In The Second Sex (1949), Simone de Beauvoir’s wrote: “One is not born a genius; one becomes a genius.”
[On a side note, the continuation of de Beauvoir's sentence is, “and the feminine situation has up to the present rendered this becoming practically impossible.” Sexism, as it applies to music composition has long been, and continues to be an issue. Here are links to two blog posts I wrote on this topic: No Great Women Composers? (1); and No Great Women Composers? (2)]
The idea that one can become a genius is empowering because it suggests that some people can reach this lofty status if they wish to do so and if they work very hard and very intelligently, but before going further, it would be useful to explore the meaning of this term
What does it mean, exactly?
The term “genius” is is widely used, but lacks a precise, widely-accepted definition.
Wikipedia tells us that “the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate” (Genius. (n.d.). Retrieved 13 Jan. 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius). When someone refers to a composer (or anyone) as a genius, we "kind of" know what they mean, but we do not know exactly what they mean. Perhaps they regard the composer as being very smart, but since we are talking about a composer and not, say, a theoretical physicist (like Einstein), how are we to know how smart they were?
One understanding of genius relates to intelligence, and specifically to someone of exceptional intelligence. But "intelligence" is a similarly-imprecise concept; IQ tests are designed to measure it, but, as this article tells us, the validity of IQ tests has been challenged by many. And besides, if we call Bach a genius, it seems unlikely that we do so because we believe Bach would have scored extremely highly on an IQ test (although one can speculate about this possibility); we are presumably referring to his musical genius. But what does "musical genius" mean?
Possibly it means that we are impressed by the great quantity of well-crafted music Bach wrote, and that we find his music profoundly moving, on a level that few have been able to match in musical history. If you have studied counterpoint and tried writing a fugue, you know how difficult it can be to write a good one; if you analyze Bach fugues after having tried writing them, you will almost certainly be blown away by how inventive, and beautiful they are. You might therefore conclude that Bach was extraordinarily clever, and, on that basis alone, label him as a musical genius.
I don’t have a problem with someone holding Bach (or Palestrina, Beethoven, Bartok, The Beatles, Miles Davis, Burt Bacharach, Kanye West, etc.) in such high regard — the more I learn about music, the more impressed I am by the achievements of great musicians in all genres — but I’m just not sure that we all mean the same thing when we call composers geniuses; as stated earlier, the term lacks a precise, generally-agreed-upon definition.
So why do people persist on using this term? My guess, at least as it is used in music, is that it is a way of accounting for qualities that the writer/teacher/blowhard-in-a-bar/etc. is otherwise unable to account for. Perhaps, when we call a composer a genius, we are saying, “I can’t imagine ever having the skill to produce music that is so profoundly moving (or so darned clever, or so vexingly incomprehensible, etc.), and therefore Palestrina (or Charlie Parker, Keith Jarrett, Mozart, Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, R. Kelly, etc.) was a genius, and you and I are not. Or at least I are not!”
Becoming a genius, in 4 E-Z Steps!
Okay, the "4 E-Z Steps" towards genius-hood is tongue-in-cheek, but, whether we regard individuals a musical geniuses or not, mastery of music has always been the result of hard work for extended periods (usually decades), with good teachers, familial/community support, AND above-average intelligence as well. This is an idea suggested by psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman, PhD, in a Psychology Today article entitled: Attaining musical genius: Is practice enough? (17 June 2008). He writes:
Kaufman cites a 2007 article by J. Ruthsatz, D. Detterman, W.S. Griscom, and B.A. Cirullo, Becoming an expert in the musical domain: It takes more than just practice, whose conclusion may be neatly summarized as follows:
Musical achievement = general intelligence + domain-specific skills + practice
In other words, practice is an essential ingredient, but so are intelligence and "domain-specific" skills. Which you probably knew…
Here's another quote by someone who supports and neatly summarizes this view:
One understanding of genius relates to intelligence, and specifically to someone of exceptional intelligence. But "intelligence" is a similarly-imprecise concept; IQ tests are designed to measure it, but, as this article tells us, the validity of IQ tests has been challenged by many. And besides, if we call Bach a genius, it seems unlikely that we do so because we believe Bach would have scored extremely highly on an IQ test (although one can speculate about this possibility); we are presumably referring to his musical genius. But what does "musical genius" mean?
Possibly it means that we are impressed by the great quantity of well-crafted music Bach wrote, and that we find his music profoundly moving, on a level that few have been able to match in musical history. If you have studied counterpoint and tried writing a fugue, you know how difficult it can be to write a good one; if you analyze Bach fugues after having tried writing them, you will almost certainly be blown away by how inventive, and beautiful they are. You might therefore conclude that Bach was extraordinarily clever, and, on that basis alone, label him as a musical genius.
I don’t have a problem with someone holding Bach (or Palestrina, Beethoven, Bartok, The Beatles, Miles Davis, Burt Bacharach, Kanye West, etc.) in such high regard — the more I learn about music, the more impressed I am by the achievements of great musicians in all genres — but I’m just not sure that we all mean the same thing when we call composers geniuses; as stated earlier, the term lacks a precise, generally-agreed-upon definition.
So why do people persist on using this term? My guess, at least as it is used in music, is that it is a way of accounting for qualities that the writer/teacher/blowhard-in-a-bar/etc. is otherwise unable to account for. Perhaps, when we call a composer a genius, we are saying, “I can’t imagine ever having the skill to produce music that is so profoundly moving (or so darned clever, or so vexingly incomprehensible, etc.), and therefore Palestrina (or Charlie Parker, Keith Jarrett, Mozart, Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, R. Kelly, etc.) was a genius, and you and I are not. Or at least I are not!”
Becoming a genius, in 4 E-Z Steps!
- Work hard (practice). Now work harder!
- Work smart. Don't work hard on stupid things.
- Be smart.
- Find a supportive environment.
Okay, the "4 E-Z Steps" towards genius-hood is tongue-in-cheek, but, whether we regard individuals a musical geniuses or not, mastery of music has always been the result of hard work for extended periods (usually decades), with good teachers, familial/community support, AND above-average intelligence as well. This is an idea suggested by psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman, PhD, in a Psychology Today article entitled: Attaining musical genius: Is practice enough? (17 June 2008). He writes:
“While Mozart may have required lots and lots of practice to produce his great works, his high intellect may have also contributed to his musical genius,”
Possibly your reaction to this quote is to say (or think), "NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!"
Musical achievement = general intelligence + domain-specific skills + practice
In other words, practice is an essential ingredient, but so are intelligence and "domain-specific" skills. Which you probably knew…
Here's another quote by someone who supports and neatly summarizes this view:
“I was intrigued by this term "genius", because as far as I can see it is completely useless,” said Phil Grabsky, director of a feature-length documentary, In Search of Mozart. “What the characters we sometimes call geniuses have in common is drive and determination, often good parenting, and the fact that they are products of the social conditions of their time,' he said. 'All of this was true for Mozart. His talent wasn't simply a gift from God, it was the result of tremendously hard work.” (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jan/01/arts.music)
…To which I would add, yes, it wasn't "simply a gift from God," but Mozart's talent wasn't just the result of "tremendously hard work" either; not everyone who trains diligently for, say, 10,000 hours, ends up producing work of comparable quality to Mozart's.
→ If this topic interests you, you might enjoy this blog post: "Talent? Skill? What's the Difference?"
Do you have to be a genius to understand how great music works?
Here's some good news: You do not need to be a genius to understand how great compositions work; you just have to make a concerted effort to do so, which develops analytical skills. Indeed, this is one of the core objectives of most music theory courses. Not understanding how a composition works may be the result of not having worked sufficiently to do so, or not having developed the skills to do so, rather than being caused by the composition operating on a plane so high that it defies understanding by ordinary mortals. That said, I'm pretty sure that some composers in the 1950's set out to deliberately write music so complex that it challenged the comprehension of ordinary mortals, but that's a topic for a different day.
Do you have to be a genius to compose great music?
Aside from the fact that the term "musical genius" does not have a generally-agreed-upon meaning (or even, if you agree with the Grabsky quote above, it has no meaning), I see it as a problematic term in that it can discourage those who do not see themselves as geniuses from attempting to develop their compositional skills. "Great music was composed by musical geniuses," you might think; "so what chance do I have of ever writing great music, if I am not a genius?"
If such a thought has ever crossed your mind, it might help to be aware of this:
It is nevertheless true that some composers —notably Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Saint-Saëns— manifested great compositional talent early. However, even these composers took years to master compositional craft, albeit fewer years than most other composers (including Mozart) took.
To summarize, "musical genius" is a much-used term, but one whose meaning is not clear, making it problematic to know what exactly people mean when they use this term. It can also be a daunting concept if your goal is to become a better composer, and you are reasonably confident that you are not a musical genius. My suggestion is to not allow yourself to be discouraged by terms like this, and focus instead on becoming the best composer you can become, which, as always, is done through a combination of hard work, long hours of regular practice, using and developing your intelligence, studying the music of composers you admire in an effort to understand what makes it great, and finding a nurturing environment in which to do this, be it school, a group of friends with similar interests, or retreating to nature in order to compose and study music.
…To which I would add, yes, it wasn't "simply a gift from God," but Mozart's talent wasn't just the result of "tremendously hard work" either; not everyone who trains diligently for, say, 10,000 hours, ends up producing work of comparable quality to Mozart's.
→ If this topic interests you, you might enjoy this blog post: "Talent? Skill? What's the Difference?"
Do you have to be a genius to understand how great music works?
Do you have to be a genius to compose great music?
Aside from the fact that the term "musical genius" does not have a generally-agreed-upon meaning (or even, if you agree with the Grabsky quote above, it has no meaning), I see it as a problematic term in that it can discourage those who do not see themselves as geniuses from attempting to develop their compositional skills. "Great music was composed by musical geniuses," you might think; "so what chance do I have of ever writing great music, if I am not a genius?"
If such a thought has ever crossed your mind, it might help to be aware of this:
Great composers wrote a lot of not-great music on their way to writing great music. The learning curve for mastery of composition is steep, and every great composer that ever lived took years to develop their "greatness," and it will be no different for you."Ah, but what of Mozart," you may ask; "didn't he write great music when he was four, or five, or six?" Answers: No, and no, and no. I discussed this at greater length in "Talent, Skill; What's the Difference?" (apologies for two plugs in one blog post!), but to summarize, although Mozart was indeed a clever and talented youngster, I'm not sure anyone regards music he wrote in the first 17 years of his life as great. Greatness came later. Former New York Times music critic Harold Schonberg went so far as to call Mozart a late bloomer (i'm paraphrasing; he actually wrote that Mozart "developed late"), arguing that few of Mozart's early works, elegant as they are, have the personality, concentration, and richness that entered his music after 1781" [the year he turned 25]. (Lives of the Great Composers, Part 2, p. 103).
It is nevertheless true that some composers —notably Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Saint-Saëns— manifested great compositional talent early. However, even these composers took years to master compositional craft, albeit fewer years than most other composers (including Mozart) took.
To summarize, "musical genius" is a much-used term, but one whose meaning is not clear, making it problematic to know what exactly people mean when they use this term. It can also be a daunting concept if your goal is to become a better composer, and you are reasonably confident that you are not a musical genius. My suggestion is to not allow yourself to be discouraged by terms like this, and focus instead on becoming the best composer you can become, which, as always, is done through a combination of hard work, long hours of regular practice, using and developing your intelligence, studying the music of composers you admire in an effort to understand what makes it great, and finding a nurturing environment in which to do this, be it school, a group of friends with similar interests, or retreating to nature in order to compose and study music.
In any great composer's development, not very good music preceded okay music, which preceded pretty-good music, which preceded good music, which preceded great music. I cannot promise that you will write great music, but I can promise that your compositional skills will improve if you stick with it, and it is entirely possible that you have it in you to write great music one day!
Posts
35 comments:
I must admit I have often thought "great music was composed by musical geniuses, so why should I bother?" Having grown up with parents who listened exclusively to the greats of western art music, the idea of ever achieving a level of compositional greatness that is even remotely comparable to the likes of Bach, Mozart, Mahler, etc. seems like nothing but a pipe dream. This post, however, raises some great points about the use of the word "genius" and the truth about how the "music geniuses" of history became worthy of this title. They all followed the "3 E-Z Steps" to compositional excellence, and they all started somewhere. It is encouraging to read that Mozart's true "genius" became evident when he was 25, when he is often imagined as emerging from the womb with manuscript and quill in hand. I wrote pieces when I was 5 too, but they weren't quite as melodious as Mozarts. It makes me wonder where I'd be now if I'd had Leopold around to tell me to write it all down!
This also raises the question as to whether musical genius of any similarity to our traditional idea of it in western art music is still attainable in the 21st century. Many of the elements that contributed to the flourishing of artists at a young age also likely had negative effects on their development of the most basic social skills, and the lifestyles they led would not be considered acceptable with our modern understanding of human rights. Perhaps we are destined to be a generation of late bloomers. Regardless, this post has provided me with some much needed inspiration to stick to my guns, whether I end up as a "genius" or not!
I think it's hard for us to imagine past composers as real people - to try to imagine a composer as virtuosic as Mozart out buying groceries, or walking outside, passing time like we do - we just imagine them as these prolific composers who did nothing but write music and play (However, I acknowledge the work of composers such as Bach, as he did a lot of JUST writing and working). It's hard to imagine these people doing anything besides writing music. What we've got to realize, is that these composers had to think of motives, analyze chord progressions, and rewrite entire sections at a time (however, maybe not Schubert or Bach, since they were, arguably, geniuses). So in our own writing, it's easy to get frustrated and feel like we want to quit because we're not seeing immediate results. But neither did anyone else! Writing is a process. Very rarely does someone sit down and write a symphony in one go. It takes time and effort, proofreading, run-throughs, and arguably some sweat and tears, plus a LOT of time to come up with a finished product that we like and are pleased with. And even after that, we may want to re-write or edit something later. And due to the fact that we can't ask about or view any of our favorite composers' compositional processes, we assume we're failures because we can't write volumes upon volumes of fantastic music in the beginning of our careers.
Personally, I think everyone has some degree of musical talent (even if it's really, really small) and with practice (skill!) one can develop it. Malcom Gladwell's book Outliers focuses on what helps people succeed, and uses musical examples such as The Beatles to prove his point. To paraphrase Gladwell, good circumstances, luck, and hard work, are the formula to success. He coined the idea of the '10,000 hour rule,' in which he states that practically anyone can become a professional at something, should they practice and work at it for a minimum of 10,000 hours. The Beatles, for example, fostered their talent playing shows almost every day of the week when they first started, and were constantly demanded to write new material. They were doing this at the right point in history, and went on to become one of the most popular bands (if not the most popular) at the time, and in history. Plus, they were musically talented, and put in lots of time, playing and writing, allowing them to become the talented musicians they went on to become.
Personally, I think the word 'genius' is kind of lazy; the idea that some people are born with immense talent and some are born with none seems like a cop out. "I can't write music because I'm not talented like Beethoven or Mozart." Well, nobody is really talented like them; no two composers are exactly alike. The key to being a 'genius' (in the context in which it is often used today) is to be innovative and original, which comes from practicing your style and not trying to imitate someone else's compositional technique.
As an aspiring composer, I can connect with this sense of "well I'll never be as good as Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, etc." It is a relentless struggle against your own confidence to be constantly comparing your "meagre" works to the likes of musical canons. I do believe, that instead of comparing your music in a negative fashion to these works of art, compare them in a constructive manner. Analyse famous works and incorporate (maybe not note for note) into your piece. Music is essentially the evolution of old music into new, and one should not feel bad about using the ideas of others to improve oneself. One might say "Ohhh but Mitchel, that's copy-right infringement! That's plagiarism!" Well, yes and no. Plagiarism is defined as "the process of taking someone else's work, or ideas, and passing it off as your own." Legally, there can be discrepancies but by using ideas and techniques perfected by past composers, you are learning and becoming a better composer. If we weren't allowed to use the techniques used by past composers now, it would be the same as car companies not being able to use round tires to roll their car because Ford did it first. So instead of being a detriment to yourself and stifling your creative output, learn from those who came before you improve as a composer.
When I hear someone mention ‘genius’ these days I tend to think of it as related to an act of super achievement though it has probably become slightly twisted away from it’s origins in the same way that ‘idiot’ has.
‘Music genius’ has it’s own set of connotations which can certainly cast a shadow on any composer at any stage of development but what I like about this post is the idea of how the realization of our potential as composers is not dependant on the concept of musical genius. We simply do our best work and it is what it is. Wether it is what we intended it to be is a different matter and perhaps the topic for another post.
Listen you I know you guys wont believe this but I got this IMVU credits code totally free! Click http://linkbitty.com/imvucredits2014
I dislike the term genius, mainly because it implies that musical perfection can exist. Certain aspects can be done correctly or incorrectly, and people can make informed judgments on quality, but no piece or composer can be said to provide the definition of musical perfection. Since the possibilities of music are infinite, every choice as composer makes has infinite alternatives, some better, some worse, and some of no substantial difference in quality. Since music can be so many things, it is unreasonable to say that a given work exemplifies how music should be. There can be great pieces of music, pieces of such remarkable quality that their approval is near-universal, but to call a work or composer “genius” implies a sort of magic that simply doesn't exist. Great works are composed through great effort by human beings; they do not spring forth fully formed from the minds of geniuses the moment they can hold a pen.
In some ways, it almost feels like a way for people to make themselves feel better when they fall short of their potential; if only geniuses can write so brilliantly, then I can be content with my second best work. We may never write like Beethoven, but there is no empirical reason that, given opportunity and investing copious energy, it should be impossible for us to do so. My goal is not to write like Mozart, or Schoenberg, or Bach, or any of the Western canon. My goal is to write like myself, as best as I can, improving as I learn, whether my music is called genius at age 25, age 75, or never. We can learn many things from “geniuses”, but we should strive to be our own composers. Each composer will contribute pieces to the world that Beethoven and Brahms never did, pieces of quality, if not “genius”, and music will be better for it.
I feel that the term genius has a large part of subjectivety (individual or grouped). The term genius is a word that anyone can freely use or not to express an idea about a person. A genius can be a genius for someone and not for someone else. We can also compare a genius to another one… can a genius be more genius than another one? At which level does a the word genius starts? I also feel that the term genius as a lot to do with the words discovery and invention. In any field of activities, we tend to always associate a name with an invention. But can an inventor invent something without errors of its antecedents? Is the genius the one who founds the solution or the 100 of people who did experiences before him? Can a genius create without the others? Aren't we all genius? I feel has human we can all create. For me a genius is someone who can create, make errors and work harder to correct them… the development of our creativity is one of the human strengths.
Just jumping in here to say how much I have been enjoying reading all the comments; LOTS of great points being made!
A few responses to specific points:
• If you are a composer or an aspiring composer, you may wish to be regarded as a great genius one day, and this is fine, but how many composers who are known for writing for "less glamorous" instruments such as brass, woodwinds, harp, guitar, viola, etc. — in other words, the huge family of instruments that do not include piano, violin, or cello — are known as musical geniuses? A lot of composers made very respectable livings writing for these instruments, and yet most of us have not heard of these composers, unless we happen to play those instruments.
These composers are often very much appreciated by people who play those "less glamorous" instruments, and in many cases, their compositions will continue to be played long after the composers have passed on.
This is, I would argue, evidence of a successful compositional life, whether or not we choose to use the term "genius" to define these composers.
• Malcolm Gladwell writes about the so-called 10,000 hour rule, but he didn't come up with the idea; it grew out of research by Herbert Simon and Bill Chase (1973), and subsequent research by Anders Ericsson (1973). Also, it is a concept that has been challenged by some (see 10,000 Hours May Not Make a Master After All, http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/20/10000-hours-may-not-make-a-master-after-all/ for example).
• I understand the idea of musical genius being an implication that artistic perfection is possible, whereas for many of us, the idea that artistic perfection is even possible is absurd. That said, I think people who use the term "genius" in reference to, say Beethoven, may mean many things by it. Possibly it is an attribution of perfection to Beethoven, but to me it seems more an acknowledgement of how good he was — well beyond the status we ascribe to most other composers — and the sheer quantity of damn fine compositions he wrote!
• But my main observation is simply that I am really impressed with how thoughtful and thought-provoking all of these comments are.
I've certainly been prone to using the term 'musical genius'. For me the classification of a musical genius, especially in the compositional sense, is rooted in creativity. There are countless individuals, past and present, who put in lots of hard work into their craft and had a great ear and musical ability. However, the names that ring clear are generally the composers who found a specific voice. Nothing I've ever heard has had the same colorful atmosphere as the music of Debussy, especially his piano works. In one sense it's just amazing music, truly the work of a very sensitive and clever mind. But on the other hand we must remember that in the late 1800's/early 1900's, nothing else sounded like it (other than Ravel, who had many similar ideas but I can't help but notice that most of his works have a more rhythmic feel with a stronger pulse). Likewise, upon listening for a couple of bars I can usually tell when a piece is written by Messiaen because he possesses a sound that he created and polished as his own. As a known synesthete, his use of ever shifting colors and textures are characteristic through his use of dissonance. Every chord he uses sounds so distinct to his voice that it baffles me how one man could possess such a creative, influential tone. Just listen to the opening brass chorale in his orchestral work "Eclairs sur l'au-dela" for an awesome example of his style of dissonance. This chorale sounds downright otherworldly and I'm not on drugs but I honestly can see the same mountain range, built of sparkling crystals and covered in light aqua green and light purple mist. His music paints landscapes in your mind unlike anything else and when I listen to that piece in particular it really makes me wish I was good at painting. One last example of something that I see as 'musical genius' is 'The Rite of Spring' by Stravinsky. Nothing sounded even close to it (even 100 years later I've yet to hear something comparable). He created a completely unique sonic landscape in the way he molded together diatonicism, bitonality, violent rhythms and shifting orchestral textures. Like, it's a total masterpiece in my mind. I could hear it 1000 times and each time it would be a completely new experience.
All of these people dedicated their entire lives to music and had their share of natural gifts too. What is most impressive to me though is how they heard the music around them and turned different aspects of others ideas into an original thought. All of these people's first compositions probably sounded like they were borrowing ideas from others, but through years of practice and developing their style, they found something new and beautiful. That's what I would call a musical genius!
I believe the title of musical genius is definitely earned through hard work, and not simply something you are born with. For me I feel some is a musical genius when they right something I find really, really clever. Something that really stands out to me, be it a flashy piano "riff" virtuosity, or a cool chord progression, or even interesting ways of making the instruments work together. I find I feel this when I listen to music that I just have to sit there in awe of because it just blows me away how somebody actually wrote this... they literally just pull notes oout of thin air and put them together in a strategic way with their own style and then BOOM... beautiful music that leaves me in shock. I've recently listened to Mahler's Symphony No. 5 and I have heard it was good but when I actually listened to it and was amazed by the use of chromaticism and how he portrayed feeling with music. I do feel like these great composers started off not as good as they ended up being, but that's the case with anything isn't it? You start off not knowing what to do, you learn, and then you can do great things, and I find the journey is what is the most exciting. I hope to never stop improving and just keep strutting along this glorious path!
"You do not need to be a genius to understand how great compositions work; you just have to make a concerted effort to do this" Oh good! Was worried :P
"some composers in the 1950's set out to deliberately write music so complex that it challenged the comprehension of ordinary mortals" And may they all burn in hell for it!!! lol
I think this blog was a little similar to the Talent vs Skill one but with a stronger focus on being in a strong learning environment/practices. Which I strongly agree with. Listening to the music without studying it, can be like looking at a painting from several meters away. Sure you get most of the picture, but you might be important details. Learning the craft of others can never be damaging to your own, it's usually the opposite.
I agree that the term genius is often applied liberally to anyone who has excelled at writing music in a particular style. Without being too pragmatic about it, I would say that genius simply means we are in awe of what someone has created and can't comprehend ever doing it ourselves. The average person cannot comprehend or understand why Einstein was a genius, but we all agree he certainly was. And not unlike music, there were many others in Einstein's field (predecessor and successors) who had incredible breakthroughs and significant contributions. Many of these are not household names, nor are they always regarded as geniuses by the public, but their contributions to science were nonetheless important.
I personally have a huge problem with people using the term 'musical genius'. I also have a big problem with people thinking that somebody can be a master of any certain skill without having any prior knowledge, practice or experience. I think that concepts such as this are often used as a crutch when somebody is not progressing at a rate that they are happy with, whether this be in composition, performance, or something completely unrelated to music. It is very easy to say "well, I'll never be as good as ____, and there's nothing I can do about it". I am a firm believer that if you want something enough, and you are dedicated to it, there is truly nothing that can stop you from achieving these goals. I actually find it very irritating when somebody gives up on something they're passionate about because they keep comparing themselves to other people in the same field. Yes, people have different natural abilities and skill levels, but really talent gets you nowhere nowadays. As cheesy as it is, 'hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard' is absolutely true. Anyway, in my opinion, the term 'musical genius' never helps anyone; I think it actually stop people from achieving their goals in the long term.
I don't believe that anyone is a "musical genius". Some people may be stronger and have a better ability at something, but i agree strongly with the three points that;
1. If you work hard, and continue to work hard you, will end up achieving your goals. This way you will become your own genius.
2. Be smart. I think if you keep up with your work, focus, and know when to ask questions it will make everything much easier.
3. Having a supportive environment. I think this is the most important. To be able to focus, and work hard, you need to be surrounded by those who will support you and help you along the way. If you have a great support system, you will hopefully never feel like you're on your own while trying to achieve your goals.
If you follow these three points that you've stated, I believe you will have the ability to become your own musical genius.
I agree that comparing yourself to the greatest composers in history may not be the most helpful practice in a composer's career. Big names like Mozart, The Beatles, etc. are a lot to live up to, and comparing amateur work to to their master pieces will not provide much constructive feedback. I find the summary paragraph of this post optimistic, but also encouraging and motivating. Emphasis on hard work, perseverance, and a supportive environment seems far more achievable than the title “musical genius.” Being willing to endure the process and persevering through setbacks to become a proficient composer is important in the same way a passion for music, and a intellectual understanding of music is important.
Prior to this final paragraph, the “3 E-Z Steps” was also interesting because it introduced and emphasized the importance of musical intelligence as well as the importance of dedication and practice.
It's easy to say composers like Mozart, Bach, Beethoven were all genius' and must have been born with talent along with years of hard work to write such great works of music. I think it is important to take the everyday responsibilities of an amateur composer living a few hundred years ago to an amateur composer today. I know for myself and many others I have to balance my time between two jobs, a major and minor degree which brings along practice and homework almost daily while still trying to compose. I could be wrong but I don't think this was normal for musicians of the past. If given the ability to compose and study composition religiously with no other commitments I am sure anyone can eventually write truly great pieces. It was also normal for these composers to have mastered the style of music they were writing and there was only one style of music being written and played. If we look at pop artists, or more directly the writers who write the pop tunes for these artists, there is a very defined and systematic formula to writing a chart-topping hit. While very different styles of music, both the classical/baroque era and pop music of today followed very defined rules for form. So if you master the popular form of your time and you compose enough then sure you can write songs to be considered genius at one point or another?
Using the term "musical genius" is most definitely controversial in some ways, and the fact that we can not truly define what it means adds to this controversy. To be blatant, there have definitely been people who have worked very hard at something but were not given the title of "genius" when addressing the skill level that the person possessed at the thing that they worked so hard on. At the same time, it is impossible to ignore the possibility that there were other composers who were living and working at the same time as the aforementioned "geniuses" in the article, that most certainly were working just as hard and writing music that was just as good. History has a strange way of defining our perceptions of musical genius, in my opinion. If we think about some of the more contemporary composers who fall within the 20th century canon, we can see ties between their inclusion and the fact that they pioneered new concepts in classical music. If we take for example, the mastery achieved of the 12-tone technique by Schoenberg, or Feldman's "thing" that he does, then we can ask ourselves what makes these composers notable or highly regarded. Is it because they were good at what they did? Or, is it simply because they did what they did? In other words, does someone need to be amazing at a particular thing if they are one of the first people to do it, musically speaking? Or is the fundamental creation of a new musical style enough to deem someone a musical genius? The term definitely has some issues for me, but it does spark an interesting discussion.
I do use the term "musical genius" a lot, and to be quite honest I've never thought about what it actually meant before I said it. After reading this post I now realize that it really can be interpreted in a few ways because there is no set meaning to it. Working very hard to improve your craft as a composer will certainly make you better, and I guess if you keep that same mindset going for the rest of your life, then perhaps you will become a musical genius one day. I agree with your comment on not being discouraged when you hear a term like this, because especially for an amateur composer who has only just started, it might get in the way of the proper learning process and will just want to go straight to that goal instead of understanding what it might take to be a "musical genius", whatever that may be. It is definitely something to keep thinking about and talking about with other people because it is a very interesting topic.
I like the conclusion you arrive at. It's true that the term "musical genius" can sometimes be a daunting one, and sometimes rather subjective as well. For example, Bach was never really recognized as widely as he is today until some time after his death, thus he was never dubbed as a genius until after he died, which makes one wonder. How subjective is musical genius anyway? However, the formula for writing good music is accurate I think. You must practice and work hard, but you also must be intelligent and hone your skills in your specific domain. The idea of writing bad music that turns into mediocre music that turns into great music is true. Many composers that we regard as genius today spent hours upon hours every day honing their craft. To be a good composer one must constantly be writing, even if it's bad writing, you'll learn from it and get better, so I very much agree with your conclusion and encouragement at the end.
This is a very intriguing topic! I find when using words like "genius" or even "good" or "bad" it can completely kill the mindset of learning and getting better at something. The way I like to thing about it when I find myself with a new challenge is "if someone else can do this then why can't I?" because all human's brains work the same. We create neuron pathways for every single action and memory we do/have. This often helps me get a basic understanding in things. I have been told most of my life I am a "quick learner" (again something that kills a growth mindset since as a kid I was told I was "smart" which in turn means I do not need to put in as much work as others in order to get the same product; It is just not true or helpful). Of course that is not everything though. As mentioned in the post it takes practice/time and a certain drive coming from within to truly achieve greatness in something and I totally agree. Time alone is super important just for the simple fact that in any area of work there is a certain language of the work and the only way to properly learn the terms and tricks of the trade is through practice and just being present when learning new things about the topic at hand.
I agree with many of the questions you have raised on this topic. In particular, one question that has always vexed me is what exactly is intelligence/genius? How do we define it? Can it be measured? It is a question that has been asked many times throughout human history, and there have been a number of different approaches to answering it, but none to date have seemed wholly satisfactory. Is it simply a collection of skills and traits? This idea has been approached in my psychology classes, but the skills and traits deemed significant or important enough to be measured constantly change as well. One person once told me that genius, in his opinion, was simply "the ability to find something you're good at, and the decision/ perseverance to pursue it". He may be partly right, but this is just his opinion, which leads me to the point that I think the definition of genius is largely subjective. Not only that, but it seems to be to be very problematic for a number of reasons.
From what I can gather, the use of the word genius is often a way to diffuse responsibility. Because it is difficult for people to recognize things about themselves that prevent them from reaching their potential, it is much easier to simply say "that person is a genius, therefore he can do things that I cannot". Additionally, it can be hurtful for people who are labelled geniuses. It can devalue the hard work they put into reaching their goals, when people assume they were just born that way. I know a girl who was accepted into veterinary school. When people say "Oh, she must be very smart", it has started to offend her because very rarely do people say "Oh, she must have worked very hard". On the other side of this coin, sometimes people strive to be labeled as geniuses, which can be equally problematic. If your goal is to be viewed as talented, sometimes this can mean you view working hard for something as shameful, as if it should have come easily to you and the work you have to put in might stain your reputation. The toxic nature of this mindset might seem obvious, but it can easily creep in in a world where the word genius is so liberally applied to people, who are then put on pedestals and somehow removed from being a part of the rest of humankind.
These are my views on the term, so I usually try to find a better, more specific adjective than "smart" or "genius". I remember being taught in grade 3 to avoid the adjective "nice" in my writing. These other ambiguous adjectives should be taught to be avoided early as well.
I think a common misconception about “genius” is that it is a trait a person is born with. While it may sometimes seem that an individual who is intelligent was born with their “gifted” abilities, the source is almost always, as you have mentioned, a combination of intelligence and practice. Many people seem to perceive genius as a sort of unexplainable gift bestowed upon birth, and I feel this kind of thinking not only diminishes an artist’s hard work, but also sets an unobtainable standard for others who aren’t considered geniuses. One thing I often notice when I think an artist is extremely talented (which some may call genius) is the individuals upbringing and/or exposure to a subject from a young age. Common habits formed by talented individuals tend to be a strong work ethic and rigorous practice routine, so it should stand to reason that if someone is immersed in something for an extended period of time that they will excel at it.
Recently I have been reading Walter Isaacson’s biography on Leonardo Da Vinci and it has really changed my perception on what constitutes “genius” (for anyone interested, Isaacson has written some really interesting biographies on prominent historical figures, such as Einstein, Da Vinci, etc…). Though many perceive Da Vinci as some sort of godly figure who had his abilities gifted from birth, this couldn’t be further from the truth. While he was definitely an incredibly intelligent individual, his knowledge of different subjects came from his curiosity, hard work, and acute observational abilities. Journals from his home show that when Da Vinci wanted to learn a new subject, he would go and find someone who could teach him. Like every successful artist, Da Vinci also struggled with his work and has a number of unfinished paintings and sculptures. Something to keep in mind when you’re having trouble with a piece or feel like you don't have the "genius" to write good music!
I feel as though the point about there being manifold definitions of the word "genius" is of tantamount importance when considering these matters. However, I would further argue that the qualifications of what constitutes "great" music also possesses enormous implications for how one would qualify what constitutes a genius.
Take someone like Thelonius Monk. A great deal of his music was generally misunderstood at the time of its release. Record stores refused to stock his material early on in his career due to his "lack of technical facility". Much of the music he composed was underappreciated in his lifetime, due to its slow and prodding nature, with critical favor generally being directed towards the more upbeat and less abstract work of his contemporaries. His highly percussive, and seemingly haphazard improvisational style (which approached the piano from a totally visionary perspective) was also extremely controversial.
In retrospect, he is generally regarded as one of the greatest names in the jazz canon, and to this day there have been no notable players to authentically replicate his playing style. Furthermore, a great number of his pieces are now standards in the jazz repertoire (he remains the second most recorded composer of jazz music after Duke Ellington. This is of particular note in that Monk composed around seventy pieces of music in his lifetime, whereas Ellington wrote over a thousand). In the grand scheme, I would argue that critical and popular appreciation of Monk's music has never been higher.
When considering these matters on a factual basis, as well as what had been accomplished within the jazz repertoire at the time that Monk came onto the scene, it becomes difficult not to view his creative output as totally visionary and "great". However, this perception was marred by public cynicism and close-mindedness throughout the better part of his lifetime. I find this creates the troubling implication that the perception of greatness (and by extension, genius) is really just an exponent of popular appreciation. I feel as though this raises a myriad of problems regarding the subject of "greatness" within art that must be addressed before one even begins to qualify what constitutes musical genius. To me, such terms lose their conventional value.
I think the idea of a Musical Genius is troubling, or an anything-genius for that matter. IQ, as a matter of fact, was invented to show the learning capacity of a child, and is considered flexible, and can change over the course of a person's life. So the "140 IQ" definition of Genius really doesn't work in a modern context.
When we assign this term to past musicians like Bach, Beethoven, Ellington, or Cage, I believe we discount the hard work these composers put into mastering their craft. As we assign the "genius" label, we seem to suggest they didn't take years and years to achieve the status they are appointed today.
I don't believe anybody is born a genius, nor do I believe anybody can "grow into" genius-hood. Being a genius just means you got lucky, and your hard work was received well by people in an academic institution hundreds of years after your death. Not to discount the mastery of Bach or Beethoven, but I believe it is more valuable to admire their diligence and commitment rather than their so-called genius ability.
I really liked this post. The idea of musical genius is something that we are currently talking about in my music history course, so it was cool to see another perspective on it.
To me, a genius is someone who excels at something without having to try. Someone who is extremely smart and amazingly talented at their craft. I think that in music, the idea of "genius" can be a bit damaging to those who aspire to be professional musicians or composers. Some people may feel that they need to be considered a "genius" in order to be successful, which isn't the case. Yes, there will be some people who are very naturally musically inclined and are born with a God-given talent for their craft. Others may have a rough start, but may persevere and be so passionate and work so hard that they end up being just as good as the person who was born with the talent. Now in this case, who is the genius? If someone works so hard that they are just as good as someone with a natural born talent, you probably wouldn't be able to tell who was born with that "genius" quality and who wasn't.
I enjoyed your perspective on the 3 steps to becoming a genius. I had always had the idea in my head that you had to be born with some innate talent to be considered a genius. I liked that you explained that you can become a genius, simply by applying yourself. This gives hope to many musicians, those who have a strong passion but may not have been born with the natural makeup that many consider "genius".
Overall, I think that we should stop using the term musical genius and instead adopt a different term, something that feels more inclusive and applies to everyone. The word genius can scare people, and make them feel like their dreams are unreachable, when in reality, that is not true!
What a cool topic! The idea of "musical genius" definitely contributes a lot to how we think about composition. I found the point about musical geniuses existing in different genres interesting because I think this further obscures what we consider to be "genius". Although Bach's work was unmatched by his contemporaries, I don't imagine he would find composing atonal music very easy were he somehow brought to the modern day. Likewise, I don't think any of the Beatles would be able to improvise a six-voice fugue. Do these things detract from their genius or does this genius only apply to the particular time period/style a composer is working in?
We also see a difference in the type of music that is produced based on a particular culture's view on "genius". Prior to the common practice period when music was largely functional, compositions were made to be easy to perform and there weren't many massive works that required large ensembles or virtuoso musicians. Contrast this with the compositions we see from later composers like Liszt that seem to be made with the sole purpose of showing off. This is not to say one is better than the other but it is clear that with composers in later musical periods, they intend for their work to be set apart, a higher accomplishment than most can ever hope to achieve (this is, of course, a generalization).
I agree that there is no proper way to use the term "genius" and that trying to live up to the ideals set by this term can often inhibit our growth as artists. It also can make music (classical music especially) feel inaccessible to laypeople outside of academic music. At the same time, I do think it's important to retain a standard of what is "good music" and recognize that some works simply have a quality that sets them apart in an admirable way, such as the music of Bach.
The idea of musical genius is intriguing and I think it is completely subjective.
Let me give you a prime example of this. As a Swiftie, I truly think Taylor Swift is a musical genius. Many people would literally laugh in my face about this because Taylor Swift is said by many to write basic music for even more basic women (and we cannot let women enjoy things under any circumstances, ESPECIALLY not if it is a commonality shared by many women. Women are dumb and their interests are dumb).
Anyway, I do agree with Simone de Beauvoir when she said “One is not born a genius, one becomes a genius” because Taylor’s music has not always been good. The self-titled debut had some questionable inclusions. Like you said “Great composers wrote a lot of not-great music on their way to writing great music. The learning curve for mastery of composition is steep, and every great composer that ever lived took years to develop their "greatness,” But every album of Taylor’s gets better and better. “In any great composer's development, not very good music preceded okay music, which preceded pretty-good music, which preceded good music, which preceded great music.”
The Easter eggs that she leaves alone are incredible. She leaves little things behind for her fans to find and they are so fun.
Her ability to create such relatable and heart-breaking music is incredible. You cannot help but scream the lyrics to many of her songs.
Taylor is just so good. I truly think she is a musical genius who has created a “great quantity of well-crafted music.”
Also, just a fun little comment on Mozart writing great music all of his life, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mich_im_Arsch
I think that whenever I've heard someone be referred to as a "genius," I've always just assumed that they were born that way and never had to work for it, like someone who is automatically good at something without having to try. But it is interesting to attempt to define what a genius actually is. I had never considered that maybe it is possible to become a genius. But then I guess that brings the question of whether someone with natural-born talent is considered to be more of a genius than some average joe who put in hours of work to become comparable to a "genius." Who decides that someone is a genius? If IQ tests aren't reliable, then how can it be measured? Maybe you wake up one day and are like, "Ahh yes, finally."
I also agree that using the term "genius" can be harmful, as we compare ourselves to the greats and may adopt the mindset of "I'll never be as good as them, so why even try." This is obviously not a healthy or productive way of thinking, and could discourage an amateur composer before they even get started.
Even though the term genius in music is somewhat outdated I think that there is a time and place for it. When I say this, I am talking about the multiple intelligence's that can present in people. Some people are gifted in physics and work diligently at it while getting A+ grades in everything to do with the specialty but can present as basically illiterate in english grammar classes and grasping language concepts that are foreign to the person. This isn't because the person is mental feeble overall nor does this mean that the person in the case of physics, is an overall genius overlord fancy guy. In music it's more about the 10,000 hours, natural talent, constant though on the topic and a natural ear with a willingness to be wrong. This is the only way you can be perceived as a genius however valid the title is. Other points could come to play that I haven't said but most these id say
“One is not born a genius, one becomes a genius.” This is such a great quote, and instantly reminds me of my love for teachers. Without teachers, this world would be much more screwed up than it already is. Teachers not only educate, but they inspire, comfort, and do their best to enshrine the best values in all of us. A good teacher can change your life forever. Picture this. Imagine if Albert Einstein had no confidence in himself, and no one in his corner cheering him on. We would know so much less about the world than we do today. A video went viral in Fall 2021, which was of Adele having her favourite teacher surprise her at a “One Night Only” gig she had in London. She was so emotional, and it reminded her of how teachers are so important, and change lives. I know this isn’t only about teachers. There are so many people out there that have passion in them to become a genius, in whatever they may have a passion in. But without people inspiring them, the “genius” within them isn’t something that is tapped into. The only requirement for being a composer is having a voice. Our voices are so important, and too often, our voices stay silent, or go along with the popular trends. At our core, we all have something to say. We all want to place value in this world, but so often, the world treats us unfairly (thanks, capitalism). I find that when I feel inspired by people around me, whether it’s my friends, family, or the incredible teachers I’ve had over my lifetime, I compose, or tap into the “musical genius” instilled within me throughout my life.
It is actually really funny how often I hear this. I have been called genius many many times (not even close) by family members, finds, and even people at music school. Do i believe any of them? No. I think it is completely impossible to truly say someone is a genius because the art of making music is so subjective that basically anything can be either terrible of incredible if you look at them through different lenses. So I do find a lot of value in the post you did saying that a lot of the to "success" in music is found in those 4 EZ steps, because truly the genius in music and musicians is found in discovering what you like and what you think is great for you!
As a musisian the word genius is thrown around a lot, and its shouldn’t be the case. Growing up I wasn’t to into music till I was a in grade 7 when I first started to play saxophone. It never occurred to me then that I would end up in music school as I always thought that you are born a musican and tabled a “music genius”. I have learned this is not the case as it does take lots of pratice and dedication. This does not go to say however I do think you can be born with lots of musical talent. Just look at Mozart and Beethoven and how young they were when they first started. Are they considered to be a genius? What about Jacob Collier, is he a genius? To me all these people are very talented and strong musicians and were born with talent and a good music ear, but even they had to take endless amounts of attempts until they had a good idea. I’m going to relate this to basketball I dont know why lol but it’s like what Lebron said, “to be in the NBA you need 30% given talent and genetics and the rest is work. I would say this is the same for those musicians I mentioned. There is always room to grow and develop to the idea of calling someone a genius I dont like because they really did have to work for what they got.
While the term "genius" surely has good intentions, I think it is actually quite harmful. Calling someone a genius immediately puts them on a pedistal that seems un-reachable to the standard person, when that's simply not the case. Sure, it would be extremely difficult and require a lot of time and effort, but it's not impossible. I'm glad you brought up Mozart in this post. I used to use the term genius when talking aobut him. I mean, composing at 5 years old? That's incredible! But then when I begna to learn more about classical music and Mozart's music in particular, I realized that while yes, it is incredible that he was composing at 5, I think his young age overshadowed the actual quality of his compositions. Now I am not calling them bad by any means, but when I found out his great works came later in his life (relatively speaking) it made me rethink my use of the term genius. I think there are many factors that go into making someone a "genius", including immense amounts of time and effort, timing (because doing something before anyone else looks pretty good on your "genius" résumé), and I'll admit, some talent doesn't hurt either.
I agree that "genius" is not a terribly useful term, when most people can not come to an agreement on what qualifies a person or work as such. I think any human being, given the right circumstances, is capable of creating art at level of quality comparable to the many artists often attributed as geniuses. Like you said, I don't think great musical compositions exist on a higher plane that only those gifted enough to understand it can appreciate.
One thing that I felt is worth pointing out, is that while yes, many musicians such as Mozart were quite talented at a young age, the fact that these musicians were also born into wealthy or financially stable families, and had financial and moral support from their families to pursue music should not be ignored. Having access to teachers, lessons, etc. is a privilege many do not have access to. It is possible that there were hundreds, thousands even, of people born in his time alone, who had the potential to become just as good if not better than Mozart, but were unable to realize their potential just because they were born into poor families that could not afford to provide their child with music education. This is not even bringing up the way women, racial minorities and other marginalized groups have been historically gatekept from the world of high art. I think while it could be argued musical geniuses exist, it is far more dependent on circumstance than pure giftedness.
Post a Comment