Genius in music

[Euan Mackinnon]

In the FT recently (October 11th), John Kay wrote an article headed ‘Genius can change the world’ triggered by the death of Steve Jobs.

He opened the article by quoting Schopenhauer:

Talent hits the target others cannot hit; genius hits the target others cannot see.

Here is another definition I have read:

Talent does what it can; genius does what it must.

1. How would you define genius, as opposed to ‘mere’ talent, with respect to music, first as applied to composers, second (if you believe it is relevant) as applied to performers?

And …

2. Given your definition, which composers (or performers) would you say exhibited genius and which ‘mere’ talent?

Euan

[Sorrano]

My first thought is basically a rewording of the Schopenhauer quote, that genius is the ability to transcend the scopes of what is considered normal in that field. Talent is the ability to apply principles (physical and mental) above the measure of the norm.

My thought, also, is that a portion of genius is talent, but that it goes far beyond that. As for composers, two come quickly to my mind: Beethoven and Haydn as being geniuses.

[susanwen]

Your second quote is from Bulwer-Lytton.
- Susan

[Michael]

Your second quote is from Bulwer-Lytton.
- Susan

Didn't he write the immortal phrase: "It was a dark and stormy night" - considered to be the worst opening line in literature?

[Peter]

Firstly the word 'genius' is much abused like the word 'hero'. I think originality is a key ingredient of genius as well as an exceptional capacity for creativity. I do think it can also apply to some performers as well who show these traits that go beyond talent - there are many talented performers but far fewer geniuses - I think Josef Hoffman was one such example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Hofmann

[Quijote]

Gosh, I have no idea! However, if "genius does what it must", then I am a genius : every morning I have certain bodily functions where I really must.

[Sorrano]

Gosh, I have no idea! However, if "genius does what it must", then I am a genius : every morning I have certain bodily functions where I really must.

Is that what Beethoven meant by "Must it be?"

[Quijote]

Sorry Euan, I've been too flippant. Really though, I think this argument is a non-starter. OK, Beethoven is considered a genius (and Bach and Einstein and so the list goes on ...) and I for one am not going to argue. I think there is an inherent problem though with arriving at any cut-and-dried definition, and this is compounded by the terms you employ above : "target" (presupposes a set aim, which is what, exactly?), "obligation" (whose and why), "change" (from what to what) and so on.

[Euan Mackinnon]

Peter 13th October
Firstly the word 'genius' is much abused like the word 'hero'. I think originality is a key ingredient of genius as well as an exceptional capacity for creativity. I do think it can also apply to some performers as well who show these traits that go beyond talent - there are many talented performers but far fewer geniuses - I think Josef Hoffman was one such example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Hofmann

I totally agree that the word 'genius' – along with many others so beloved by the media – is abused. I respond in more general terms to your other points below.

Thank you for the Wikipedia reference.

Philip 14th October
Sorry Euan, I've been too flippant. Really though, I think this argument is a non-starter. OK, Beethoven is considered a genius (and Bach and Einstein and so the list goes on ...) and I for one am not going to argue. I think there is an inherent problem though with arriving at any cut-and-dried definition, and this is compounded by the terms you employ above : "target" (presupposes a set aim, which is what, exactly?), "obligation" (whose and why), "change" (from what to what) and so on.

With respect, Philip, I beg to disagree. So let me try a draft-1 definition then see where it leads.

First I will assume that the expression ‘field of human endeavour’ is one that would be understood by everyone. I am further going to assume that we can accept that the ‘endeavour’ concerned is a positive one, i.e. not criminal, or harmful, and so on. Finally, I am going to use the term ‘rules’ to mean the whole structure that defines how the endeavour is perceived and executed.

Given these then:

In any field of human endeavour, a genius fundamentally and for the better changes the rules while someone of talent stays within the rules albeit near or at the extremity of them.

The more extensive the fundamental changes are, the greater the genius. The nearer the extremity, the greater the talent.

So, to composers and performers of Western music.

Under this definition, I would say there are few composers of genius. Beethoven is one such. Wagner (I am told) is another. Perhaps Mahler? Just possibly J S Bach. Monteverdi?? Forum members, far more knowledgeable that I am, can doubtless supply more. Philip, you might want to propose some ‘modern’ candidates.

More provocatively, I would say that Mozart is/was not a genius, he was supremely talented, probably the most talented composer who has ever existed (in Western music of any type).

As to performers: almost by definition they can only be talented if they are following a score.

Euan

PS: Incidentally, Philip, when you write … and this is compounded by the terms you employ above : "target" …I should point out that I was quoting Schopenhauer; they are not my terms.

[Preston]

I think there are different levels of genius and that is very important to keep in mind, imo.

For instance, Sorrano mentions Haydn and Beethoven, I believe Beethoven's level of genius far exceeded Haydn's.

[Peter]

I think there are different levels of genius and that is very important to keep in mind, imo.

For instance, Sorrano mentions Haydn and Beethoven, I believe Beethoven's level of genius far exceeded Haydn's.

No I can't agree with that or with the comments about Bach and Mozart. Beethoven's genius is simply different, but we are talking on the highest level of music achievement here and Haydn has his place there too. These great names from the past are remembered and performed today precisely because their music is the greatest written in their time - there are countless names of lesser but nonetheless talented composers who are mostly forgotten such as Arne, Dittersdorf, Boccherini, etc... who wrote much pleasant attractive music but without that spark of individuality that marks out the greats.

[Quijote]

I really shouldn't be here on this thread, but here goes :
In any field of human endeavour, a genius fundamentally and for the better changes the rules while someone of talent stays within the rules albeit near or at the extremity of them.
Hmm. OK, composers today don't have any rules (of counterpoint, harmony ...) so we cannot apply the "genius" label to them on that narrow criterion.

[Sorrano]

I really shouldn't be here on this thread, but here goes :
In any field of human endeavour, a genius fundamentally and for the better changes the rules while someone of talent stays within the rules albeit near or at the extremity of them.
Hmm. OK, composers today don't have any rules (of counterpoint, harmony ...) so we cannot apply the "genius" label to them on that narrow criterion.

Perhaps a genius is one who leads the pack rather than follows?

[Peter]

Perhaps a genius is one who leads the pack rather than follows?

I don't know - Mozart wasn't that innovative, he simply perfected what was there. I still think he was a genius!

[Quijote]

I don't know either. Still, to play Euan's game (in proposing composers who "push the envelope" so to speak) I will say : Varèse, Schoenberg, Cage, Stockhausen, Boulez, Berio and the "school" of electroacoustic composers whose names remain obscure in the mainstream culture.