Today's equivalent to Beethoven

[Peter]

Today I asked myself: Who is the modern day equivalent to Beethoven? (as a composer, not a tragic hero).

http://lvbandmore.blogspot.com/2010/...beethoven.html

I think these are some basic facts about B which a modern equivalent would have to match:

1. He achieved fame and popularity in his own time, both as a performer and and a composer, tho his popularity waxed and waned dramatically.
2. His music influenced composers for the next hundred years, both in imitation and in opposite reaction.
3. He wrote for the home amateur, the concert hall, religious functions and stage plays.
4. His work has never lost its value and it's heard everywhere, even after 200 years.
5. He made use of current technology and adapted his compositional style to the evolving pianoforte and the orchestra. In fact he was one of the first to use a metronome.
6. He expanded and stretched the rules of composition and his inventions were considered overly-bold, especially in his early career. Actually his late career was considered avant-garde even a hundred years later.

In the end I couldn't find anyone today (in the last 50 years) who exactly fit (even excepting the 200 years influence requirement).

Any thoughts?

Simply there is no equivalent, but this is true of all great composers - it is the uniqueness that makes them great.

[djmomo17]

Simply there is no equivalent, but this is true of all great composers - it is the uniqueness that makes them great.

I like this answer. I can't think of any argument against it frankly.

[Bonn1827]

Well I wasn't comparing it to hundreds of years ago and even if I were I wouldn't say people are 'smarter than they have ever been' or we would never have had such things as the Renaissance, the Industrial revolution or the Ancient empires. The average IQ level of the human species doesn't change, nor unfortunately does human nature, regardless of how we may like to think of ourselves as well educated, backed up by over inflated grades, easier exams and pointless degrees.

Yes more people can read than 500 years ago, but can they think and just what are they reading?? I have known exceptional people of great abilitity who can't read but can do things I couldn't begin to such as take an engine to bits and repair and service it! Beethoven was hopeless at maths, but I don't think we would describe someone who can just about add up as smarter than Beethoven?

Sorry Bonn but you've got me started on this one, so I'll finish!! Travel, well your average Britich tourist has such a disgraceful reputation that the only broadening of the mind here is a throbbing head the day after. As for tv - little hope here for the soap/ big brother addicted masses I'm afraid. If we were really getting smarter the demand for such trash would be drying up - sadly the opposite is the case.

I read into what you're saying a visceral dislike of modern university and its degree programs. Degrees do make people smarter, and I think higher IQ has been able to be expressed/realized due to more formal education, and on that we have to disagree. And I'm not talking about hundreds of years ago, but since the Industrial Revolution when people could understand, for goodness sake, that providing a sewer system in a city could save thousands of lives! But this is straying far from the point of the original thread.

I agree that the modern world isn't "set up" for the development of composers, as Chris suggests - the era of wealth and patronage! (Gee, did I just suggest that money would create better "educational" opportunities?)

I won't pursue the arguments about the possibilities of genius as this is going nowhere, except to say that LvB had little formal education. Can't we just say that his kind of musical genius is spread over the history of mankind and will surely appear again in the future.

[Preston]

If we were really getting smarter the demand for such trash would be drying up - sadly the opposite is the case.

Touching words, Peter, and sadly, all too true. We will probably eventually destroy ourselves by destroying the very earth we inhabit- it has already begun. Greed and corruption is everywhere. As for the TV- you cut it on in America and out of a large number of channels there are only a few that are decent. And most of them have the sickest of shows- and the fools laugh uncontrollably.

What really blows, my mind, is the way we willingly continue to destroy the natural environments around us- as an example, look at what we have done and are doing to the rain-forests!!!

I am a firm believer that sin exists and is "alive-and-kicking", apparently- and the sickness of this world is a prime example. A lot of the sinners consciously commit and embrace sin, yet interestingly enough, at the same time are oblivious to the fact that it is sin.

Wars rage- with no peaceful solution in sight. Lust and vanity has become a fad and unless you have those you aren't really in style, . Though, that makes sense seeing as style can all too easily be a great sin itself, imo.

There is no true hope for humanity as a whole- and, there never has been.

[Bonn1827]

Such doomsayers!! Yes, there's more rubbish about - as I said, it's the irony of increased education. But there's also very many wonderful things! Kids are far more articulate and have developed opinions which they can argue at a much greater degree than when I was at school. I was hugely impressed by the confidence and skill in debating which many of my students had. They were concerned about issues I never cared about for a second in my (mis-spent?) youth, where all I cared about was music, films and plays.

I found, as an English teacher, that if you give intelligent and receptive kids a taste of wonderful music, films and literature (I know little about art) they will come with you. It's all a matter of TRUST. If they trust you then you can take them ANYWHERE and they'll love you for it till the day they die!!

I remember during my last year (2007) a very average, unconfident and physically unappealing boy in my Year 9 class coming up to me after a unit on Appreciation of Cinema. We looked at the advent of Cinerama right through to digital widescreen and used Westerns as a genre. He walked up to me and stuttered, "Thank you miss, so much for that. I think those films are wonderful and it was great to see them as I never would have otherwise". With the pervasive American popular culture dominated by a few companies what chance does the populace have for an alternative? American hegemony will ultimately decline so we'd better be ready to put our money where our mouths are if we want something more valuable for people. Isn't education the place for that to start?

[Peter]

American hegemony will ultimately decline so we'd better be ready to put our money where our mouths are if we want something more valuable for people. Isn't education the place for that to start?

Yes absolutely, but we really need to re-evaluate what we are teaching and how we teach it to young people. Students are unnecessarily encouraged to go to university when many are simply not suited and in the past would not have been admitted - they end up with a useless degree, huge debt and no job - for these people apprenticeships are a more appropriate and effective way of learning.

Since I'm breaking forum rules by being way off topic Bonn, we'll have to use the other forum if you want to continue the debate.

[Euan Mackinnon]

I would like to return to the original question: Who is the modern day equivalent to Beethoven?

About six years ago a related question was posed on the MozartForum: Where have all the ‘Mozarts’ gone?
(See http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/showthread.php?t=574&highlight=normal+distribution)

Using some restrictive assumptions (IQ, Perfect Pitch, etc) and some elementary statistical analysis, the posting concluded (slightly tongue in cheek) that there have been 472 potential ‘Mozarts’ since 1969 (i.e. between 1969 and 2004 = 550+ to the present day by extrapolation).

This conclusion limited the analysis to babies born in Europe and America. Later in the posting, this restriction was dropped and the posting concluded that, given the current number of babies born every second somewhere in the World, there are just over 3 ‘Mozarts’ born every single day. (Emphasis as per original posting).

Now I once attended a lecture in which an 'expert' in IQ’s calculated that Beethoven would have had an IQ of somewhere in the high 130’s, statistically far below the estimated IQ for Mozart of 165. Thus there would be many, many more Beethoven’s born each day if one follows the argument of the thread.

So, where have they all gone?

To keep this posting short, I will pause there and post my own suggested answer to that question in due course. In doing so - and in returning to Who is the modern day equivalent to Beethoven? - I would also like to make reference to the discussion of current educational standards between Peter, Bonn1827, and others

Euan

[Peter]

I would like to return to the original question: Who is the modern day equivalent to Beethoven?

About six years ago a related question was posed on the MozartForum: Where have all the ‘Mozarts’ gone?
(See http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/showthread.php?t=574&highlight=normal+distribution)

Using some restrictive assumptions (IQ, Perfect Pitch, etc) and some elementary statistical analysis, the posting concluded (slightly tongue in cheek) that there have been 472 potential ‘Mozarts’ since 1969 (i.e. between 1969 and 2004 = 550+ to the present day by extrapolation).

This conclusion limited the analysis to babies born in Europe and America. Later in the posting, this restriction was dropped and the posting concluded that, given the current number of babies born every second somewhere in the World, there are just over 3 ‘Mozarts’ born every single day. (Emphasis as per original posting).

Now I once attended a lecture in which an 'expert' in IQ’s calculated that Beethoven would have had an IQ of somewhere in the high 130’s, statistically far below the estimated IQ for Mozart of 165. Thus there would be many, many more Beethoven’s born each day if one follows the argument of the thread.

So, where have they all gone?

To keep this posting short, I will pause there and post my own suggested answer to that question in due course. In doing so - and in returning to Who is the modern day equivalent to Beethoven? - I would also like to make reference to the discussion of current educational standards between Peter, Bonn1827, and others

Euan

I think we have to understand that the question starts from a false premise - how can there possibly be 'another' Beethoven, Mozart or anybody else come to that? We are all unique, born into a unique set of circumstances. The lives of Beethoven etc.. can and never will be replicated. Even if by some awful scientific expereiment they could clone Beethoven - he would not be Beethoven and would not write music that we know as 'Beethovian' because all the other circumstances of his life have gone forever.

[Quijote]

I think we have to understand that the question starts from a false premise - how can there possibly be 'another' Beethoven, Mozart or anybody else come to that? We are all unique, born into a unique set of circumstances. The lives of Beethoven etc.. can and never will be replicated. Even if by some awful scientific expereiment they could clone Beethoven - he would not be Beethoven and would not write music that we know as 'Beethovian' because all the other circumstances of his life have gone forever.

It always takes you a certain time to reach such conclusions, Peter. I congratulate you, nevertheless, for having arrived.

[Quijote]

But let us play Djmomo's game, nevertheless. Why not, nonsense can be fun (Cf. Caroll).
An "equivalent" today? Well, we must "translate" Beethoven's particular historical context into contemporary terms : a pianist-composer? Today I imagine that would be rather a rôle played by composer-conductors. Examples? Boulez, Adès, Benjamin ... Boulez is far from being a ranking pianist (competent on that instrument though he may be), though I understand Adès is pretty good. Is the question rather that there is no composer today of Beethoven's standing? That is a question for history (when we on this forum are dead). What about Messiaen? Outstanding virtuoso organist and composer, and teacher at the Paris Conservatoire (though a little bit dead, since the 80s?).
Nah, on reflection the premise is dumb and pointless. May I ask the same question for visual artists, authors and poets?

[Quijote]

Today I asked myself: Who is the modern day equivalent to Beethoven? (as a composer, not a tragic hero).

http://lvbandmore.blogspot.com/2010/...beethoven.html

I think these are some basic facts about B which a modern equivalent would have to match:

1. He achieved fame and popularity in his own time, both as a performer and and a composer, tho his popularity waxed and waned dramatically.
2. His music influenced composers for the next hundred years, both in imitation and in opposite reaction.
3. He wrote for the home amateur, the concert hall, religious functions and stage plays.
4. His work has never lost its value and it's heard everywhere, even after 200 years.
5. He made use of current technology and adapted his compositional style to the evolving pianoforte and the orchestra. In fact he was one of the first to use a metronome.
6. He expanded and stretched the rules of composition and his inventions were considered overly-bold, especially in his early career. Actually his late career was considered avant-garde even a hundred years later.

In the end I couldn't find anyone today (in the last 50 years) who exactly fit (even excepting the 200 years influence requirement).

Any thoughts?

Yes, some thoughts. You are quite a demagogue finally, Dpjamas, aren't you? You set up your questions with exclusive caveats and invite us to disprove them.
For example, you posit that any "equivalent" composer today would have had to (I paraphrase) "make use of current technology and adapt his compositional style to the evolving pianoforte and the orchestra. In fact he [would have been] one of the first to use a metronome".
Well quite, I really can't think of a composer today who matches your narrow definition. As to your Point 6 ("He expanded and stretched the rules of composition and his inventions were considered overly-bold, especially in his early career. Actually his late career was considered avant-garde even a hundred years later")

Again, it is hard to find a composer today (as you ask) whom one can talk of "a hundred years later", though I can provide you a long list of composers (living) who are "considered" to have "stretched" the "rules of composition". As a point of interest, where might I find these "rules of composiiton"? I teach harmony and (this term) a sort of "free composition" course. It would be most helpful to me if you could provide this list of "rules".

In short, your whole idea has been based on false premises, though I believe Peter has already addressed this. I expect more rigour in future.

[djmomo17]

In short, your whole idea has been based on false premises, though I believe Peter has already addressed this. I expect more rigour in future.

dem·a·gogue/ˈdeməˌgäg/Noun
1. A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

Wow, Phillip - you're really beating me about the head and shoulders today aren't you!

Well I will be bold and possibly-less-than-rigourous here and give a candidate - Trent Reznor. In my original blog post I give reasons why Trent seems to have the best chance.

I quote (myself):

Trent Reznor - This is a left-field choice but in the end I think he has a chance of being regarded 200 years from now like Beethoven is now.
Fame and popularity? Check.
Influential? Drum and bass and half of all current film music.
Current technology? I think he's actually made technology-based music cool again.
Revolutionary and unpredictable? Yes, no doubt. He has also written for film, videogames and stadium. Frankly I doubt he'll be writing religious music but some of his pieces have a strong religious subtext (sort of?). Also he's not dead yet, and far from being washed up (sorry Jimmy).
Will his music still be alive 200 years from now? That's the only weak point for ol' Trent. For reasons beyond the scope of this post, technology-based music from the current century dates very quickly.

I admit I'm not that rigorous on this forum. Heck, I don't even use my real name!

You teach "free composition"? Would that be free improvisation in the vein of Derek Bailey, or intuitive music in the 'vain' of Stockhausen?

Your message post invites me to make a much longer reply but it's getting into the wee hrs here....continued in the morning...

[Peter]

It always takes you a certain time to reach such conclusions, Peter. I congratulate you, nevertheless, for having arrived.

No, these were my first thoughts, but I allowed myself to break forum rules (administrator's perogative) and go off at a tangent - (no I don't mean tango!).

[Euan Mackinnon]

Peter (09-10-2010, 02:08 PM)
I think we have to understand that the question starts from a false premise - how can there possibly be 'another' Beethoven, Mozart or anybody else come to that? We are all unique, born into a unique set of circumstances. The lives of Beethoven etc.. can and never will be replicated. Even if by some awful scientific expereiment they could clone Beethoven - he would not be Beethoven and would not write music that we know as 'Beethovian' because all the other circumstances of his life have gone forever.

Of course, Peter, it is axiomatic that we are “all unique” etc etc and so, in this narrow sense, there can never “be 'another' Beethoven, Mozart or anybody else come to that”.

But djmomo asked us “Who is the modern day equivalent to Beethoven?” from which I think it is clear he/she seeks a (serious) composer who has made, or is making, as big an ‘impact’ in our times as Beethoven (or Mozart, come to that) did in his.

In my view, the question is a very interesting one although I do agree with Philip that it was diminished by too many “exclusive caveats” and “narrow definition[s]”.

So, here, I shall comment on what I take to be the central thrust of the original question and ignore the caveats and definitions.

I start from where I left off in my earlier posting (09-10-2010, 01:50 PM): statistically speaking there will have been hundreds or even thousands of ‘Beethovens’ or ‘Mozarts’ born since their time and many of these will be alive today. By which I mean people with the ‘equivalent’ innate ability (genius, if you prefer) to ‘do something’ (including writing music) having the same ‘impact’ today as the music of Beethoven.

So, where have they all gone?

First, we can whittle down the numbers substantially by eliminating:

virtually all females (the reasons? potentially a separate thread);
virtually all those born into deprived circumstances;
virtually all those not included above but who were born into alien cultures (alien in the sense that music accessible to our ears did and does not form part of their cultures).

This will have brought the numbers down dramatically but there will still (I would guess) be dozens of potential Beethovens left, even today.

So, where have the rest gone?

I believe this question can be addressed in two broad ways:

from first principles;
from the narrower perspective of education (formal and informal).

The first interests me personally far more but I guess is not appropriate to this forum. This brings us to education.

I entirely agree with Peter who has railed about the general standard of formal education in the UK (and there is no reason to think that it does not apply to many – most? – western countries). Equally, I agree with Bonn that there are just as many bright, lively, curious kids around as ever, a lucky few of whom meet the sort of teachers that Bonn herself seems to have been.

A statistically significant number of these very bright kids will have had considerable exposure to the Arts, whether at school or elsewhere, albeit at a far less intense level than that experienced by either Beethoven or Mozart.

But, I would argue, every age has its own horizons and places towards which the brightest are inexorably drawn. Astronomy, mathematics, philosophy for the Greeks; the visual arts during the Renaissance; physics, biology over the last hundred years or so; and so on. And, today, I would include finance in this list (with all the consequences that we are now experiencing).

Today, if you are really (frighteningly) bright (estimated IQ of Mozart of 165, remember) and don’t allow yourself to be influenced too much by your primary and secondary education, you migrate towards:

finance if you want to make money (or, as a second choice, corporate business, the law, accountancy possibly, or the media if you are spineless);
fundamental science or microbiology or nanotechnology etc if you want to be at the very frontier of knowledge, a boundary where everything is up for grabs in ways not seen since 1927, the Solvay Conference, and the argument between Einstein and his supporters and Bohr and his.

If you have a mind that could live in either of these worlds, composing (serious) music doesn’t even feature on your radar; where’s the fame (or money)?

The hundred+ years from the late 17th to the early 19th centuries in (what is now) Germany and, in particular, in Vienna drew some of the best to music where there was patronage and fame. Today, the only possible contender for fame or money in the (serious) Arts is architecture (but the opportunities here are few and far between) or literature (but this is destroyed by the economics of the publishing industry).

Today, Beethoven would be a physicist at CERN; Mozart would be dealing in arcane derivatives in New York or the City of London. The opportunities in both are huge; the mental demands severe enough to challenge even the brightest of minds; the potential rewards immense. Look there for your Beethovens.

Euan

[Peter]

Yes Euan some very interesting points. Firstly I would agree that there are very smart kids around today (as there always has been) - my comments on education were not meant as a denigration of the intelligence of young people. I would argue that average intelligence in the human race is a constant - there are more of us now than 100,000 years ago so naturally there will be more bright people as well as more less able etc.. I think there is a distinction between high IQ and genius - there are many highly intelligent people but they are not all geniuses, nor do they all have the capacity to be so.

There are cultural high points in history such as 5th century Athens and the Renaissance - but these periods weren't as limited in their fields as you suggest. Ancient Greece for example produced scientists, musicians, sculptors as well as philosophers.

Back to the present day and we are surely faced with a conundrum in that despite the ever increasing numbers at music college we are not producing an ever increasing number of Beethovens - and in using his name I mean great composers of the front rank who have a far reaching impact. True, we cannot see how the present generation will be viewed in the future, but is there any one name that stands out from the past 60 years that can truly stand comparison with Beethoven and all that means in terms of his monumental impact and contribution to western music? Is there any one name that is so universally admired, loved and respected throughout the world?

I am reminded of a comment by the late Robbins-Landon who quoted Haydn's comments on hearing of Mozart's death - "we will not see his like for a hundred years" - RL added "We have not seen it in 200".