Handwaving qualitative statistical twaddle and musical genius...

[MDV]

A notion, for your consideration:

We hold many a long-dead composer in extremely high regard. I neednt name any, thats sort part of the point/question.

But, consider times they lived in. Good quality instruments a were scarce, a carreer in music required the patronage of some monarch or similar, material to learn from was hard to come by (no interwebs, no printing press for a lot of them), lots of passing of the torch, apprenticing, fortunate circumstances and the like. Also, general standards of education were very much lower, as were comfort levels and standards of living facilitating you having free time and means to indulge in music full time, and aside from anything else, the planets population was much lower. But we venerate these people (again, just choose your favourites).

Obviously time (as in the test of; that they, whomever you picked, are still remembered and enjoyed, and have therefore been by all intervening generations to at least some extent) plays a factor in this, and likely the fashion in which those that were lucky enough to find a life in music would have gone about it with a devotion, in shear number of hours per day, that would put most of us to shame.

But, we have far more readily available instruments, of good quality for a low proportion of our income, we have everything humanity has ever known about music and how to play any given instrument at our fingertips, all making it easier, in principle for any given person to develop their skills/art/whatever, and to boot there are far more poeple alive today, so any quasi-rational way I can cut it there must be people that are as, how shall we say without getting toooo subjective about it....musically sophisticated? That'll do; more people as musically sophisticated alive today than at any other time in history. I submit to you that there are more (imma start naming names now for dramatic impact and shite) mozarts, beethovens, paganinis and so on alive now than, well, when they were alive.

Or,

They were 'better' whatever the $%&# that is, because their lack of distraction and scholarly devotion allowed so much more focus, so a persons potential (whatever the $%&# that is) might be better realised, and their work is therefore truly godlike and unmatchable by modern fickle, facebook and youtube addicted people.

I think the former. They are out there, proper massive geniuses, that will probably be forgotten since, for similar reasons, they cant stand out as much, and have as great an impact in such a musically prolific popluation as ours, but I think there are rather a few out there now that can be fairly compared to the great composers. If you agree, name some! I'll start: Tommy Emmanual, al di meola.

If you dont agree, why?

[clyde billt]

I saw a question mark.
Is there a question in there?

[38thBeatle]

I am in a bit of a hurry but in the spirit of what you are( I think) saying- yes I think there probably are more people alive today of more musical sophistication then ever before and not due to the sheer volume of folk wandering the planet but for the reasons you state. Certainly in the developed world(if we use our western idea of musical sophistication) because for most of us, we have more disposable income/time/access to knowledge/equipment/ plus the fact that we have a readily available way of communicating to the world but as you suggest, there  is perhaps an embarrassment of riches which can perhaps engender a "ho hum" attitude.

[dave_mc]

it might even be a similar thing to science- maybe they got the low-hanging fruit.

I'm not saying that to belittle the classical composers- i love classical music. beethoven, vivaldi, bach, mozart, handel, all those dudes are untouchable badasses in my book.

But yeah. That'd be my take on it.

[Telerocker]

I really admire old records like from the forties and fifties, when there was no or nearly no multitracking possible. They just had to play the song right at once, like on the early Elvis-recordings. These musicians were skilled. But, I think every era has his musical genius(ses), only the tools and knowledge (acces via internet etc) evolve. Where would Malmsteen been without Bach, Paganini etc.

[tomjackson]

It's a very good question.

I think the former, but it's hard to compare modern music to symphonies.  Tommy Emmanuel is amazing and I'd personally rather listen to him play than hear most classical music but many people would tell you nothing can compare to the richness and colour of a symphony from Mozart, for example.

I personally think John Williams is up there with the best and Dark Side of the Moon is as much of a masterpeice as Beethoven's 9th but I'm sure many people would laught at that notion.

So it depends who you ask.

TBH the roots of the music I like comes from the cotton fields of America at the end of the 19th centuary which in turn came from Africa as opposed to classical era western Europe.  And i'm sure if you go back to Mozart's time there were also equally talented composers in other areasof the world, but that's not our history.  

So yeah, I agree with the former.  Where there's people, there's geniuses!

[Roobubba]

Where there are people, there are geniuses!

Sorry, I couldn't resist! :)

[MDV]

38th - yes indeed, the resources available to us (which is what the sum total of our education and tools amounts to) are far superior, and more importantly available to far more people and the question of 'proportion of people that practice music' is a moot one. No doubt now we have far more than then (whenever you choose 'then' to be; I suspect theres stark contrast in that regard between now and even 30 years ago, due to the impact of digital audio and comminucaiton on our musical lives).

As to whether the average standard now is higher...probably, but I think its really hard to guess how talented or knowledgable your average minstrel was compared to your average pub band musician. We have a far better record of the works of the various legends of the past, and the interesting thing to me is comparing modern luminaries and greats with previous ones.

Dave, I dont think its quite the same thing, as there are no easy answers. Or more to the point, no right and wrong. Newtonian gravitation and the opening bars of Beethovens 5th might both seem simple and kind of foundational now; something obvious in hindsight and so easily built upon and beyond, but one is demonstrably right and one is about emotional impact. Clearly general relativity is better than newtonian gravitation because it gives answers more consistent with observation and with greater accuracy, but how do you compare the opening bars of beethovens 5th to the opening riff of smoke on the water? Both are very simple and seem pretty low hanging to me in that regard, but both hit people very hard, are powerfull, emotive and memorable Or Paganinis 24th Caprice to For the Love of God? Both virtuosic. colourfull and expressive.

Science and music are similar in that whatever happens in either is based on whats come before, so maybe the entire question is null and void.

Tom, very good point. Most modern music does indeed follow a totally different structure. One of the things that strikes me about Mozarts symphonies, or bach or whomever is how dynamic and unrepetative they are, and structurally free, and how they progress and develop. I feel its a constraint of modern music that we have a basically modular compositional system; places and sequence already defined, just unfilled. Intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, middle 8, solo, chorus, outro; 4 or 5 riffs, half a dozen fills or bridges. It seems like most modern musicians are always just trying to fill in these pre-defined spaces (or some similar permutation of them) and so much is already done for you just in this expected standard structure; you have a box to think in and parameters defined. Listen to any modern pop, rock, blues and to a large extent metal and even if you've never heard the band before you usually have a very good idea whats coming next. The first time you hear Vivaldi, not so much! Seems to me that compositions then took you on a journey, and pieces evolved as the composer felt they needed to on a bar to bar basis, which I feel needs vastly more talent than modern rock-style structuring that the majority of music fits.

As a modern listener, I do find the modern structuring more comfortable (I certainly choose to listen to Tommy Emmanuel far more than Mozart) but maybe we're just signs of our times in that regard? I also find it incredibly hard to produce anything that breaks free from riff-based, modular repetative structure myself, and find very few people doing anything really free-structured today (a fair bit of Jazz and some Metal; wes montgomery and origin come to mind, but even they seem sort of infantile compared to, say, Bach). I think thats one point to the Old Guys. Either that or its one point against most modern listeners :lol:

I'm kind of arguing myself out of my original viewpoint here :lol: so more guys that I think in some way hold up against anyone history has to offer: Jason Becker (a giant that stood on the shoulders of giants), Aaron Turner (what? I dont think virtuosity is a requisite; Turner can compose like a mother$%&#er! Listen to Isis, Panopticon, all the way through with your eyes closed in a dark room :D Also an interesting example of how modern effects and technology can be employed to tremendous effect in composition and sonic texture; chopin never had delay, but I'm sure he'd have used it if he did!)

[tomjackson]

Where there are people, there are geniuses!

Sorry, I couldn't resist! :)

Well spotted!  A gentle use of irony alluding to the fact that both Mozart and Beethoven were A. geniuses and B. dyslexic

Cough :oops:

[dave_mc]

Dave, I dont think its quite the same thing, as there are no easy answers. Or more to the point, no right and wrong. Newtonian gravitation and the opening bars of Beethovens 5th might both seem simple and kind of foundational now; something obvious in hindsight and so easily built upon and beyond, but one is demonstrably right and one is about emotional impact. Clearly general relativity is better than newtonian gravitation because it gives answers more consistent with observation and with greater accuracy, but how do you compare the opening bars of beethovens 5th to the opening riff of smoke on the water? Both are very simple and seem pretty low hanging to me in that regard, but both hit people very hard, are powerfull, emotive and memorable Or Paganinis 24th Caprice to For the Love of God? Both virtuosic. colourfull and expressive.

yep, sure.

i think what i was trying to mean more was that the earlier composers probably weren't as concerned about sounding like someone else. While i agree that the number of (even quite simple, as smoke on the water suggests) riffs/motifs is limitless, it's harder to come up with something original now than it was in 1400.

That's kinda what I meant. I know that science is (supposedly, anyway) objective whereas music is more subjective.

Also with no technology, they probably weren't as exposed to other music. I dunno how many times I've thought I've come up with a killer riff, only to find it was some song i heard once on the radio... :(

[Lezard]

I'm of the opinion that there probably are more virtuoso players knocking about now, but for me, musical genius comes more down to the creativity aspect which can't really be learned (it can of course be refined, one can learn to better express it etc) so the proportion of geniuses wouldn't have changed much.

There is also the fact that this long after the "Classical" era, it's mostly the great works that are remembered. I'd be very curious to see what's remembered of this decade in 100 years time.

I would also point to modern popular tastes as a force stifling creativity but that thought has likely been expressed since the second generation of man.

my votes for current musical geniuses - Miles Davis, Allan Holdsworth , John McLaughlin, Martian Taylor, Jeff Beck

[MDV]

Dave, I dont think its quite the same thing, as there are no easy answers. Or more to the point, no right and wrong. Newtonian gravitation and the opening bars of Beethovens 5th might both seem simple and kind of foundational now; something obvious in hindsight and so easily built upon and beyond, but one is demonstrably right and one is about emotional impact. Clearly general relativity is better than newtonian gravitation because it gives answers more consistent with observation and with greater accuracy, but how do you compare the opening bars of beethovens 5th to the opening riff of smoke on the water? Both are very simple and seem pretty low hanging to me in that regard, but both hit people very hard, are powerfull, emotive and memorable Or Paganinis 24th Caprice to For the Love of God? Both virtuosic. colourfull and expressive.

yep, sure.

i think what i was trying to mean more was that the earlier composers probably weren't as concerned about sounding like someone else. While i agree that the number of (even quite simple, as smoke on the water suggests) riffs/motifs is limitless, it's harder to come up with something original now than it was in 1400.

That's kinda what I meant. I know that science is (supposedly, anyway) objective whereas music is more subjective.

Also with no technology, they probably weren't as exposed to other music. I dunno how many times I've thought I've come up with a killer riff, only to find it was some song i heard once on the radio... :(

One sees. Its a fair point. It makes me (re)think that modern musicians have harder time of it. I'd be quite prepared to believe that in the 100,000 years or so we've been making musical sounds smoke on the water and beethovens 5ths opening bars have been played (or something very much like them played) many times over, but been remembered and passed down the generations only once each. The difference now, as you say, is we can so easily rip someone off by accident, and its so much harder to detatch yourself from your influences.

Its basically a given that even a modern casual music listener has heard more different music from more artists than Mozart ever did. He'd have had to go and see them, or them come to him, lacking a CD player. I guess my first thought was that would make it easier for us...maybe it makes it harder.

Lezard, yes, I agree. I think what genius is in the first place is quite subjective, or subject to semantics; I certainly dont think that its just exceptional IQ or even a high degree of technical aptiude; like you I think it has much more to do with creativity and how you think. Add that to what Daves saying and maybe there are fewer (or there is less opportunity for) genius now. I mean, most of the musical proletariat think that Lady gaga being sexually ambiuous and wearing a silly frock is genius. Is this what we have to resort to when its all been thought of before :lol: (and even then bowie did it before, and better; short memory fail).

[Loomer]

I'd honestly say, that whoever composed the music for Deathspell Omega's "FAS Ite - Maledicti In Ignem Aeternum" is a musical genius in the classical sense.

[JacksonRR]

I have to say motivation is probably primary focus for me.
If you love what you are doing, you will do it for free. If you are doing it to feed yourself, take no chances. It doesn't have to impress or even sell, just needs a video on YouTube that makes enough people say, "what's that all about?".

We also view composers like Paganini with this far-off romantic lens. Why do I like his 24th Caprice more than Vai's For the Love of God? Well, it's because I can see what kind of a person Steve Vai is. I can pick apart his personality and say this or that. I feel like his life experience is closer to mine than compared with a long dead composer. The dead will always be better in my eyes because they don't belong to this throw away society we live in now. Somehow they seem pure, while all the living musicians are just another window on my computer I close when I'm bored with the experience. I know the reputable composer's names and as much or more of their work than the impressive souls that live today, but I don't have this feeling inside that connects them loosely to a Nike logo, Mickey Mouse or the Samsung ring tone.

You know, if the world only produced one guitar and one amplifier(which are also unmoddable), I'd be a pretty bad dude at the guitar. I couldn't go searching for a quick fix to any sort of problem or hunting down schematics so I can tweak this small sub-circuit making a 0.0005 percent difference. There are so many distractions and I'm responsible. It's not anyone's fault but mine that I spend enough time looking at cr@p I probably hate to surpass Malmsteen's speed and dexterity twice over, but I do it anyways out of habit.

[dave_mc]

One sees. Its a fair point. It makes me (re)think that modern musicians have harder time of it. I'd be quite prepared to believe that in the 100,000 years or so we've been making musical sounds smoke on the water and beethovens 5ths opening bars have been played (or something very much like them played) many times over, but been remembered and passed down the generations only once each. The difference now, as you say, is we can so easily rip someone off by accident, and its so much harder to detatch yourself from your influences.

Its basically a given that even a modern casual music listener has heard more different music from more artists than Mozart ever did. He'd have had to go and see them, or them come to him, lacking a CD player. I guess my first thought was that would make it easier for us...maybe it makes it harder.

Yeah... in a lot of ways it's easier now, but in some ways it's harder... :)