiatrist gave you a label.

However, I do believe the disorder can positively impact a career like composition since there will be difficulties and other areas. These disorders tend to make ones mind specialize. They might enhance genius where it already is if worked with properly, or even make genius out of more raw material, though as you said, this happens way less than so many people seem to think.

To learn to cope with cognitive disorders and mental illness, and even thrive, will make you a less common kind of individual. If you rise to success despite being a cognitive or emotional "minority,"(without necessarily being a minority in that you are just smart), you will have an edge.

Another perspective: I am of the opinion that if we were to be ourselves a little more, or didn't lose ourselves so much from birth, we'd all be a little eccentric by societal standards. Some genius's, having the abilities and passions they do, didn't necessarily conform as much because it seemed less of a survival need for them, or they put their obssession before that.

ADHD and other disorders are often not genius linked inherently at all, you are right, just developmental issues or learning disabilities. First part of my post suggested that if one really manages well, they are much more likely to be unique and individualistic. There is the reverse. Someone is really brilliant or strongly abled in a few cognitive processes, and other things are less needed when younger. Hard to really say which is the case for most.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think that The Mormon Tabernacle Choir are all insane, every one of them. But they're in Utah, so we can't prove it.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Mormon Tabernacle Choir - Very good point you raise and a high billing for the list.

"Die heutigen Komponisten weigern, zu sterben. Sie haben die Notwendigkeit zusammenschließen und kämpfen für das Recht jedes einzelnen auf einen fairen und freien Präsentation seiner Arbeit zu sichern realisiert"


----------



## Vaneyes

Okay, we've settled that. Now, for the most evil. Stay tuned for that thread.


----------



## aleazk

clavichorder said:


> There is something to be said for this because people do get annoying misconceptions about creative originality and aspergers. No, you don't get to be a genius just because a psychiatrist gave you a label.
> 
> However, I do believe the disorder can positively impact a career like composition since there will be difficulties and other areas. These disorders tend to make ones mind specialize. They might enhance genius where it already is if worked with properly, or even make genius out of more raw material, though as you said, this happens way less than so many people seem to think.
> 
> To learn to cope with cognitive disorders and mental illness, and even thrive, will make you a less common kind of individual. If you rise to success despite being a cognitive or emotional "minority,"(without necessarily being a minority in that you are just smart), you will have an edge.
> 
> Another perspective: I am of the opinion that if we were to be ourselves a little more, or didn't lose ourselves so much from birth, we'd all be a little eccentric by societal standards. Some genius's, having the abilities and passions they do, didn't necessarily conform as much because it seemed less of a survival need for them, or they put their obssession before that.
> 
> ADHD and other disorders are often not genius linked inherently at all, you are right, just developmental issues or learning disabilities. First part of my post suggested that if one really manages well, they are much more likely to be unique and individualistic. There is the reverse. Someone is really brilliant or strongly abled in a few cognitive processes, and other things are less needed when younger. Hard to really say which is the case for most.


I was going to make a comment in similar lines. Indeed, a mental disorder is not going to make you a genius, and, also, it's not a necessary condition for being one. But, if you are a creative person, a moderated obsessive disorder can help when writing a piece, in the sense of improving it once it is composed, because of the constant revision. In my experience, when I was studying some subject in physics, solving a problem, etc., there were times when I had some sensation that something was wrong, but I wasn't able to tell exactly what was, it was just a feeling. It's a very recursive thing, related to some extent to an obsessive behavior. The interesting thing is that, in some occasions, indeed something was wrong, in very subtle points I mean, not something superficial, and I don't know if I would have discovered the mistake if I had not listened to that obsessive thought about something being wrong. The mind and its processes can be a very complex thing, often the way it works is not at all "linear" and of easy follow-up. Even reading the original papers of the great scientists, you can see that the way in which they came up with their great ideas can be very complicated. For example, Max Planck discovered the correct black body distribution by a very complex reasoning using thermodynamics and ad-hoc assumptions about the quantization of energy. Today, that reasoning is not taught in the courses about the subject, instead, the distribution can be easily and elegantly derived from considerations using the Bose-Einstein statistical distribution for a photon gas in thermal equilibrium, but this is a development which appeared twenty years later after Planck's original discovery, and indeed instigated by Planck's work. Some even say that Planck's original reasoning is not completely correct, that some of the steps are wrong, that it was a very, very clever "guess" instead.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

aleazk said:


> I was going to make a comment in similar lines. Indeed, a mental disorder is not going to make you a genius, and, also, it's not a necessary condition for being one. But, if you are a creative person, a moderated obsessive disorder can help when writing a piece, in the sense of improving it once it is composed, because of the constant revision. In my experience, when I was studying some subject in physics, solving a problem, etc., there were times when I had some sensation that something was wrong, but I wasn't able to tell exactly what was, it was just a feeling. It's a very recursive thing, related to some extent to an obsessive behavior. The interesting thing is that, in some occasions, indeed something was wrong, in very subtle points I mean, not something superficial, and I don't know if I would have discovered the mistake if I didn't listened to that obsessive thought about something being wrong. The mind and his processes can be a very complex thing, often the way it works is not at all "linear" and of easy follow-up. Even reading the original papers of the great scientists, you can see that the way in which they came up with their great ideas can be very complicated. For example, Max Planck discovered the correct black body distribution by a very complex reasoning using thermodynamics and ad-hoc assumptions about the quantization of energy. Today, that reasoning is not taught in the courses about the subject, instead, the distribution can be easily and elegantly derived from considerations using the Bose-Einstein statistical distribution for a photon gas in thermal equilibrium, but this is a development which appeared twenty years later after Planck's original discovery, and indeed instigated by Planck's work. Some even say that Planck's original reasoning is not completely correct, that some of the steps are wrong, that it was a very, very clever "guess" instead.


So I guess I'm out of luck there then - there goes my composition career!!!


----------



## clavichorder

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> So I guess I'm out of luck there then - there goes my composition career!!!
> View attachment 11926


Wait, I'm confused? Where do you pull this statement, humorous or otherwise, and what does Varese have to do with it?


----------



## PetrB

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> So I guess I'm out of luck there then - there goes my composition career!!!
> View attachment 11926


Love the hair -- looks like ideas are just exploding out of that head.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

clavichorder said:


> Wait, I'm confused? Where do you pull this statement, humorous or otherwise, and what does Varese have to do with it?


Ah let me explain then, you see I'm Eddie (Edgard RU Kidding) Varese reincarnated, came as a surprise to me too.

Then there is all the business of the compositions being destroyed, that I wrote in Europe, including Bourgogne one- which I destroyed in a fit of depression, that I still can't remember. 
It all goes back to when I developed a strong attachment to my maternal grandfather, before I was reclaimed by my parents in the late 1880s- unsettled me I think.
So in summary, if being crazy does not help me being a composer (in my reincarnated form), as it did previously - I might just give up now........ Hope that clarifies the present situation.......

PS
I'm looking for a good fingerboard Theremin If you know where I could find one - and a clever Russian electronic wizz would be good too......


----------



## aleazk

I think that in comparison with other crazy composers, like those mentioned in this thread, Varèse was quite lucid, I would say extremely lucid. The man was a visionary and genius who worked in purely rational terms. I think every of his movements were highly planned and his ideas were very clear for him. That's not the crazy genius stereotype. Eccentric?, perhaps, but that's different.


----------



## ArtMusic

Stockhausen was quite weird. Both the person and his music. But weird is good.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

PetrB said:


> Love the hair -- looks like ideas are just exploding out of that head.


Well thank you - I think it the time I spend with Theremin's and yes it does help those ideas explode


----------



## aleazk

clavichorder said:


> Then everybody is by definition insane. There, is that so bad?


lol, well, I only gave the definition, I didn't said that people is not insane. In fact, since the majority of the world population is religious, I would say they are crazy indeed.


----------



## clavichorder

aleazk said:


> lol, well, I only gave the definition, I didn't said that people is not insane. In fact, since the majority of the world population is religious, I would say they are crazy indeed.


Well, in strictly rational terms, since I am more on the rational side myself, I agree that religious people are a little wonky. However, I do believe there is a highly justifiable "insanity" in that religious people are often either traditionally or just not unusually unconventionally minded folks responding to their environment.

And sometimes they are highly emotional, intelligent(the type that are smart but put their emotions before their analytical brain), and intense people who are desperate and sincere in trying to understand the world.

I am sort of stubbornly agnostic, that's all. However, I will have much more in common with an atheist on average, than with a religious individual. Religious folks who are intelligent provide an interesting contrast to my perspective. Apathetically agnostic people are boring to talk to about this though, but I'm not always into talking about it either, lol.

Btw: I apologize that I have not yet given your post in the other thread the due attention it deserves.


----------



## aleazk

clavichorder said:


> And sometimes they are highly emotional, intelligent(the type that are smart but put their emotions before their analytical brain), and intense people who are desperate and sincere in trying to understand the world.


Well, but that's not a justification. I desperately and sincerely try to understand the world, and it is for that reason I don't believe in the first thing they say to me (and even more if they say to me that I must believe that without evidence!, what the heck is that?!). I go and study the tons of physics books which contain the thousand of brilliant and _confirme_d ideas of others in the past, brilliant others, not charlatans. Of course, it takes years, it is not as easy as believe just for believe in something.


----------



## neoshredder

aleazk said:


> Well, but that's not a justification. I desperately and sincerely try to understand the world, and it is for that reason I don't believe in the first thing they say to me (and even more if they say to me that I must believe that without evidence!, what the heck is that?!). I go and study the tons of physics books which contain the thousand of brilliant and _confirme_d ideas of others in the past, brilliant others, not charlatans. Of course, it takes years, it is not as easy as believe just for believe in something.


There's a whole book about it which explains things in detail. Is that not enough? Sorry I try to avoid these topics but it is just too tempting.


----------



## aleazk

neoshredder said:


> There's a whole book about it which explains things in detail. Is that not enough? Sorry I try to avoid these topics but it is just too tempting.


Well, "explains".


----------



## arpeggio

*Rued Langgaard*

Considering his eccentric behavior I am surprised no one has mentioned Rued Langgaard.


----------



## DeepR

I embrace these composers in all their weirdness, craziness and insanity!  Their obsessions and ideas were at the root of their creativity. I guess, some of them had to be weird, or had to become weirder and weirder, in order to be and stay creative. I'm much more "forgiving" to weird composers than I'd be to the average weird person (lol, average weird)  Well, except when they start to harm or even murder people...


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> Well, but that's not a justification. I desperately and sincerely try to understand the world, and it is for that reason I don't believe in the first thing they say to me (and even more if they say to me that I must believe that without evidence!, what the heck is that?!). I go and study the tons of physics books which contain the thousand of brilliant and _confirme_d ideas of others in the past, brilliant others, not charlatans. Of course, it takes years, it is not as easy as believe just for believe in something.


You can read all the physics books in the world and they will not tell you why the world is like it is. The physicists who took part in the Manhattan Project were all brilliant men but they blithely went ahead and created the monster. Then they realised: 'I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.' (Oppenheimer) Some of them even left the study of physics as they couldn't cope with what they had created.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> You can read all the physics books in the world and they will not tell you why the world is like it is. The physicists who took part in the Manhattan Project were all brilliant men but they blithely went ahead and created the monster. Then they realised: 'I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.' (Oppenheimer) Some of them even left the study of physics as they couldn't cope with what they had created.


Many who left the Manhattan Project simply wanted to get away from their war work as engineers and return to academia and research. Some (Teller for instance) embraced weapon-making enthusiastically and went on to conceive, with Ulam, the hydrogen bomb. A fascinating and detailed history of the era is Rhodes's "The Making of the Atomic Bomb."


----------



## Ravndal

PetrB said:


> Love the hair -- looks like ideas are just exploding out of that head.


Haha. Congrats you got beer out trough my nose. Magician!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

DeepR said:


> I embrace these composers in all their weirdness, craziness and insanity!  Their obsessions and ideas were at the root of their creativity. I guess, some of them had to be weird, or had to become weirder and weirder, in order to be and stay creative. I'm much more "forgiving" to weird composers than I'd be to the average weird person (lol, average weird)  Well, except when they start to harm or even murder people...


Very true - excellent point my make and without which we would not have this thread for one- and Music would be very boring without weirdness


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> Many who left the Manhattan Project simply wanted to get away from their war work as engineers and return to academia and research. Some (Teller for instance) embraced weapon-making enthusiastically and went on to conceive, with Ulam, the hydrogen bomb. A fascinating and detailed history of the era is Rhodes's "The Making of the Atomic Bomb."


Sticking up for the Aussie here' as they was one of us in the project also Mark Oliphant - Oliphant's was the one who made the american physicists aware of the potential power of an atomic bomb- who later became a prominent Aussie political figure


----------



## KenOC

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Sticking up for the Aussie here' as they was one of us in the project also Mark Oliphant - Oliphant's was the one who made the american physicists aware of the potential power of an atomic bomb- who later became a prominent Aussie political figure


Oliphant's technical work was essential, but his political work was crucial. He almost single-handedlly moved the Uranium Project out from under the lethargic Lyman Briggs.

From Wiki: "Oliphant "came to a meeting", Allison recalls, "and said 'bomb' in no uncertain terms. He told us we must concentrate every effort on the bomb, and said we had no right to work on power plants or anything but the bomb. The bomb would cost 25 million dollars, he said, and Britain did not have the money or the manpower, so it was up to us." Allison was surprised that Briggs had kept the committee so in the dark. Oliphant next visited his friends Ernest Lawrence, James Conant, and Enrico Fermi to explain the urgency."

It worked, and there was a reogranization -- things moved smartly from there.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

arpeggio said:


> Considering his eccentric behavior I am surprised no one has mentioned Rued Langgaard.


mmm another for the list hey- lets see (does he make the cut)- (28 July 1893 - 10 July 1952) Langgaard's first compositions, 2 piano pieces and 2 songs, were published when he was 13 (mmmm) Although Langgaard was given a state grant from the age of 30, his works and job applications were almost continually rejected by the establishment (thats gotta hurt the ego). Just shy of his 59th birthday, Rued Langgaard died in Ribe, still unrecognized as a composer (bummer). His unorthodox style and sense of drama extended to the titles of his compositions (mmmm), during Langgaard's lifetime and lay dormant for almost 50 years before being rediscovered. When it was rediscovered in the late 1960s, it was considered remarkably modern and reflective of the pathfinding style in which Langgaard composed. (no sorry no murdering mayhem here or much sign of insanity at all - I'm afraid - his music sounds very interesting but unless someone can find something crazy here - Rued does not make the cut...


----------



## Sid James

PetrB said:


> Schumann, Rott, Smetena were 'certifiable,' -- Wolff, it is almost certain the disturbance was due to syphilis, resulting in madness, where with Schumann it seems that more than syphilis was in his genetic disposition to insanity.
> 
> ...


Re Smetana, his 2nd string quartet is an indicator of what he'd been reduced to by his condition. He was barely able to concentrate for a minute or two, let alone more time than that needed for composition. As a result, this is a very fragmented work. Apparently Schoenberg admired it, but I think maybe for different reasons - eg. that its rare for a 19th century piece to be like this, whereas in the 20th century, this came to be considered 'normal.' Smetana had some problem with his hearing in addition to his phsychiatric condition. Some say he was going deaf, but in any case, he was very distressed.

In terms of this, it is interesting how different composers who where deaf had different reactions to it. We know of Beethoven, but another one was Faure, who apparently took it in a quite stoical way. He kind of accepted it & was able to live with it more than the other two, as far as I know.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Many who left the Manhattan Project simply wanted to get away from their war work as engineers and return to academia and research. Some (Teller for instance) embraced weapon-making enthusiastically and went on to conceive, with Ulam, the hydrogen bomb. A fascinating and detailed history of the era is Rhodes's "The Making of the Atomic Bomb."


Many left physics because they saw what they had done. Read the book 'Atomic' by Jim Baggott. He recounts a young man who was involved in the Manhattan Project vomiting in the bushes after the news of how Many people were killed in the two bombings.


----------



## aleazk

DavidA said:


> Many left physics because they saw what they had done.


Well, that's their issue. I'm not going to use physics for building weapons, I'm going to use it for understand the physical world.


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> Well, that's their issue. I'm not going to use physics for building weapons, I'm going to use it for understand the physical world.


Exactly! Physics is about understanding the physical world. It cannot teach us why we are here nor can it teach us morality. But those physicists who worked on the Manhatten Project were also trying to understand the physical world. And so was Einstein when he discovered the mass-energy equation which made Hiroshima possible. The problem is scientists often do not see the implications of where their research might lead.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

A good discussion but I would much rather talk about crazy muso's

"There is an idea, the basis of an internal structure, expanded and split into different shapes or groups of sound constantly changing in shape, direction, and speed, attracted and repulsed by various forces"


----------



## clavichorder

I would hope that if this were a poll, Scriabin would be winning.


----------



## aleazk

DavidA said:


> Exactly! Physics is about understanding the physical world. It cannot teach us why we are here nor can it teach us morality. But those physicists who worked on the Manhatten Project were also trying to understand the physical world. And so was Einstein when he discovered the mass-energy equation which made Hiroshima possible. The problem is scientists often do not see the implications of where their research might lead.


"It cannot teach us why we are here", actually, that's highly debatable. We _are_ part of the physical world after all... I think science, i.e., physics, chemistry, biology, etc., will reach an answer for that at some point. For instance, physics has shown us that the universe had a beginning. Biology is studying the processes by which self-replicating molecules can arise in certain contexts similar to those which existed in the primitive Earth. You are idealizing human beings, which are, after all, material entities, composed of ordinary elements like water, carbon, etc, and, of course, because of that, ruled by the laws of science.
"And so was Einstein when he discovered the mass-energy equation which made Hiroshima possible. The problem is scientists often do not see the implications of where their research might lead.", so... Einstein should have quitted his investigation because of the possible consequences it may have in bad hands?.
"But those physicists who worked on the Manhatten Project were also trying to understand the physical world.", errr... _no_, as you have said, most of the physics was already known, they were trying to use it for building weapons, which is a very different thing. And, concerning the ethical dilemma, that's their issue, not mine, they have used the knowledge for building bombs and for killing people, not me. You can't make generalizations to all science based on the acts of only a group of people who is devoted to it.


----------



## KenOC

Strongly suggest that those with facile moral objections to development of these weapons read Paul Fussell's essay, "Thank God for the Atom Bomb." You have Alternative A and Alternative B. Count the dead in each case, not only US but Japanese.


----------



## arpeggio

*Murphy's Three Laws Of Science*

Murphy's three laws of science:

If it wiggles, it is biology.
It it stinks, it is chemistry.
If it does not work, it is physics.


----------



## Crudblud

KenOC said:


> Strongly suggest that those with facile moral objections to development of these weapons read Paul Fussell's essay, "Thank God for the Atom Bomb." You have Alternative A and Alternative B. Count the dead in each case, not only US but Japanese.


Just so we're clear; are you suggesting that the mass slaughter of innocent civilians can be justified?


----------



## KenOC

Crudblud said:


> Just so we're clear; are you suggesting that the mass slaughter of innocent civilians can be justified?


You evidently didn't read the essay! However, not being a moralist, I don't know about "justified." But if you consider the needless waste of human lives as inefficient, the use of atomic weapons was certainly justified.

First, people tend to overlook that the recent firebombings of Japanese cities had already claimed far more victims than the 200,000 who died (5-year toll) in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Tokyo alone, 97,000 were killed in a single B-29 raid. And Nanjing should be mentioned, where 250+ thousand people were massacred by the Japanese using lower-tech methods.

But back to the atomic bombs. Americans were massing for a ground invasion of Japan ("Operation Downfall"). The Japanese were organizing civilians to resist, using rifles, sharpened spears, even stones. There was no question of their dedication.

"The Americans were alarmed by the Japanese build up, which was accurately tracked through Ultra intelligence. United States Secretary of War Henry Lewis Stimson was sufficiently concerned about high American estimates of probable casualties to commission his own study by Quincy Wright and William Shockley. Wright and Shockley spoke with Colonels James McCormack and Dean Rusk, and examined casualty forecasts by Michael DeBakey and Gilbert Beebe. Wright and Shockley estimated the invading Allies would suffer between 1.7 and 4 million casualties in such a scenario, of whom between 400,000 and 800,000 would be dead, while Japanese casualties would have been around 5 to 10 million." [Wiki]

Using midpoints all around, casualties from an invasion were estimated at: Japan, 7.5 million; US, 2.8 million.

The two atomic bombs generated total Japanese casualties of about 400 thousand, by doubling the death counts -- Rhodes states that the death rate among casualties in both cities was an extraordinary 54%.

So the bombs prevented 7.1 million Japanese casualties and 2.8 million US casualties. They would seem to have brought the greater benefit to Japan.


----------



## Ramako

I see the atom bomb as a good thing in the context of WWII, for the reasons KenOC points out. War is nasty though and I can't say anything about doing such things on a moral level.

The atom bomb could be argued to be one of the best inventions of the 20th century, in fact, since it was such a strong deterrent to war.

However it seems to me that nuclear war is probably in the end inevitable and so in the long run it might well be a very very bad thing.


----------



## arpeggio

*War is h*ll*

My late father was a major in the Marine Corps and a veteran of the war in the Pacific. In 1945 he was assigned to the staff that was involved in planning Operation Olympic and Coronet, the final invasion of Japan. The casualty figures quoted above agree with the figures my dad told me. He stated that they secured 750,000caskets to deal with the estimate KIA.

My dad was convinced that he would not have survived the campaign. When they heard about the bomb, they were happy that they would not have to invade. My dad was a veteran of Guadalcanal and Saipan. He saw enough death and he had demons that plagued him the rest of his life.

Now can we drop this and get back to discussing music?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

clavichorder said:


> I would hope that if this were a poll, Scriabin would be winning.


Don't worry I'm keeping some sort of score- towards to top ten most crazy composers of all time list.

Now lets put Alexander Nikolayevich Scriabin under the insane microscope - 6 January 1872 - 27 April 1915, Russian composer and pianist

Early work is characterised by a lyrical and idiosyncratic tonal language influenced by Frédéric Chopin, then later in career
independent of Arnold Schoenberg, Scriabin developed a substantially atonal and much more dissonant musical system
Scriabin was one of the most innovative and most controversial of early modern composers- (looking good prospect for crazy rating so far) - The Great Soviet Encyclopedia said of Scriabin that, "No composer has had more scorn heaped or greater love bestowed..." 
Scriabin began building pianos after being fascinated with piano mechanisms. He sometimes gave away pianos he built to house guests -(sounds a bit like Elvis in a perverse way)
he damaged his right hand while practicing Franz Liszt's Réminiscences de Don Juan and Mily Balakirev's Islamey.[5] His doctor said he would never recover, and he wrote his first large-scale masterpiece, his Piano Sonata No. 1 in F minor, as a "cry against God, against fate". (building to a impressive conclusion here)
Scriabin was interested in Friedrich Nietzsche's übermensch theory, and later became interested in theosophy.(now that has some craziness scope here)- further he developed his own very personal and abstract mysticism based on the role of the artist in relation to perception and life affirmation (getting better more crazy now)
The main sources of his philosophy can be found in his numerous unpublished notebooks, one in which he famously wrote "I am God" (ah very good - god complex hey)
With the financial assistance of a wealthy sponsor, he spent several years traveling in Switzerland, Italy, France, Belgium and United States, working on more orchestral pieces, including several symphonies - (mmmm temptation for crazy stuff no doubt)
Scriabin was small and reportedly frail throughout his life. At the age of 43, he died in Moscow from septicemia, contracted as a result of an infected boil on his lip or shaving cut (not much of a way for a god to die)
Yep he makes it into the top ten.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Don't worry I'm keeping some sort of score- towards to top ten most crazy composers of all time list.
> 
> Now lets put Alexander Nikolayevich Scriabin under the insane microscope - 6 January 1872 - 27 April 1915, Russian composer and pianist


And what's even better is when you put TWO nutcases together! Allow me to explain...

Scriabin received his compositional training under another composer named _Anton Arensky_. Arensky had something akin to anxiety disorder, possibly bi-polar, and probably more complicated mental illness that's only hinted at by close associates. Scriabin was very sensitive, hot-tempered himself, and self-conscious. It created the perfect storm: Arensky and Scriabin had one of the most infamous teacher-student associations in (Russian) music history. They continually argued over musical style and blaming their characters until both were livid, and Arensky nearly threw Scriabin out of the Moscow Conservatory, _refusing _to graduate him (Scriabin subsequently fled Moscow and went to Petersburg). There are many stories about that, and some pretty bitter quotes of Arensky. In response, Scriabin couldn't stand Arensky either. Ironically, Rachmaninoff, the type-B classmate of Scriabin, had to watch a lot of the carnage.  Most in the conservatory thought it bizarre that such a hatred formed, but in retrospect, it's quite clear that both Arensky's and Scriabin's constitutions set up the perfect enemy complex. Unlike his classmate, Rachmaninoff became Arensky's star student, likely because his more easy-going personality soothed Arensky's anxiety much better.

Arensky was dissolute himself, never marrying, and ended up dying from tuberculosis, likely originating from his alcoholism (rivaling Mussorgsky's) and self-destructive ways. They say he spoke nothing coherent in his last days. A pitiful figure. 

Oh, by the way I just wanted to add, Arensky's music is brilliant. If his insanity destroyed him in most other ways, his music thrived because of it. His music is notable for its unusually high optimism, sometimes to an unrealistic level, like Tchaikovsky. If he was depressed, and I think he was terribly, he must have used his own music to cheer him up as he reveled in his own dreams of happiness which never came true. The Dream was a major theme with him, he wrote a number of works about dreams, even a whole opera. But dreams are sometimes just as good as real life, are they not? It was good enough for him, it seems.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Ah good the top 10 is growing well - never know at some point a poll of the top ten would be good.

So Current top 10 Craziest Most Insane Composer of All Time IS:

1. Smetana
2. Scriabin
3. Gesualdo da Venosa
4. Richard Wagner
5. Alessandro Stradella
6. Hugo Wolf
7. Peter Warlock
7. (Alt Celine Dion)
8. Arensky
9. Sorabji
10. Stockhausen

other contenders are:
11. Hans Rott
12. Brahms
13. Robert Schumann 
14. Berlioz
15. Gesualdo da Venosa
16. Erik Satie
17. Tchaikovsky
18. Mahler 
19. Schoenberg
20. Percy Grainger
21. Liszt
22. Schoenberg
23. Mormon Tabernacle Choir 
24. Rued Langgaard
25. Manhattan Project 
26. Physics


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> "It cannot teach us why we are here", actually, that's highly debatable. We _are_ part of the physical world after all... I think science, i.e., physics, chemistry, biology, etc., will reach an answer for that at some point. For instance, physics has shown us that the universe had a beginning. Biology is studying the processes by which self-replicating molecules can arise in certain contexts similar to those which existed in the primitive Earth. You are idealizing human beings, which are, after all, material entities, composed of ordinary elements like water, carbon, etc, and, of course, because of that, ruled by the laws of science.
> "And so was Einstein when he discovered the mass-energy equation which made Hiroshima possible. The problem is scientists often do not see the implications of where their research might lead.", so... Einstein should have quitted his investigation because of the possible consequences it may have in bad hands?.
> "But those physicists who worked on the Manhatten Project were also trying to understand the physical world.", errr... _no_, as you have said, most of the physics was already known, they were trying to use it for building weapons, which is a very different thing. And, concerning the ethical dilemma, that's their issue, not mine, they have used the knowledge for building bombs and for killing people, not me. You can't make generalizations to all science based on the acts of only a group of people who is devoted to it.


Physics has shown us the universe has a beginning. But it cannot show us why it began or what we are doing here. Similarly biology cannot tell us why those self-replicating molecules act as they do. And remember, it was precisely the fact that certain regimes believed that human beings were just merely material entities that led to Stalin's purges and Hitler's death camps.


----------



## Crudblud

KenOC said:


> You evidently didn't read the essay!


I didn't, I was just trying to confirm your position.


----------



## mgsgmusic

To your warlock research you may also want to know that he was an alcoholic and would regularly get a bit merry at a certain pub in ashford. After this he would strip naked and pass out, his friends would be called and wheel him home in a wheelbarrow. To this there is a sculpture of "Warlocks Wheelbarrow" near where he used to live.


----------



## aleazk

DavidA said:


> Physics has shown us the universe has a beginning. But it cannot show us why it began or what we are doing here. Similarly biology cannot tell us why those self-replicating molecules act as they do. And remember, it was precisely the fact that certain regimes believed that human beings were just merely material entities that led to Stalin's purges and Hitler's death camps.


"But it cannot show us why it began", actually, it can. "or what we are doing here.", that's the kind of idealization I was talking. We are not "doing" nothing here, we don't have a special mission in the universe, we are just some organisms, made of ordinary matter, which have formed in the universe simply because the laws of nature allow it. If you put a seed, the tree grows. Similarly, if the laws of the universe allow the formation of organisms like ourselves, those organisms will form, that's all.
"biology cannot tell us why those self-replicating molecules act as they do.", it can.
"And remember, it was precisely the fact that certain regimes believed that human beings were just merely material entities that led to Stalin's purges and Hitler's death camps.", you are just twisting my words, I said that from the point of view of the study of our origin, we must remember that we are merely material entities, and because of that, ruled by the laws of nature.

(I invite the moderators to move this conversation to this thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/16834-thread-will-answer-your.html)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

mgsgmusic said:


> To your warlock research you may also want to know that he was an alcoholic and would regularly get a bit merry at a certain pub in ashford. After this he would strip naked and pass out, his friends would be called and wheel him home in a wheelbarrow. To this there is a sculpture of "Warlocks Wheelbarrow" near where he used to live.


How your talking - this is the sort of material that will Warlock reach number 1 on the list - very impressive acts of craziness.


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> "But it cannot show us why it began", actually, it can. "or what we are doing here.", that's the kind of idealization I was talking. We are not "doing" nothing here, we don't have a special mission in the universe, we are just some organisms, made of ordinary matter, which have formed in the universe simply because the laws of nature allow it. If you put a seed, the tree grows. Similarly, if the laws of the universe allow the formation of organisms like ourselves, those organisms will form, that's all.
> "biology cannot tell us why those self-replicating molecules act as they do.", it can.
> "And remember, it was precisely the fact that certain regimes believed that human beings were just merely material entities that led to Stalin's purges and Hitler's death camps.", you are just twisting my words, I said that from the point of view of the study of our origin, we must remember that we are merely material entities, and because of that, ruled by the laws of nature.
> 
> (I invite the moderators to move this conversation to this thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/16834-thread-will-answer-your.html)


No. You are totally missing the point I am trying to make. Science is our observation as to how the universe works. It cannot tell us why those laws are here or our purpose on this earth. You obviously believe we have no purpose, but science did not tell you this - that is your worldview.

No I am not twisting your words - it was that men like Hitler and Stalin believed we are just material entities and took their beliefs to the logical conclusion. As Peter Singer does when he says: the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.


----------



## joen_cph

(A side remark concerning the bombs in Japan: why do people so rarely consider that they should have been "tested" in less populated and mainly military areas in Japan at first, before targeting indeniably mainly civilian cities. In that sense the official US version has won too, setting the premises for the discussion).


----------



## KenOC

joen_cph said:


> (A side remark concerning the bombs in Japan: why do people so rarely consider that they should have been "tested" in less populated and mainly military areas in Japan at first, before targeting indeniably mainly civilian cities. In that sense the official US version has won too, setting the premises for the discussion).


That was discussed, for what it's worth. There were fears that the first bomb, the uranium gun bomb, wouldn't work -- the only test had been of the plutonium implosion bomb, the Trinity test. The discussion involved some remote Pacific island, with Japanese observers. The idea was discarded. In fact it finally took the destruction of both cities to bring Japan to the point of surrender, so a demonstration might not have had much effect -- in hindsight, of course.


----------



## clavichorder

What about Elliot Carter? The man lived to 103 and has a genuine looking smile so it must be a healthy kind of crazy, or he's just a case study for the power of genetics. I mean, going off into the desert to get original; that's pretty adventuresome.

Harry Partch, has anyone mentioned this 'outsider artist' yet?


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> That was discussed, for what it's worth. There were fears that the first bomb, the uranium gun bomb, wouldn't work -- the only test had been of the plutonium implosion bomb, the Trinity test. The discussion involved some remote Pacific island, with Japanese observers. The idea was discarded. In fact it finally took the destruction of both cities to bring Japan to the point of surrender, so a demonstration might not have had much effect -- in hindsight, of course.


Yes hindsight is a very good thing. It's interesting that the bomb (Little Boy) dropped on Hiroshima had never been tested , of course, so no-one quite knew the what the effects would be. In fact the bomb was too effective in that it wiped out everything, even communications. So apparently no one in Tokyo knew quite what had happened. There was also hawks in Japan urging no surrender at any price. The Emporer had to personally intervene to get Japan to surrender.


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> Yes hindsight is a very good thing. It's interesting that the bomb (Little Boy) dropped on Hiroshima had never been tested , of course, so no-one quite knew the what the effects would be. In fact the bomb was too effective in that it wiped out everything, even communications. So apparently no one in Tokyo knew quite what had happened. There was also hawks in Japan urging no surrender at any price. The Emporer had to personally intervene to get Japan to surrender.


There are still hawks in Japan who rankle at the notion that they're not allowed to have a military (they have the JSSDF, which is a military in all but name) and want to reinstate the emperor as the true head of state.


----------



## Flamme

I think those are minority groups compared to extreme chauvinis militarist and racist movements that lasted from the end of XIXth till the first half of XXth century...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Flamme said:


> I think those are minority groups compared to extreme chauvinis militarist and racist movements that lasted from the end of XIXth till the first half of XXth century...


But where they composers ?? probably insane or crazy thou !!


----------



## Crudblud

clavichorder said:


> Harry Partch, has anyone mentioned this 'outsider artist' yet?


This BBC documentary about Partch is very revealing in that aspect. He was probably certifiably crazy based on some of the accounts given here.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Very interesting Doco - yep think I'll use a new term from now on Partchism's.

Yep he makes the list - maybe even top 10.....


----------



## Bone

Ruggles. And maybe Gesualdo.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Bone said:


> Ruggles. And maybe Gesualdo.


Ruggles - I have a look - note we already have Gesualdo refer to top 10 below:

So Current top 10 Craziest Most Insane Composer of All Time is:

1. Smetana
2. Scriabin
3. Gesualdo da Venosa
4. Richard Wagner
5. Alessandro Stradella
6. Hugo Wolf
7. Peter Warlock
7. (Alt Celine Dion)
8. Arensky
9. Sorabji
10. Stockhausen


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

How about :
Charles-Henri Valentin Alkan, Jean-Marie Leclair and Dom Lorenzo.


----------



## Sid James

I would say that there's different levels/types of 'craziness.' In any case, I dislike to use that kind of language, what we're talking of is pyshological & psychiatric problems/illnesses. Outsider art has come into the spotlight in recent decades, in terms of visual arts its kind of considered to be like a genre or sub-genre of art.

Anyway, in my mind its broken down like this:

Eccentrics - Satie definitely, Grainger too probably
Depressed - Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov (most Russians?), Sibelius, Beethoven, Petterson
Some sort of (unknown?) and at times very incapacitating psycholigical/psychiatric disorder - Schumman, Smetana, Wolf, Scelsi, (Bruckner?)
Outsider artists - Harry Partch (in terms of being totally different to anyone else for one thing)
Psychopathic/sociopathic (possibly) - Gesualdo
Extremely reclusive - Alkan, Sorabji, (Scelsi)
& a type of Messianic complex (dunno if its a 'real' illness of just a kind of musical megalomania?) - Scriabin, Wagner
Those suffering from various addictions (which are now considered to be like illnesses), alcohol the most common one amongst composers of the past - eg. Mussorgsky, Sibelius (who used booze as a kind of treatment for his depression - bad idea, as alcohol is a depressant). Beethoven didn't mind a drink or two either.

I'd add that whether we connect these things with their music is another thing. Eg. with Schumann, he was able to compose lucidly and with a clear mind in periods of 'remission' (eg. the single year in the 1840s, 1842 I think, where he composed all his chamber masterpieces). With Smetana, at the end, he was all over the place and barely able to function normally let alone compose (as I mentioned, listen to the String Quartet #2 to get an image of that). Depression is fairly common amongst the general population, its a 'garden variety' type condition, and with treatment especially (as Rachmaninov got) one can maintain more than just the basic functions.

& that's the key - did their illness affect their creativity? As a inhibitor, or did it add to it? These are the key things and it varies between individuals.


----------



## Rapide

Beethoven was very eccentric too. Bad tempered, depressed and quite reclusive. Poor old Ludvig!


----------



## KenOC

Ludwig was hardly depressed. Especially in his later years, he was quite chipper and sociable when not physically ill (see Cooper's biography). He even had a meeting and dinner with Rossini, where, if accounts are to believed, everybody had a grand time. Yeah, I know that's hard to believe...


----------



## Sid James

KenOC said:


> Ludwig was hardly depressed. Especially in his later years, he was quite chipper and sociable when not physically ill (see Cooper's biography). He even had a meeting and dinner with Rossini, where, if accounts are to believed, everybody had a grand time. Yeah, I know that's hard to believe...


Well if the famous Heiligenstadt Testament is an indicator, he was depressed at that time at least, and basically suicidal. The only thing that stopped him taking his life was his devotion to art and music.

Quote below from the website showing the whole thing:
http://www.lvbeethoven.com/Bio/BiographyHeiligenstadtTestament.html



> Heiligenstadt, October 10, 1802, thus do I take my farewell of thee - and indeed sadly - yes that beloved hope - which I brought with me when I came here to be cured at least in a degree - I must wholly abandon, as the leaves of autumn fall and are withered so hope has been blighted, almost as I came - I go away - even the high courage - which often inspired me in the beautiful days of summer - has disappeared - O Providence - grant me at least but on e day of pure joy - it is so long since real joy echoed in my heart - O when - O when, O Divine One - shall I find it again in the temple of nature and of men - Never? no - O that would be too hard.


----------



## KenOC

At that time (1801-02) Beethoven was certainly depressed, but it wasn't, in the long term, charactreristic of him. And he had good reason!


----------



## Cadix

Sid James said:


> I would say that there's different levels/types of 'craziness.' In any case, I dislike to use that kind of language, what we're talking of is pyshological & psychiatric problems/illnesses. Outsider art has come into the spotlight in recent decades, in terms of visual arts its kind of considered to be like a genre or sub-genre of art.
> 
> Anyway, in my mind its broken down like this:
> 
> Eccentrics - Satie definitely, Grainger too probably
> Depressed - Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov (*most Russians?*), Sibelius, Beethoven, Petterson
> Some sort of (unknown?) and at times very incapacitating psycholigical/psychiatric disorder - Schumman, Smetana, Wolf, Scelsi, (Bruckner?)
> Outsider artists - Harry Partch (in terms of being totally different to anyone else for one thing)
> Psychopathic/sociopathic (possibly) - Gesualdo
> Extremely reclusive - Alkan, Sorabji, (Scelsi)
> & a type of Messianic complex (dunno if its a 'real' illness of just a kind of musical megalomania?) - Scriabin, Wagner
> Those suffering from various addictions (which are now considered to be like illnesses), alcohol the most common one amongst composers of the past - eg. Mussorgsky, Sibelius (who used booze as a kind of treatment for his depression - bad idea, as alcohol is a depressant). Beethoven didn't mind a drink or two either.
> 
> I'd add that whether we connect these things with their music is another thing. Eg. with Schumann, he was able to compose lucidly and with a clear mind in periods of 'remission' (eg. the single year in the 1840s, 1842 I think, where he composed all his chamber masterpieces). With Smetana, at the end, he was all over the place and barely able to function normally let alone compose (as I mentioned, listen to the String Quartet #2 to get an image of that). Depression is fairly common amongst the general population, its a 'garden variety' type condition, and with treatment especially (as Rachmaninov got) one can maintain more than just the basic functions.
> 
> & that's the key - did their illness affect their creativity? As a inhibitor, or did it add to it? These are the key things and it varies between individuals.


Nikolai Yakovlevitch Miaskovsky. Enough said.


----------



## Sid James

KenOC said:


> At that time (1801-02) Beethoven was certainly depressed, but it wasn't, in the long term, charactreristic of him. And he had good reason!


Well that ties in with what I'm saying. Its like any illness, there are periods of remission. 'Breaks' if you like between low points and 'troughs' or downers. That's life. I can imagine that with time, he was able to deal with it. When he became deaf, it was obviously a shock to the man. By the end, he probably had a degree of acceptance and living/coping with it.

But in terms of how these things affect music, one of his major works at the time of the Heiligenstadt Testament is his _Symphony #2_. & one writer I said called that symphony 'the great lie.' Because overall its a happy and optimistic work. It doesn't betray the emotions he expressed in the Heiligenstadt Testament. Basically, it was a will, he was thinking of ending his life. As far as that symphony goes, there's no indications of the inner turmoil he was going through. & I kind of admire that, in other ways it shows how lonely and stigmatised he became.

He was a pathetic figure in many ways. I remember reading an account of him conducting, the last time he did it, when he was virtually fully deaf. It was the 7th symphony. Louis Spohr who was in the orchestra kind of saw how Beethoven was doing the opposite to what the orchestra was doing to be quite absurd to watch, like a tragi-comedy. Its very sad, & him surmounting this to keep composing these masterpieces does show that he did in some way cope with this potentially hopeless situation.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Sid James said:


> I would say that there's different levels/types of 'craziness.' In any case, I dislike to use that kind of language, what we're talking of is pyshological & psychiatric problems/illnesses. Outsider art has come into the spotlight in recent decades, in terms of visual arts its kind of considered to be like a genre or sub-genre of art.
> 
> Anyway, in my mind its broken down like this:
> 
> Eccentrics - Satie definitely, Grainger too probably
> Depressed - Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov (most Russians?), Sibelius, Beethoven, Petterson
> Some sort of (unknown?) and at times very incapacitating psycholigical/psychiatric disorder - Schumman, Smetana, Wolf, Scelsi, (Bruckner?)
> Outsider artists - Harry Partch (in terms of being totally different to anyone else for one thing)
> Psychopathic/sociopathic (possibly) - Gesualdo
> Extremely reclusive - Alkan, Sorabji, (Scelsi)
> & a type of Messianic complex (dunno if its a 'real' illness of just a kind of musical megalomania?) - Scriabin, Wagner
> Those suffering from various addictions (which are now considered to be like illnesses), alcohol the most common one amongst composers of the past - eg. Mussorgsky, Sibelius (who used booze as a kind of treatment for his depression - bad idea, as alcohol is a depressant). Beethoven didn't mind a drink or two either.
> 
> I'd add that whether we connect these things with their music is another thing. Eg. with Schumann, he was able to compose lucidly and with a clear mind in periods of 'remission' (eg. the single year in the 1840s, 1842 I think, where he composed all his chamber masterpieces). With Smetana, at the end, he was all over the place and barely able to function normally let alone compose (as I mentioned, listen to the String Quartet #2 to get an image of that). Depression is fairly common amongst the general population, its a 'garden variety' type condition, and with treatment especially (as Rachmaninov got) one can maintain more than just the basic functions.
> 
> & that's the key - did their illness affect their creativity? As a inhibitor, or did it add to it? These are the key things and it varies between individuals.


Good work - have you every considered becoming a Physiatrist - might be useful around here ....


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Nikolai Yakovlevitch Miaskovsky the "Father of the Soviet symphony".

Can't find much crazy about him....

The next few years saw the violent death of his father, who as an ex-Tsarist general was murdered by Red Army soldiers while waiting for a train in the winter of 1918-19,[6] and the death of his aunt, to whom he was closely attached, in the winter of 1919-20. His brother-in-law, the husband of his sister Valentina Yakovlevna, had committed suicide before the War because of financial troubles- nope no crazy stuff.....


----------



## Sid James

As far as I know with Miaskovsky, fighting in World War I had huge impact on his health. He suffered shell shock. Other composers who went through that war as combatants where similarly affected or worse. There was a recent article in BBC music magazine on *Ivor Gurney,* the British composer of songs, who was hospitalised for long periods due in part to the ongoing effects of shell shock. What it basically is is a nervous breakdown from constantly being bombarded in trench warfare. Now they would call it something like post traumatic stress disorder.


----------



## DavidA

Sid James said:


> Well that ties in with what I'm saying. Its like any illness, there are periods of remission. 'Breaks' if you like between low points and 'troughs' or downers. That's life. I can imagine that with time, he was able to deal with it. When he became deaf, it was obviously a shock to the man. By the end, he probably had a degree of acceptance and living/coping with it.
> 
> But in terms of how these things affect music, one of his major works at the time of the Heiligenstadt Testament is his _Symphony #2_. & one writer I said called that symphony 'the great lie.' Because overall its a happy and optimistic work. It doesn't betray the emotions he expressed in the Heiligenstadt Testament. Basically, it was a will, he was thinking of ending his life. As far as that symphony goes, there's no indications of the inner turmoil he was going through. & I kind of admire that, in other ways it shows how lonely and stigmatised he became.
> 
> He was a pathetic figure in many ways. I remember reading an account of him conducting, the last time he did it, when he was virtually fully deaf. It was the 7th symphony. Louis Spohr who was in the orchestra kind of saw how Beethoven was doing the opposite to what the orchestra was doing to be quite absurd to watch, like a tragi-comedy. Its very sad, & him surmounting this to keep composing these masterpieces does show that he did in some way cope with this potentially hopeless situation.


I don't think the music was not a 'lie' - it was Beethoven's escape mechanism from the grim realities of life. Think also of Schubert writing His Miller Maid when he had just been diagnosed with syphilis.

Interesting also that Beethoven wrote the the witty 8th symphony when his personal life was full of trauma. Did he have a refuge in the music?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

where would the classical music world be without syphilis?


----------



## Rapide

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> where would the classical music world be without syphilis?


Without syphilis, much of classical music would have been far too sterile and clean! And think of modern listeners today who bash the "wigs" and "conservatives" for listening to classical music as it is (with the syphilis), now imgaine without! :lol:


----------



## Ramako

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> where would the classical music world be without syphilis?


We would probably have another 30 'great' symphonies by Schubert, another 20 sublime quartets, another 30 piano sonatas, some operas, perhaps some concertos. Schubert would probably be the dominant figure of the 19th century. Following composers would have seen this and instead of following Beethoven's example of writing few pieces would have written many. The entire landscape of the 19th century history would have been completely changed. This would mean we would have 24 Brahms symphonies, and Wagner would have written twice as many operas as well as orchestral works and chamber music. Also Schumann wouldn't have gone mad and I guess would have done more stuff.

But Schubert living another 30 years would I think make the history of Classical Music look very very different.


----------



## sharik

as for crazy composers who wrote equally crazy music, this was Mussorgsky and his Pictures At An Exhibition.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

sharik said:


> as for crazy composers who wrote equally crazy music, this was Mussorgsky and his Pictures At An Exhibition.


AH another one for the microscope and Russian too (that's not surprising- pre blochy too mmm could be good) Note the spelling and pronunciation of the composer's name has been a matter of some controversy, as was his hair colour!









So Pictures at an Exhibition Modest Petrovich Mussorgsky( 21 March 9 March 1839 - 28 March1881) - good name hey, he composed Pictures at an Exhibition in six weeks and the music depicts an imaginary tour of an art collection (very tricky)

"My dear généralissime, Hartmann is seething as Boris seethed, - sounds and ideas hang in the air, I am gulping and overeating, and can barely manage to scribble them on paper. I am writing the 4th № - the transitions are good (on the 'promenade'). I want to work more quickly and reliably. My physiognomy can be seen in the interludes. So far I think it's well turned..."

At age six Mussorgsky began receiving piano lessons from his mother, herself a trained pianist.

Mussorgsky - developed a strong interest in history and studied German philosophy (mmmm builidng up to something here) but then enjoyed a formative visit to Moscow - after which he professed a love of "everything Russian". (confused hey)

Borodin later remembered, his little uniform was **** and span, close-fitting, his feet turned outwards, his hair smoothed down and greased (the hair again !!)

Emancipation of the serfs the following year - as a result of which the family was deprived of half its estate, and Mussorgsky had to spend a good deal of time in Karevo unsuccessfully attempting to stave off their looming impoverishment. (thats never a good thing serfs mmm) it was at this point that the composer had his first serious bout of either alcoholism or dipsomania......in 1867 he was declared 'supernumerary' - remaining 'in service', but receiving no wages (nasty)









In the years that followed, Mussorgsky's decline became increasingly steep, in 1880 he was finally dismissed from government service (bummer) In early 1881 a desperate Mussorgsky declared to a friend that there was 'nothing left but begging' (worse to come ??) All in him is flabby and dull (not nice)

Rimsky-Korsakov wrote, "They were very defective, teeming with clumsy, disconnected harmonies, shocking part-writing, amazingly illogical modulations or intolerably long stretches without ever a modulation, and bad scoring. ... (cutting )

Repin painted the famous red-nosed portrait in what were to be the last days of the composer's life: a week after his 42nd birthday, he was dead.

Hard life to much booze hey.. but not crazy enough for the list i'm thinking, maybe lazy composition too ??


----------



## farmerjohn

captain beefheart

from wikipedia:



> Van Vliet wanted the whole band to "live" the Trout Mask Replica album. The group rehearsed Van Vliet's difficult compositions for eight months, living communally in their small rented house in the Woodland Hills suburb of Los Angeles. With only two bedrooms the band members would find sleep in various corners of one, while Vliet occupied the other and rehearsals were accomplished in the main living area. Van Vliet implemented his vision by completely dominating his musicians, artistically and emotionally. At various times one or another of the group members was "put in the barrel," with Van Vliet berating him continually, sometimes for days, until the musician collapsed in tears or in total submission.[60] Drummer John French described the situation as "cultlike"[61] and a visiting friend said "the environment in that house was positively Mansonesque."[4] Their material circumstances were dire. With no income other than welfare and contributions from relatives, the group barely survived and were even arrested for shoplifting food (Zappa bailed them out). French has recalled living on no more than a small cup of beans a day for a month.[26] A visitor described their appearance as "cadaverous" and said that "they all looked in poor health." Band members were restricted from leaving the house and practiced for 14 or more hours a day.
> Physical assaults were encouraged at times, along with verbal degradation. Beefheart spoke of studying texts on brainwashing at a public library at about this time, and appeared to be applying brainwashing techniques to his bandmembers: sleep deprivation, food deprivation, constant negative reinforcement, and rewarding bandmembers when they attacked each other or competed with each other. At one point Cotton ran from the house and escaped for a few weeks, during which time Alex Snouffer filled in for him and helped to work up "Ant Man Bee". French, who had thrown a metal cymbal at Cotton, ran after him yelling that he too wanted to come. Cotton later returned to the house with French's mother, who took him away for a few weeks, but he later felt compelled to return, as did Cotton. Mark Boston at one point hid clothes in a field across the street, planning his own getaway.[citation needed]
> John French's 2010 book Through the Eyes of Magic describes some of the "talks" which were initiated by his actions such as being heard playing a Frank Zappa drum part ("The Blimp (mousetrapreplica)") in his drumming shed, and not having finished drum parts as quickly as Beefheart wanted. French writes of being punched by band members, thrown into walls, kicked, punched in the face by Beefheart hard enough to draw blood, being attacked with a sharp broomstick,[62] and eventually of Beefheart threatening to throw him out of an upper floor window. He admits complicity in similarly attacking his bandmates during "talks" aimed at them. In the end, after the album's recording, French was ejected from the band by Beefheart throwing him down a set of stairs with violence, telling him to "Take a walk, man" after not responding in a desired manner to a request to "play a strawberry" on the drums.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

farmerjohn said:


> captain beefheart
> 
> from wikipedia:


Yes Captain Beefheart - was certainly something else hey, ended up being a Sculptor of some note. Amasing that he and Zappa grew up together but I would point out the Beefy while easily identifible as crazy - does not make the list as he is not a classical composer - I would argue that Beefy had an amasing voice too, but I don't consider him even much of a modern popular composer (some will disagree), while he was good at writing lyrics down on scraps of paper I think alot of his music success is owed to Zappa and the Magic Band.


----------



## Crudblud

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Yes Captain Beefheart - was certainly something else hey, ended up being a Sculptor of some note.


Painter, actually. Though apparently he was both a sculptor and painter before he became Captain Beefheart.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

There seems to be a big push for Rott and Stockhausen for the WI/WTCMICOAT crown


----------



## Alydon

I don't think we have heard anything about English eccentic and generally crazy composer, Lord Berners - who was seriously off the wall. Lord Berners was a writer, artist and composer, 1883 - 1950 - and is best remembered today for his ballet suites, The Triumph of Neptune being the most famous. I remember reading that he had a notice on the wall of a tower on his land, which read, "If you intend to commit suicide by jumping from tower, you do so at your own risk." Today he is probably more famous for his bizarre life than his work.


----------



## joen_cph

Lord Berners painting a horse ...


----------



## Alydon

And another of Lord Berners


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

The list grows Lord Berners, my kinda composer very good..


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

why were the most interesting composers crazy?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Gesualdo was pretty crazy. He killed his first wife and lover, and mutilated their corpses, was into self-flagellation, and drank the menstrual blood of one of his mistresses.


----------



## Phil loves classical

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> why were the most interesting composers crazy?


Looks like a demented mind is a recipe for artistic success.


----------



## hpowders

Phil loves classical said:


> Gesualdo was pretty crazy. He killed his first wife and lover, and mutilated their corpses, was into self-flagellation, and drank the menstrual blood of one of his mistresses.


And this is crazy, how? Perhaps he was simply angry and mis-understood.

There are a lot of ways to get one's daily iron requirement, in lieu of a multi-vitamin.


----------



## Bulldog

Phil loves classical said:


> Gesualdo was pretty crazy. He killed his first wife and lover, and mutilated their corpses, was into self-flagellation, and drank the menstrual blood of one of his mistresses.


Even nut jobs get thirsty now and then.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hpowders said:


> And this is crazy, how? Perhaps he was simply angry and mis-understood.
> 
> There are a lot of ways to get one's daily iron requirement, in lieu of a multi-vitamin.


Yes, we should be more understanding and give him the benefit of the doubt in the situation  He was found not guilty at his trial, so nut-case closed!


----------



## pierrot

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> why were the most interesting composers crazy?


Anything besides the boring and uneventful lives most people go through is considered 'crazy'.


----------



## hpowders

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes, we should be more understanding and give him the benefit of the doubt in the situation  He was found not guilty at his trial, so nut-case closed!


You think Bartók was any better? Anyone composing those eerie sounds of the Music for Strings, Percussion & Celesta should have been kept in the Jack Nicholson Wing a few years longer.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

As one of the 2013 posts implies, there is a big category error here. I'm quite uncomfortable with bundling up the amusingly eccentric (Satie) with the intermittently depressed (Sibelius), the socially isolated (Alkan), the traumatised (Gurney) and the alcoholics (Mussorgsky). Composers of CM were a subset of their contemporary society, even if they weren't necessarily a random sample, and included a selection of the mad, sad and bad. Much like TC members!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Pat Fairlea said:


> As one of the 2013 posts implies, there is a big category error here. I'm quite uncomfortable with bundling up the amusingly eccentric (Satie) with the intermittently depressed (Sibelius), the socially isolated (Alkan), the traumatised (Gurney) and the alcoholics (Mussorgsky). Composers of CM were a subset of their contemporary society, even if they weren't necessarily a random sample, and included a selection of the mad, sad and bad. Much like TC members!


I prefer the holistic approach..................... its more fun this way


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/arts/music/a-composer-and-his-wife-creativity-through-kink.html
Don't know if this is crazy at all, but it's interesting. I like the music og G.F. Haas, but maybe he wants to give us pain...just a thought


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/arts/music/a-composer-and-his-wife-creativity-through-kink.html
> Don't know if this is crazy at all, but it's interesting. I like the music og G.F. Haas, but maybe he wants to give us pain...just a thought


Yep, each to his or herown but I think we can add him to the list...........


----------



## sloth

Phil loves classical said:


> Gesualdo was pretty crazy. He killed his first wife and lover, and mutilated their corpses, was into self-flagellation, and drank the menstrual blood of one of his mistresses.


I didn't know the mutilation part, however killing a cheating woman and her lover was pretty legit in 16th century Italy. Also self-flagellation was a common practice among devoted people (and to some extent it is still common during processions see here 



 



)

didn't know about drinking menstrual blood either. But there's a story about Toscanini who kept a handkerchief with his lover's menstrual blood... so it seems a pretty common perversion


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

16th century Italy seems similar to 21st century North Korea minus the great classical composers


----------



## sloth

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> 16th century Italy seems similar to 21st century North Korea minus the great classical composers


Absolutely. 16th century Italy is marked by Counter-Reformist violence, thanks to the Santa Inquisizione. Giordano Bruno was one of the first martyrs. Where I live, in Piedmont (which was dangerously close to the Protestant virus) the repression towards the Valdese People was really brutal, that culminated in this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Late_Massacre_in_Piedmont 
Moreover the end of 16th saw the proliferation of sanctuaries and Oratories especially in the mountains, where people seemed a little bit too wild. Actually my garage is attached to one of these Oratorios, which is - quite ironically - called San Desiderio (Holy Desire) :lol:
So I can in a way justify the fanatic view of Catholicism of Gesualdo. :devil:

Sorry for the OT!


----------



## Pugg

clavichorder said:


> Then everybody is by definition insane. There, is that so bad?


Very good answer, hope to see you back soon.


----------



## Juglandaceous

NEW YORK TIMES
MUSIC VIEW; PONDERING THE LINK BETWEEN MUSIC AND MADNESS
By Donal Henahan
Published: July 20, 1986

The other day, in looking through a psychiatrist's report on the supposed connection between manic-depressive mood swings and musical creativity, I was brought up short. These words about Robert Schumann's lifelong history of depression leaped out at me: ''Starting in adolescence he was troubled by repeated attacks of melancholy which can be traced in his and his wife's letters as well as in their joint diary, later kept by Clara alone. For example, in May, 1831, it takes him three weeks to finish a letter . . .''

But Schumann did finish it, didn't he? If I wanted to, I could show you letters in a desk drawer that still lie unfinished after three months or three years, simply because their author is waiting for a sustained manic swing before going at them again. At any rate, let us be fair. A busy man who takes only three weeks to finish a letter (using only pen and ink, remember) deserves our respect. He is not ready for the dead-letter office just yet.

The mad artist, a type typified by poor Schumann, is not quite as pervasive a figure in popular mythology as the mad scientist, but no less a novelist than Thomas Mann thought highly enough of the stereotype to immortalize it in his ''Doctor Faustus.'' The grandly psychotic genius Adrian Leverkuhn, you will recall, goes stark, staring mad and dies after inventing the 12-tone system and composing his apocalyptic symphonic cantata, ''Lamentation of Doctor Faustus.'' And why not? Don't all readers of musical biographies know that many famous composers have been borderline psychopaths, if not certifiably insane? Haven't generations of music-appreciation writers led us to suspect that there is a mysterious connection between mental abnormality and musical creativity? Who, in fact, would deny that people such as Beethoven and Mahler were pathologically ill and, therefore, creatively fruitful?

Well, Dr. William A. Frosch, for one. Dr. Frosch, who is medical director of the Payne Whitney Clinic at New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, recently took a fresh look at the mad-genius myth in a paper presented in May at the American Psychiatric Association meeting in Washington. Of Beethoven, whose personal peculiarities so inflamed the Romantic century's imagination, Dr. Frosch notes that the composer ''did experience mood swings superimposed upon a prevailing mild depression; he was clearly eccentric, particularly after he became deaf; he may have been psychotic during the battle for custody of his nephew Karl; but there is no evidence that he was ever manic-depresive.'' Dr. Frosch draws a distinction between mood swings, which may be violent without being grounded in mental disease, and genuine manic-depressive psychosis.

Beethoven must have known something of whatever theories of cyclic insanity were going around in his time, Dr. Frosch believes, and that knowledge ''was part of the imagery that shaped his creativity.'' Beethoven's improvisations at the piano, for which he was famous, were at times in response to requests to describe the character of a well-known person. We are told he could do so vividly and that the audience was often able to recognize the subject of the tone portrait. ''I do not doubt Beethoven's ability to illustrate what he knew about or had observed in others, including manic-depressive illness,'' writes Dr. Frosch.

Of more than a dozen famous composers discussed in this paper, all of them diagnosed as severely disturbed or genuinely psychopathic by previous writers in the field, Dr. Frosch finds in Schumann's history the only really convincing evidence of manic-depressive disease. As early as age 20, the composer who was to create the dual personality of Florestan/Eusebius to dramatize in music his own swings of mood wrote of his longing to throw himself into the Rhine. And 24 years later he actually did so. Schumann's problems have been diagnosed as dementia praecox, organic disease of the brain (most likely general paresis), and manic-depressive illness followed by syphilitic brain disease.

Cleared of imputation of clinical insanity, to Dr. Frosch's way of thinking, are Mozart, Schubert, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, Gluck, Liszt, Wagner, Johann Strauss, Jr., Mahler, Pfitzner and Handel. Mental disturbances among this oddly assorted group can be traced to such causes as stroke (Gluck), alcoholism (W.F. Bach), syphilis (Schubert) and chronic renal disease (Mozart). Handel's depressions seem to have been triggered by career reverses, financial disasters, rheumatism and, finally, blindness. ''Liszt and Mahler certainly led unusual and flamboyant lives,'' Dr. Frosch agrees, but they were not psychiatrically ill. ''Mahler was neurotic, and haunted by death, but did not have major affective disease.''

The case of Hugo Wolf is more complicated. He had not been diagnosed for psychiatric problems until age 36 and he died at age 43 from paresis after several hospitalizations and an attempt to drown himself. However, long before his final illness Wolf was infamous as an unpredictable, irascible man who often snarled at his best friends. He lived in poverty and had to work as a music critic -one of the nastiest and least reliable who ever lived - but when the manic mood overtook him could churn out masterly songs dozens at a time. ''Wolf does appear to have had a pre-existent cyclothymic personality,'' Dr. Frosc concedes. In sum, however, the psychiatrist finds no clear reason to link manic-depressive illness or other major mental disturbance with musical creativity: ''That there is a psychology of musical creativity I do not doubt. That there is a meaning to it, perhaps imputed after the fact, I do not doubt. That there is a pathology to it. . .I find no compelling evidence.''

The deep impulses and workings of creativity are likely to remain a mystery. If something as relatively simple as particle physics obstinately refuses to reveal its ultimate mysteries, what hope is there for investigators of Mozart's complexities? Dr. Frosch recognizes the problem: ''Unfortunately, we speak of creativity as though it were a single phenomenon rather than many phenomena. We link many kinds of acts because they are special, perhaps mystifying, not because they are the same. We may even be obfuscating when we speak of 'creative writing.' Is a rapturous lyric derived from the same impulse and skills as a Dickensian novel? Does either have any resemblance in its 'creativity' to a Bach fugue, a Beethoven or Brahms symphony, a Wagner opera, or a piece by Boulez? Perhaps not.''

Perhaps not, because musical composition requires a peculiar combination of inborn talents and learned techniques. ''This complex combination of givens and learned skills,'' in Dr. Frosch's view, ''may preclude significant psychopathology.'' In other words, if I understand, creativity may actually be a form of mental health, not a byproduct of illness. Fortunately or not, Thomas Mann did not see it that way, so poor, deranged Adrian Leverkuhn and the idea of the mad composer live on, if only in literature. Myths that we somehow need do not die easily.


----------



## eugeneonagain

^ Did you not post this exact same thing to another thread?

I smell a spam sandwich.


----------



## Juglandaceous

eugeneonagain said:


> ^ Did you not post this exact same thing to another thread?
> 
> Dear Eugenonagain,
> 
> Thank you so much for your observation, Eugenonagain! I am so sorry for my computer ignorance--I had indeed originally posted this fascinating article on the supposed link between music and madness on the "most-overrated-underrated-composers" thread, but later I realized that it actually should have gone onto this thread instead, and so I then posted it here. I am so new to all of this "talk online" computer-posting process that I am still trying to learn how to navigate through it all. When I hear the word "thread" I actually think of it in connection with knitting--do they need to drag me kicking and screaming into the 16th century?! I sincerely appreciate your patience and understanding as I struggle to learn how to work through this computer posting which is so new to me--I only joined this "Talk Classical" just a few days ago! Please forgive me my error!
> 
> Contritely,
> Juglandaceous


----------



## eugeneonagain

You are welcome sir.


----------



## Larkenfield

My clear nomination would be the Renaissance genius but murderer Carlo Gesualdo. If this obsessed, tortured composer had ever been in a position to meet Sigmund Freud, I doubt if Freud would have had time for anyone else for 100 years.


----------



## ST4

Larkenfield said:


> My clear nomination would be the murderer but Renaissance genius Carlo Gesualdo, already mentioned by somebody, who brutally killed his wife and her lover in a murderous rage, a neurotic compulsive, mentally tortured and unstable. If he'd ever been in a position to meet Sigmund Freud, I doubt if Freud would have had time for anyone else for 100 years.


Because of the six degrees of separation of him being in the 15th century it's hard not to actually love this aspect of him and his music. His music is some of the greatest ever written IMO but the whole murder and sexual fetish stuff, much like Beethoven's huge anger problems or Mozart's fetish's, is hard not to love as that extension of their music. the degrees of separation is so far back that it's hard to see it from the perspective of a 15th century person and art and portraits from that time are still cartoony


----------



## Pat Fairlea

While we're on the subject, spare a thought for Ivor Gurney.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Gurney

Though he may never have been the most mentally stable of men, his wartime experiences probably didn't help and he spent his last years in an asylum. His music is limited in genre and extent and clearly comes out of the English Pastoral tradition of the early 20th century, but in Gurney's case with less obvious folk influence. And the best of his poetry matches his better-known contemporaries such as Owen, Sassoon, Brooke.

Interesting man, deserving of more attention and some sympathy, I think.


----------



## eugeneonagain

ST4 said:


> Because of the six degrees of separation of him being in the 15th century it's hard not to actually love this aspect of him and his music. His music is some of the greatest ever written IMO but the whole murder and sexual fetish stuff, much like Beethoven's huge anger problems or Mozart's fetish's, is hard not to love as that extension of their music. the degrees of separation is so far back that it's hard to see it from the perspective of a 15th century person and art and portraits from that time are still cartoony


This is rather odd. Basically that the horrible things some people do are rendered lovable as an extension of something else they do which happens to be admirable.

By the way, 'six degrees of separation' refers to the relations between living people, rather than a connection through time.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Check out the Poll that this thread morphed into


----------



## Tallisman

Wagner had to have been pretty crazy to sustain an anti-Jewish crusade even while both Meyerbeer and Hermann Levi prostrated themselves before him and selflessly promoted his music.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ wow that will get the Wagnerites going


----------



## Woodduck

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> ^ wow that will get the Wagnerites going


Don't worry. It wouldn't be worth the trouble.


----------



## Tallisman

I'm a Wagnerite... Truth shouldn't offend anyone :tiphat: It doesn't tarnish Wagner's extraordinary music in any way (as has been rightly said a million times before). It's just always been a strange contradictory mystery to me.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Still untarnished ?


----------



## Capeditiea

YES THIS IS THE ONE! THAT I HAVE FOUND MY FAVOURITE COMPOSER! SORABJI! 

:3 but now that i am on the scene i nominate my self.


----------



## Capeditiea

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Don't worry I'm keeping some sort of score- towards to top ten most crazy composers of all time list.
> 
> Now lets put Alexander Nikolayevich Scriabin under the insane microscope - 6 January 1872 - 27 April 1915, Russian composer and pianist
> 
> Early work is characterised by a lyrical and idiosyncratic tonal language influenced by Frédéric Chopin, then later in career
> independent of Arnold Schoenberg, Scriabin developed a substantially atonal and much more dissonant musical system
> Scriabin was one of the most innovative and most controversial of early modern composers- (looking good prospect for crazy rating so far) - The Great Soviet Encyclopedia said of Scriabin that, "No composer has had more scorn heaped or greater love bestowed..."
> Scriabin began building pianos after being fascinated with piano mechanisms. He sometimes gave away pianos he built to house guests -(sounds a bit like Elvis in a perverse way)
> he damaged his right hand while practicing Franz Liszt's Réminiscences de Don Juan and Mily Balakirev's Islamey.[5] His doctor said he would never recover, and he wrote his first large-scale masterpiece, his Piano Sonata No. 1 in F minor, as a "cry against God, against fate". (building to a impressive conclusion here)
> Scriabin was interested in Friedrich Nietzsche's übermensch theory, and later became interested in theosophy.(now that has some craziness scope here)- further he developed his own very personal and abstract mysticism based on the role of the artist in relation to perception and life affirmation (getting better more crazy now)
> The main sources of his philosophy can be found in his numerous unpublished notebooks, one in which he famously wrote "I am God" (ah very good - god complex hey)
> With the financial assistance of a wealthy sponsor, he spent several years traveling in Switzerland, Italy, France, Belgium and United States, working on more orchestral pieces, including several symphonies - (mmmm temptation for crazy stuff no doubt)
> Scriabin was small and reportedly frail throughout his life. At the age of 43, he died in Moscow from septicemia, contracted as a result of an infected boil on his lip or shaving cut (not much of a way for a god to die)
> Yep he makes it into the top ten.
> View attachment 12014


it is odd though... i am currently fetching Scraibin's works... simply because i was looking for Symphonies that start in Lento... for an example... and i totally forgot he was mentioned here. :O (a few times before this post too... but this is probably where i recognized the name... when i was trying to put my finger on where i seen the name... :O then you happen to resurrect this thread.  you are a true friend.


----------



## Capeditiea

:O Scriabin's Symphony No. 1 beautiful... though just like Sorabji, a few phrases are a lot like mine. 

 i have got it. A new music theory method. 

steps are easy. 
1. be crazy. 
2. captivate your audience. 
3. make some parts outrageus. 
4. captivate your audience. 
5. jump up, jump up, get down. 
6. notate adagio or lento into allegro 
7. notate vivace or faster into lento. 
8. a little bit of a waltz, 
9. grant the audience some thinking time on what just happened... 
10. boom
11. captivate the audience. 
12. do jumping jacks.
13. coda.

---edited due to a mispelling


----------



## ascrivani

Wow!! Interesting!


----------



## ascrivani

I love Sorabji! Amazing!


----------



## ascrivani

Scriabin was mentally unbalanced but he is one of my favorite composers.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I've heard that Silvestre Revueltas was a bit...erm...unorthodox.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Beethoven, no doubt.


----------



## DeepR

ascrivani said:


> Scriabin was mentally unbalanced but he is one of my favorite composers.


It seems to me that Scriabin's name pops up often in topics like this because he had crazy ideas, a messiah complex and was very eccentric, from what I've read. But are there any indications he had an actual mental disorder, like Schumann?

How about Stanchinsky. A sad story; his music is pretty great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Stanchinsky


----------



## Juglandaceous

DeepR said:


> . . . How about Stanchinsky. A sad story; his music is pretty great. . . . /QUOTE]
> 
> Thank you, DeepR, for mentioning the fine Russian composer Alexei Stanchinsky (1888-1914)--he's one of the "great-if's" of music. Who knows what more he might have accomplished had he not tragically drowned at the age of 26? There is a beautiful performance of his lovely Nocturne from 1907 at
> 
> 
> 
> . Thanks again!
> 
> Sincerely,
> Juglandaceous


----------



## hpowders

OP: Pick a name of anybody composing classical music at this time, expecting to become famous; hit the Amazon top 10 for classical purchases, expecting to make a lot of money at doing so.


----------



## Mood Drifter

Erik Satie was about the zaniest of all of them. Most ofthem had mental problems of one kind or another. Artistic talent is seldom the product of a contented mind.


----------



## insomniclassicac

*Géza Csáth*



> All of this would be one thing if Csáth was as articulate and civil as other transgressive writers like Chuck Palahniuk, but his morphine addiction only worsened as he lost jobs and credibility and eventually was committed to a psychiatric hospital. He escaped to his home, eventually fatally shooting his wife with a revolver (!), taking poison (!!) and slitting his wrists (!!!). This, however, didn't succeed in killing him, and he eventually finished the job by taking poison while running from the police (!!!!). To quote his diary, "In combating myself I can report only one bloody defeat after another."


Although the above link credits him with a single composition, he actually penned more than a hundred musical works, including--per another source--"songs...two solo pieces for piano, two compositions for violin and piano, and two movements for string-quartet", plus many unfinished pieces. Of course, he is far more famed for his trail-blazing music criticism--being among the first to acclaim the works of Bartók and Kodály--and his (highly-disturbing) literary output.


----------



## insomniclassicac

Also, while not nearly the sensational case that Géza Csáth was, *Nikolai Obukhov* was pretty much crackers in his own peculiar way:



> His largest composition, and the one to which he devoted attention for much of his early creative life, was his Kniga Zhizni (Le livre de vie, The Book of Life). According to Nicolas Slonimsky, writing in his autobiography Perfect Pitch, Obukhov's wife was so exasperated with her husband's obsessive activity on the massive and peculiar piece that once she attempted to destroy the score by cutting it up. The composer caught her in time, carefully and reverently suturing its wounds, and adding drops of his own blood where he repaired the torn pages.[9] He kept it in a "sacred corner" of their Paris apartment, in a shrine upon which he placed candles to burn day and night, along with religious icons. Obukhov considered himself the intermediary rather than the composer of the piece - the person through whom the Divine allowed it to be revealed to the world - and he called that revelation a "sacred action" rather than a concert performance.[17] Rather than using his full name, he signed this piece, as well as many others, as "Nicolas l'illuminé" (Nicolas the visionary).[10] It was intended to be performed - or rather, revealed - once a year, during the day and the night, on the first and second resurrections of Christ, in a cathedral specially constructed for that purpose alone.


----------



## Pugg

Captainnumber36 said:


> Beethoven, no doubt.


I don't think that a certain lady is going to play at your wedding any time soon after reading this.


----------

