The top ten most overrated geniuses (not about music).

[PDG]

Something to keep in mind when judging "The Beatles" - the credit for the music they produced must rest not just with the four of them, but also with producer George Martin.

Agreed. Without his encouragement, empathy, willingness to absorb their appeal and charm, and brilliant studio ideas and contributions, they probably wouldn't have "made it".

GM, the "fifth" Beatle...

[Megan]

sorry PDG, my fingers got crossed.

[Peter]

I meant that Newton - especially because of his Principia - should be regarded as a great genius, whereas Shakespeare's language has become - for me - rather redundant. There still remain questions as to whether or not he actually existed! Anyone who says that they feel the same emotional experience after having seen a Shakespeare play as having attended a Beethoven concert, are - again, just my view - missing the point completely about Beethoven.

The point about the Beatles. And it's not just them - Gosh, thanks to this site, they might actually end up famous! - there are of course other terrific popular groups of the last 50 years. But the Beatles, unintentionally but inevitably helped by the tele-visual age, forged a path all of their own. Very talented with universal appeal, always trying new ideas (yes, later on sometimes helped by the influence of mind-expanding drugs, which I don't condone).

Just one simple example of changeing people's conceptions: Young men's hair was by common consent always swept backwards, thus: Apply for any worthwhile job with it any other way and you won't get it, you hippie! But because of the group's success, even as early as 1964, even your average bank manager was sporting a hair-swept-forwards Beatle haircut.

They loosened the world up a bit. Morally, too, no doubt, but overall, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. They are still the biggest-selling entertainment and cultural phenomena in history, and unlike your troubadours and minstrels, Peter, their name will 'liveth for ever more'.

The Beatles never rubbished classical music but actually embraced it into their own music.

First off this thread is supposed to be about geniuses and I don't think even you would claim the Beatles were that? What they tapped into (as do most pop groups) was a very basic human emotion - mass hysteria which is a very negative and dangerous force as has been demonstrated by history. Far from being the catalyst for the change in society, they were actually a product of that change.

I personally don't like their music, but I respect the fact that millions do including members here - but they were not geniuses and don't merit being in this thread!

[PDG]

First off this thread is supposed to be about geniuses and I don't think even you would claim the Beatles were that? What they tapped into (as do most pop groups) was a very basic human emotion - mass hysteria which is a very negative and dangerous force as has been demonstrated by history. Far from being the catalyst for the change in society, they were actually a product of that change.

I personally don't like their music, but I respect the fact that millions do including members here - but they were not geniuses and don't merit being in this thread!

No, the Beatles were certainly not geniuses (genii). They were just four working-class lads who happened to be in the right place and time in history for events to be allowed to unfold as they did. They were even "lucky" in that respect.

The mass hysteria was certainly not 'negative and dangerous' in their case, since the ones making all the noise were teenage girls. So hardly the threat of Nazi Germany looming there! The group could have harnessed the mass adulation for their own dubious ends (a quickly retractable Lennon: "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus"), but to their credit they did not. In fact, they even tired of all the fuss, retiring from public performance after just three years of Beatlemania.

I think the whole 'product of their environment' vis-a-vis 'they helped shape their environment' is a moot point, and the truth is it's probably a 50/50 situation.

There are other great pop groups who never get a mention on these pages. The Beatles are not the only one I admire!

[Quijote]

Not just groups. Bowie, Dylan ...
Back to one group I like at times, when the ambiance and 'accoutrements' are right: Velvet Underground.

[Peter]

No, the Beatles were certainly not geniuses (genii). They were just four working-class lads who happened to be in the right place and time in history for events to be allowed to unfold as they did. They were even "lucky" in that respect.

The mass hysteria was certainly not 'negative and dangerous' in their case, since the ones making all the noise were teenage girls. So hardly the threat of Nazi Germany looming there! The group could have harnessed the mass adulation for their own dubious ends (a quickly retractable Lennon: "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus"), but to their credit they did not. In fact, they even tired of all the fuss, retiring from public performance after just three years of Beatlemania.

I think the whole 'product of their environment' vis-a-vis 'they helped shape their environment' is a moot point, and the truth is it's probably a 50/50 situation.

There are other great pop groups who never get a mention on these pages. The Beatles are not the only one I admire!

I'm glad we're in agreement on that PDG - in reality I'm indifferent to the Beatles, but we're on a thread talking about overrated geniuses and in that context they are overrated. You mentioned Nazi Germany as a comparison, but actually the emotions and adulation aroused are the same primal instinct, if the consequences are thankfully different. Liszt was of course supposed to inspire similar reactions but I hardly think on the same scale - most of those young women would at a later time have been patients of Freud who may well be a candidate for this thread!

[Euan Mackinnon]

I have enjoyed following this interesting thread (thanks to Enrique for initiating it).

However, I have been surprised that no-one has attempted to define what genius is. Without a definition it is difficult to proposes overrated geniuses (or any other type of genius)

So let me propose a couple of definitions.

The first is one I vaguely remember reading somewhere (and which I am probably quoting inaccurately).

Talent does what it can; genius does what it must

.
But is this a definition? or, more likely, a description of a characteristic?

I tried several dictionaries before trying a definition of my own.

After several attempts (all rejected because I could easily find examples of people I regarded as geniuses but who didn't fit my definition) I settled on the following (which I still find vaguely unsatisfactory):

A genius is someone of exceptional intellectual or creative powers who fundamentally changes how others in the same sphere of activity and, over time, others, see, engage in, or appreciate that activity.

I'm still not sure whether Mozart would be in the club under this definition. Supremely, even uniquely, talented, yes, but a genius?

But the thread was about overrated geniuses so I'll test the definition above against just two who have cropped up a lot: Shakespeare and the Beatles.

Shakespeare is widely regarded as a genius but did he 'fundamentally change ... over time …' etc? I think I would say yes to that but I don't think he is such a clear-cut example as, say, Beethoven or physicists like Einstein or Newton, to mention just three.

What about the Beatles? I think they would just scrape in under the definition providing George Martin is included.

But to the others in this thread, what's your definition?

And Enrique, you started this so what's your definition?

Euan Mackinnon

[Peter]

I have enjoyed following this interesting thread (thanks to Enrique for initiating it).

However, I have been surprised that no-one has attempted to define what genius is. Without a definition it is difficult to proposes overrated geniuses (or any other type of genius)

So let me propose a couple of definitions.

The first is one I vaguely remember reading somewhere (and which I am probably quoting inaccurately).

Talent does what it can; genius does what it must

.
But is this a definition? or, more likely, a description of a characteristic?

I tried several dictionaries before trying a definition of my own.

After several attempts (all rejected because I could easily find examples of people I regarded as geniuses but who didn't fit my definition) I settled on the following (which I still find vaguely unsatisfactory):

A genius is someone of exceptional intellectual or creative powers who fundamentally changes how others in the same sphere of activity and, over time, others, see, engage in, or appreciate that activity.

I'm still not sure whether Mozart would be in the club under this definition. Supremely, even uniquely, talented, yes, but a genius?

But the thread was about overrated geniuses so I'll test the definition above against just two who have cropped up a lot: Shakespeare and the Beatles.

Shakespeare is widely regarded as a genius but did he 'fundamentally change ... over time …' etc? I think I would say yes to that but I don't think he is such a clear-cut example as, say, Beethoven or physicists like Einstein or Newton, to mention just three.

What about the Beatles? I think they would just scrape in under the definition providing George Martin is included.

But to the others in this thread, what's your definition?

And Enrique, you started this so what's your definition?

Euan Mackinnon

I see, so Mozart's just talented but the Beatles are geniuses?
I'm sorry but you could put the brains of the Beatles and George Martin together, shake them all up in the mix and you wouldn't even approach one tenth of Mozart's creative capacity. A perfect example of abuse of the word genius - we even have it applied nowadays to footballers.

I would say that a genius is [B]an individual/B] (not a group of people) of supreme intellectual creativity whose ideas are usually way beyond the understanding and appreciation of the majority (certainly in their lifetimes and often way beyond), ruling out all seekers of instant popularity. Hence Rossini, Suppe, Offenbach, Johann Strauss and yes the Beatles were all very talented but they weren't geniuses.

Having said that, I recognise that my definition is wholly inadequate!

[Enrique]

[I was about to post when Peter's arrived. I was eager to reply but, after reading his post, I was no longer willing to post. However, as it took a good deal of work, I'll post anyways.]

I'll do my best, Euan.

Very simple (but if it were simple to define genius I would be a great philosopher indeed). Take science. Common mortals must laboriously go step by step when starting from some set of premises in order to arrive at a conclusion. The genius, instead, leaps gracefully over many steps at a time, and reaches the conclusion. Mortals do their work as ants do. The usual man of science works isolated in his little compartiment, his very specialized field within his science. Suddenly a man appears that constructs a grandiose synthesis that encompasses a large portion of his science. That's genius. (1)

But art is exactly the same. The same as in science, instead of a local vision, these men have long range vision, a global vision of the subject they are working in. Perhaps some ideas go to the mind of Mozart and he thinks he could do something with them. And in a matter of days, when the common mortal has to do a linear work, going from A to Z passing over every letter, instead he has connected everything and already knows how the first movement of the symphony in G minor looks like. Now, its only a matter of using paper and pen.

I object, you shall say. What about Beethoven? He was the opposite of Mozart. And here, my dear sir, you would be wrong. I'll try to be as concise as possible. Vivaldi wrote many hundred of works. In the 20th century, a composor never surpassed a hundred. If he did not know some history, he would be astonished to learn that people from other centuries wrote ten times more than he.

The explanation is that, taking stravinsky for example, each new work is a whole different world, with little connection with the previous work. A new set of rules of composition. Vivaldi, on the other hand, seen by our composer, would seem to write his compositions with a recipi. Now consider how many years elapsed between the 2nd and the 3rd sympshossnsy. The 2nd and the 3rd represent two entirely different worlds too.

This explains why Beethoven composed so laboriously. And this is all the difference between he and Mozart [in what regards my attempt at a definition.] Different epochs (do not forget he was never classified as a revolutionary).

I would be tempted to use the word intuition too in this definition. Certainly I know of mathematicians whose intuition brought them in a jump to the result. Reason is laborious. Intuition is like a flash. And there is musical intuition also. So we could build a second definition using this concept, I guess.

There are the men who built new ethical systems, too. A new moral. We could also speak about giants. My definition of giant is: they are all those whose names we find in the books on ancient history. We moderns are all pygmies compared to them. Refining a bit: those who were considered great men by the ancients themselves.

(a) In this aspect, although in a different way, we have a case as that of Bach, who is also a grandiose synthesis of very different schools.

That's all. Do you like it or find it a bit inconsistent?

[Sorrano]

I do like your thinking, Enrique!

[Enrique]

You're welcome, Sorrano.

[Euan Mackinnon]

Peter, Enrique

Thank you for your responses.

Peter

Implicitly I think you are supporting my argument, viz it is difficult to provide a reasoned list of overrated geniuses without a (preferably agreed) definition of what a genius is.

For simplicity, and to make a comparison, I will put the two definitions side by side.

Mine: A genius is someone of exceptional intellectual or creative powers who fundamentally changes how others in the same sphere of activity and, over time, others, see, engage in, or appreciate that activity

.

Yours: a genius is an individual (not a group of people) of supreme intellectual creativity whose ideas are usually way beyond the understanding and appreciation of the majority (certainly in their lifetimes and often way beyond), ruling out all seekers of instant popularity

Your definition is very similar to mine except you have added ‘ruling out all seekers of instant popularity’ which, I assume, is designed to exclude people such as the Beatles.

But, once again, what about Mozart? Surely he (aided and abetted by his father) was most definitely seeking ‘instant popularity’ and, incidentally, achieving it for much of his life. And, as such, Mozart is not a genius under your definition just as, for different reasons, he is not one under mine.

Yet each of us, I guess, would want our ultimate definitions to include Mozart but exclude the Beatles.

I suppose you might argue that the ‘instant popularity’ Mozart achieved was with a small group of albeit powerful and rich people who were musically literate enough to recognise his creative ‘genius’. But, then, what about the 'ordinary' people of Prague who responded so enthusiastically to his operas.

Incidentally, I completely agree with your view that the word ‘genius’ is vastly overused and hence degraded these days. I also agree that to call a footballer a genius, for example, is farcical. Up here in Scotland, it seems a footballer only has to kick a ball in the rough direction of the goal (a feat even a five-year old can manage) to be hailed a ‘genius’ by some overheated commentator.

Enrique

If I have understood you correctly, there are four strands to your reply.

First, and in science, there is the comparison between ‘[c]ommon mortals’ who must ‘laboriously go step by step when starting from some set of premises in order to arrive at a conclusion’ with a genius who can leap over ‘many steps at a time' to reach the same conclusion. Furthermore, the genius will also construct ‘a grandiose synthesis that encompasses a large portion of his science’.

Second, and in the arts, there is the question of speed: Mozart who can convert ideas into a finished work ‘in a matter of days’ where ‘the common mortal has to do a linear work, going from A to Z passing over every letter’

Third, again in art (specifically music, in this case), you change the emphasis from speed to a necessary slowness since each work is unlike its predecessor. Thus Vivaldi ‘would seem to write his compositions with a recip[e]’ whereas, for Beethoven or Stravinsky, ‘each new work is a whole different world, with little connection with the previous work’.

Fourth, you refer to ‘men who built new ethical systems’ but as you seem to make a deliberate distinction between ‘giants’ and, by implication, geniuses, I won’t refer to this strand any further here.

Strands one to three contain interesting ideas on the question of ‘What is a genius?' I particularly like and agree with the 'synthesis' idea in strand one. However, I suggest the strands are more a series of characteristics that you feel such a definition should incorporate rather than a definition itself. I hope that, as the thread develops, you will take these characteristics further and distil out a definition.

Thank you again for initiating and continuing to participate in such an interesting thread.

All the best

Euan

PS: I am now away for a week and so will be unable to respond further for the next few days

[Peter]

A very valid response Euan and yes I am in agreement that providing a fitting definition isn't easy. As to Mozart's 'popularity' I think we are still talking in his day about an elite even in Prague - the vast majority there wouldn't have been able to afford opera performances. In the 19th century audiences of course broadened to the middle classes but you cannot say that Mozart has ever enjoyed the popularity of the Beatles, a popularity that was virtually instant because of catchy tunes combined with a defiance of convention and the recording technology to make it all possible - let's be frank, their audience in the 60s was primarily teenagers and today pop music aims at the same market with its predominate emphasis on the basis human instinct of sex.

Opera is in any case a phenomena all of its own - people were often more interested in the celebrity status of singers than the composer. I don't think you would find much popularity for Mozart's chamber music amongst the ordinary folk of Prague! This is I think another aspect to genius, certainly with music in that classical composer's aren't limited to one genre in the way pop groups are. Not only that, classical composers provide music that can be performed and interpreted by anyone with sufficient skill, whereas when we talk of the Beatles (I'm always only using them as an example) we mean just 4 lads who performed in the 60s - you can't recreate that for yourself, all you have is a one off recording, the same recording.

I do think genius has to refer to an individual, you cannot have a group of people who collectively constitute genius but are nothing on their own. In Mozart's case I have no doubt he was a genius and I think you have to look at how he used the classical language of his day in comparison to his contemporaries to realise why - to describe it you to have quite a great deal of musical knowledge in order to recognise what stands out from the ordinary or merely pleasant. Some people of course with no musical knowledge recognise it instinctively, but they are fewer in number.

Enjoy your trip!

[Chris]

Not only that, classical composers provide music that can be performed and interpreted by anyone with sufficient skill, whereas when we talk of the Beatles (I'm always only using them as an example) we mean just 4 lads who performed in the 60s - you can't recreate that for yourself, all you have is a one off recording, the same recording.

I don't know, a lot of people play Beatles tunes on their pianos and guitars.

[Peter]

I don't know, a lot of people play Beatles tunes on their pianos and guitars.

Yes and Kylie, Abba or any other group you care to mention, but these are amateur transcriptions, not a faithful reproduction of the original. If I wanted to listen to Abba (who I actually like!) I would only want a recording of Abba, no one else impersonating them. I'm the same with classical - I don't for instance like Beethoven's violin concerto arranged for clarinet (which I have) or his symphonies arranged for organ which I also have - ghastly!