If the New York Times shuts down, at least I won’t have to respond to mind-numbing items like David Brooks’ April 30 peroration, “Genius: the modern view.” Aldous Huxley’s wife Laura infamously said that her husband looked like a stupid man’s idea of what a clever man must look like, and Brooks’ definition of genius is what a stupid man thinks a smart man must be like. Mozart was nothing special as a boy: he just practiced more than everyone else. Mediocrity looks up through the clouds and catches a glimpse of Mozart and says, “My kid could do that.” Not.
In the view that is now dominant, even Mozart’s early abilities were not the product of some innate spiritual gift. His early compositions were nothing special. They were pastiches of other people’s work. Mozart was a good musician at an early age, but he would not stand out among today’s top child-performers.
What Mozart had, we now believe, was the same thing Tiger Woods had — the ability to focus for long periods of time and a father intent on improving his skills. Mozart played a lot of piano at a very young age, so he got his 10,000 hours of practice in early and then he built from there.
So what? There have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of child prodigies who can reproduce the tricks that made Mozart famous as a child. But no musician besides Mozart has ever written an operatic ensemble in which each of several performers sings a contrasting, characteristic melody simultaneously, fitting together in perfect counterpoint, as in “Don Giovanni.” Verdi tried this in the Quartet from “Rigoletto,” without the same success.
People who know nothing about classical music, which takes some training to hear, assume falsely that tricks of technique and ear-training define genius. If that is so, Brooks insists, any child can do this. In fact, there are nearly forty million piano students in China and lots of them look like what David Brooks thinks is genius.
The latest research suggests a more prosaic, democratic, even puritanical view of the world [writes Brooks]. The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q., a generally bad predictor of success, even in realms like chess. Instead, it’s deliberate practice. Top performers spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously practicing their craft.
It’s true that advanced musical skills can be taught to a large number of children, but talent is more important than this account suggests. Most children resist musical instruction at a young age, because it makes no sense to them. A small minority enjoy it sufficiently to work hard at it. Talent helps children to work.
That is secondary, though: no amount of practice will produce a great work of art. No one will care who Tiger Woods was a century from now. But they still will remember Mozart. Creative art, Nicolas of Cusa wrote in the 15th century, arises from “participation in the mind of God.” Brooks and the brain scientists will not come up with a better explanation.
May 5th, 2009 |
You did not include this telling quote from Brooks’ piece:
“We, of course, live in a scientific age, and modern research pierces hocus-pocus.”
Bultmann couldn’t have said it better, except that he might have found a less sophomoric term than “hocus pocus.”
May 5th, 2009 |
The point I took (synthesized, perhaps) is not about forty million budding pianists – rather it’s the marked contrast in cultural traits that map onto character (national and individual), and hence the prospect for re-balancing of civilization.
Perhaps it’s a valid generalization that a kid dully complying with parents’ demands for 10,000 hours of piano practice (and science tutoring and 2nd or 3rd language lessons and more) will never compare favourably with the fount of creative brilliance developed by a kid who’s fed a steady diet of TV, fast-food and recreational pharmaeuticals. But taken across whole nations, when assessing likelihood of any culture forming the next leading society, my money’s on the ones with millions of bright classically-trained musicians.
May 6th, 2009 |
Yes, “Hocus Pocus” — the magic that Mozart pulls out of his sleeve. It’s not magic: I can show you after the fact how he warps time (takes too long to traverse a span of voice-leading and then catches up quickly), in the old change-of-pace. It can be explained, not scientifically but artistically. My revered teacher Carl Schachter, Distinguished Professor of Music Theory at City University and the greatest living exponent of Schenkerian theory, has written a number of articles showing how it’s done (although they are difficult, with a maximum audience of perhaps 300). But explaining Mozart’s magic tricks after the fact is not the same as devising them. That took genius.
May 6th, 2009 |
[...] Yes, David Brooks, Mozart was actually special (First Things/Spengler) [...]
May 6th, 2009 |
“It is not through scruples that man will become great; greatness comes through the grace of God, like a fine day.”
–Albert Camus, Notebooks
May 6th, 2009 |
I was watching a TV special about the breaking of the Enigma code. One of the people who was a young assistant to the code breaking group had this to say about Alan Turning (paraphrasing): “Turing’s solution was so out-of-the-blue, we were scratching our heads at how he could have come up with it. There are two kinds of geniuses: the first kind can solve a problem and you look at the solution and say to yourself ‘yes, given enough time, I could have come up with this.’ The second kind comes up with some thing so off-the-wall, you look at it and say, ‘never – not in a million years- could I have come up with this.’ Turing was the second kind.” Mozart, too.
May 6th, 2009 |
Perhpas you are giving sportsmen short shrift. I don’t know about Tiger Woods — or anyhing about golf for that matter — but I am pretty confident that, at least in Latin America, people will remember Diego Armando Maradona a century from now.
May 6th, 2009 |
Agree with everything but the notion that 100 years from now no one will care who Tiger Woods was. Certainly , assuming civilisation and gofl are still around in 100 years, Woods wil be remembered as one of the greatest golfers to ever live, if not the greatest. People who love golf still remember men like Old Tom Morris, Francis Ouimet, Bobby Jones, Harry Vardon, etc.; they will likewise remember Tiger Woods in 100 years.
Anyway, good to see Spengler at First Things. I’ve enjoyed your Asia Times articles for a long time now, and have you to thank for putting me onto Franz Rosenzwieg (not that he isn’t rough going at times! – especially the first section of Star of Redemption)
May 6th, 2009 |
While I completely agree with you about the Don Giovanni ensemble, I still have a weak spot for the Rigoletto quartet (and the Lucia sextet). However, Mozart is far from the best example of early musical genius. Schubert (Gretchen am Spinnrade, Erlkönig) and Mendelssohn, (Midsummer Night’s Dream) are in a different category of early achievement. Korngold is another startling example.
May 6th, 2009 |
Imagine, for a second, that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart has died, tragically, at the age of 18.
Would he be remembered today? Not likely, except in the trivial, Ripley’s Believe It or Not sense (“Believe it or not, Wolfgang Mozart played the harpsichord before the Holy Roman Emperor at the age of 6″).
Yes, it’s impressive that he wrote an opera at the age of 12… but how many people could name that opera? How often are his earliest symphonies performed? Not often.
Mozart is remembered today for the brilliant music he composed as an ADULT. His years as a child prodigy are interesting, but they’re not why Mozart is stilled hailed as a genius.
May 6th, 2009 |
[...] would like to second what Spengler says in reply to David Brooks on the subject of genius. It is obvious that Brooks has never met any true geniuses and has no idea [...]
May 6th, 2009 |
The point about mediocrity can be made, too, in that twenty years from now my children will be wondering only if Brooks was spelled with or without an ‘e’ after the ‘k’. The Mr. David B. is way out of his, league judging genius even in the realm of writers, literature and linguistics, where he might have a toe-hold.
Why, his writng on politics alone is as memorable as a glass of Kool-aid.
May 6th, 2009 |
Points well taken. Mendelssohn wrote the Midsummer Night’s Dream overture at age 15, and it’s still in the standard repertoire, and rightly so. I analyzed it in graduate school and it is brilliantly-constructed piece with some true innovations in the development section. And his sister Fanny was just as good.
As for Rigoletto, I love the opera, particularly the quartet. It’s not Verdi’s fault that he wasn’t Mozart, just the next best thing.
May 7th, 2009 |
Reading Brooks I cannot help but think the point of view he represents is the same one defined as “Mass Man” by Ortega y Gasset:
Brooks cannot understand or acknowledge genius as genius so the only option left open to him is to deny its existence. Maybe Brooks would argue that his view isn’t that of the blinking, unthinking, self-satisfied animal put forward by Ortega (or the “Last Man” of Nietzsche), but instead the world of Lake Wobegone where everyone is “above average.” What he doesn’t realize is that maybe those are two visions of the same thing.
May 7th, 2009 |
“. . Nicolas of Cusa wrote in the 15th century, arises from ‘participation in the mind of God.’”
Or, as Van Til put it, from “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
May 8th, 2009 |
How troubling is it that the western world appears to be collectively “blinking” and heralding the Last Man?
Genius is not really rewarded, mediocrity in the name of “social justice” is extolled as the new “enlightened” standard.
All the while we fail to reproduce and create an adequate future generation.
Nietzsche’s prophecy of nihilism in the abscence of God is coming to fruition day by day.
Our economic woes are a reflection of a deep cultural malaise and the conservative era (or Age) of Reagan did not arrest it.
The conservative movement largely failed and now we live in the Age of Obama and “social justice” which masquerades as true justice.
May 9th, 2009 |
Thank you for these interesting articles, including your description of the time spent with Lyndon Larouche. Amazing!
I enjoy listening to classical music, and I was happy to read that, in addition to being an economist, you are also a music expert. Therefore, a couple of questions.
1. Mozart seems to be hopeful, happy music . Any comments?
2. What about listening to Wagner? A good idea, or not?
Mozart seems to place the listener in the world and encourage him to appreciate and improve, if possible, the world. He is complex and simple at the same time. Wagner, on the other hand, encourages the listener to leave the world and float off into a dream land. I stopped listening to Wagner for this reason; later, I found out about his personal life and his anti-Semitism.
In The Weekly Standard, Algis Valiunis has an interesting review of a new book about the Wagner clan.
May 10th, 2009 |
Brooks even got the Tiger Woods analysis wrong. Tiger’s upbringing is nothing special, there are legions of children with parents dedicated to their sports dreams who never result in anything. Tiger is a unique and amazing talent, and many will remember him for a long time.
Human accomplishment is very difficult to gauge and compare, and a sporting career among the most difficult.
May 10th, 2009 |
Mozart “hopeful” and “happy”? Not the Requiem, surely, which is terrifiying as much as it is hopeful, and definitely not “Cosi fan tutte,” as bleak a view of human frailty as one is likely to find. Mozart is universal, and can incorporate everything human. If he is played really well, there shouldn’t be a dry seat in the house.
Wagner was a gifted and intelligent musician with a nasty agenda, in my view. Classical music builds order into time, and makes time capable of being sacred. Wagner intentionally destroys the sense of ordered time in order to foster what might be called dissociated exaltation. He became a cult figure like no rock band in history. Seemingly intelligent people went into his operas and came out declaring that their lives had changed.
May 15th, 2009 |
I know it’s a little late to be making a comment, and I know the following quotes are only pop culture references, but I think both Bob (Mr. Incredible) and his son Dash have a firm grasp on the modern view of genius:
DASH: But Dad always said our powers were nothing to be ashamed of, our powers made us special.
HELEN: Everyone’s special, Dash.
DASH: [muttering] Which is another way of saying no one is.
———————————————————————-
HELEN: I can’t believe you don’t want to go to your own son’s graduation.
BOB: It’s not a graduation. He is moving from the 4th grade to the 5th grade.
HELEN: It’s a ceremony!
BOB: It’s psychotic! They keep creating new ways to celebrate mediocrity, but if someone is genuinely exceptional…
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact