Yes, he is interesting and certainly a very good orchestrator. Not sure I'd call him 'great' however.

What I'm questioning, Yagan, is not whether or not there's any scientific evidence to support or dismiss the idea of 'genius', but your own absolute assertion that a person cannot be born with innate potentiality for exceptional ability in any given area of life.

Why should 'natural' equate 'born with'? Cannot some natural ability be latent; encouraged to flower to a quite extraordinary extent later in a person's life with the aid of top-flight education, personal enthusiasm/ambition and other 'ideal' circumstances? Would it not then be appropriate to call such a flowering 'genius', especially if that flowering results in demonstrable achievements that tower over those of others who've benefited from similarly excellent situations?

If I mean anything by the term 'genius', sir, I most certainly mean this.

FK

__________________
An everyman for himself ~ Classical music reviews & resources
--
Follow me on Twitter

Beethoven himself seemed to dismiss orchestration or at least playability as the be all end all of music. "Do you think I worry about your lousy fiddle when the spirit moves me?"

One can still be among the top three composers of all time and not be the greatest orchestrator. In the visual arts I would say that da Vinci and Rembrandt both were fairly mundane colorists, partly due to the materials available but not entirely.

I and many others find Beethoven's orchestration sublime enough and I am grateful I am no academic so that I can still enjoy music as it was intended.

Yes this one slipped my mind! Among the greats in my opinion. Too often underrated!

Personal favourites masters in orchestration: Wagner, Rimsky-Korsakow, Ravel, Shostakovitch, Strauss, Messiaen, Ligeti

If you deny existence of genius, do you deny also existence of talent?

I deny the existence of genius that your are born into.

Talent is something you learn, it is not natural, a gift or anything. You cannot be born to write music.

Quotation form Brittanica: "Genius is distinguished from talent, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Talent refers to a native aptitude for some special kind of work and implies a relatively quick and easy acquisition of a particular skill within a domain (sphere of activity or knowledge). Genius, on the other hand, involves originality, creativity, and the ability to think and work in areas not previously..."

I think it is important for you to deny talent and genius because of some private reasons.

If there is nothing like native talent, how do you explain melodic "gift" of Dvořák or Tchaikovsky then?

Brahms (who was admirer of lovely melodies) hadn't so rich melodic invention as Dvorak and he knew it . There is his well known quotation: “I should be glad if something occurred to me as a main idea that occurs to Dvořák only by the way.”.

So where was the problem? Was Brahms well educated (self-educated)? Oh, much more than Dvořák. Did Brahms work hard? Oh, he was workaholic! Was he passionate to compose the music? No doubt. Please explain it for me.

Make group of 100 children in the age of 3 and and tell them to draw anything they want. Then you check it and you will find that 5 drawings are much better than onthers, surprisingly good for their age. That's the talent and in the age of three it has nothing to do with hard work or art education. That's why there is a talent proof for naturally uneducated children who want to join primary music schools.

Please don't turn this into a personal attack. The concept of genius is just an excuse for those who have not achieved anything. If that person over there is a genius, that is why I am not as good. Or. I don't have to work hard at this, because that person is a genius and I'm not. If you have received a good education in your critical periods of life, then it is only the work you put into it that lets you do anything.

Melody is a science in composition, it isn't a gift, it can be learnt.

Age three is after the (first?) critical period in life.

Different access to works at a younger age? Different teachers? How am I supposed to know the early, undocumented psycology of a 100 years dead guy?

Incorrect.

Under your definition, I am a genius. Now, I know I worked hard to achieve what I have in music (and my tennis), yet I fit your definitions. But I worked hard, and that is the only reason I achieved what I did.

Ravel, Stravinsky, Debussy, Schoenberg (only sometimes, e.g. the Five Pieces, but not of the op. 31 variations), and Berg are all great orchestrators.

Boulez, Messiaen, Carter, Dutilleux, Knussen, Holloway, Adès and Julian Anderson are also all great orchestrators.

It can be learnt in a manner. It isn't exact matter like step-by-step programming of some software.

I can speak about Mussorgsky for example, no real music education, no systematic hard work, alcohol, etc. one could expect composer deeply below the average. But Pictures is a touch of pure genius (and composer mastery as well of course). Then there are some specific gifts connected to music, for example phenomenal and really wonderful musical memory of Shostakovich (that was at first observed by her mother when he was child, by the way).

Maybe you are...I don't know. But I didn't said that only genius can become a good composer. No way, what I said is that there exists a phenomenon of talent and geniality as a very significant predisposition, which can be bring to bear or not.

No attack, I just see that is very important for you to keep on your "tabula rasa" theory. I don't get it, because it is based on your wish and not on the apparent reality.

[quote]No attack, I just see that is very important for you to keep on your "tabula rasa" theory. I don't get it, because it is based on your wish and not on the apparent reality.[quote]No it isn't. Sorry. (To both accusations in that).

Can you tell me how they were educated when they were 2 years old? What external aspects of life they were shown and experienced? No? Neither can I, so stop bringing up ancient composers. It's useless.

No, your argument is that composers are different later in life. I agree with that. My argument is that it is external stimuli that make them like this, not an in built knowledge of an abstract, and non-evolutionary concept of music. Language is different, humans are predisposed to learning language, however music is not a natural evolutionary trait.

Berlioz, Puccini and Bartók knew better than others (IMO) how to play with and blend new orchestral colours. If you are intrested in the most thick-woven, richest and fullest sound, go for Brahms.


His pieces aren't written for today's instruments. He wrote for classical oboes, wooden flutes, pre-Heckel bassoons, brass with much narrower bore, non-metallic strings etc.
In his wind music (chamber), he knows how they work. The same goes for Mozart (period instrument 'Gran Partita' recording from Harmonia Mundi heavily recommended, it gives a hint to the sound intended for the symphonies).

And?
[quoteIn his wind music (chamber), he knows how they work. The same goes for Mozart (period instrument 'Gran Partita' recording from Harmonia Mundi heavily recommended, it gives a hint to the sound intended for the symphonies).[/quote]How come the rest is so shit then?

And - how could I forget?! - Richard Strauss and Gustav Mahler.