if they were born in our era...

[stevie]

lets say beethoven, mozart, bach, and all the past great composers, were born in our age, and brought up with our popular music, and not exposed so much to 'classical music'.

what would they do/be?

i can imagine schubert being a singer-songwriter, without the ability to write his own songs - elton john.

liszt - the pyrotechnical insane genes would naturally have gravitated towards virtuoso guitar playing, im thinking hed be yngwie malmsteen or steve vai.

ornstein....naturally he would be in a random japanese noise-core band.

zlitely

[leahcim]

what would they do/be?

Only a 1/3 as good as Frank?

[lisztisforkids]

I think we should assume that people of the talent and calibre such as Mozart and Beethoven are not strictly born in the 19th and 18th century's. They walk among us.

[stevie]

I think we should assume that people of the talent and calibre such as Mozart and Beethoven are not strictly born in the 19th and 18th century's. They walk among us.

naturally, its evident that paul mccartney likely has the same raw musical talent as mozart and beethoven, just directed in a different way.

[brewtality]

As much as I love McCartney, I don't believe that to be true.

Also I reckon Liszt would be more like Eddie Van Halen; the pyrotechnic innovator with the ability to write catchy music.

[lisztisforkids]

I beleive that TV and such and such has greatly undermined, twisted and perhaps stolen
great artist. Great as in Chopin, Mozart.

[fuel925]

naturally, its evident that paul mccartney likely has the same raw musical talent as mozart and beethoven, just directed in a different way.

no.

[stevie]

no.

 

mccartney's melodic gift is among the greatest of our and all eras, i just cited him as an example.

talent = potential, talent has nothing to do with what anyone does with that talent, it is absolutely idiotic tot hink that someone in our age hasnt the same raw musical talent as the past great composers.

[leahcim]

talent = potential, talent has nothing to do with what anyone does with that talent, it is absolutely idiotic tot hink that someone in our age hasnt the same raw musical talent as the past great composers.

Absolutely, but "someone in our age" doesn't mean it's Paul McCartney. He's English for one thing, that's not helped in the past

I'd have said ABBA, Oliver!, the sound of music, the pink panther theme dude, whoever wrote for Frank Sinatra, Andrew Lloyd Webber and countless others in rock, pop and other genres demonstrate a similar level of ability to write one or more catchy tunez at least as good as PM.

I would think it idiotic to assume that our age has countless people with the same raw musical talent as the past great composers. So what he has done doesn't appear to be  evidence supporting Paul McCartney as Beethoven, over my postman or anyone else.

OTOH, most of the past great composers are usually great musicians too and Paul McCartney isn't. Despite trying. That to me is strong evidence that he isn't the 20th Century Beethoven.

[brewtality]

talent = potential, talent has nothing to do with what anyone does with that talent, it is absolutely idiotic tot hink that someone in our age hasnt the same raw musical talent as the past great composers.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same things. For me Mozart was clearly more talented than McCartney because of his musical gifts: Improvisatory genius, total Recall etc. The fact that McCartney (presumably) lacks these inherent abilities would suggest to me that he isn't as 'talented'. But I suppose it depends on how you quantify and define talent. However, I am sure that there are people today who have these abilities, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they will be more important to music as Mozart or McCartney. The thing that seems to separate the historically great from the 'could have beens' is their ability to innovate and influence others; not necessarily their superhuman gifts.

Getting back to the main point, I think Dreyschock would be an 80s hair metal guitarist (perhaps Michael Angelo Batio?). Loved in their day by the people, but rubbished by critics and quickly forgotten.

[lau]

contrpuctus

[contrapunctus]

First of all, lets separate the use of the words talent and genius, ok? I am sure you know the definition of both of those words. Now, would you agree that Beethoven, etc. were geniuses? But, that Mcartney and friends are very talented but not musical geniuses? We have plenty people with musical talent in the world, but how many people have musical genius? We can look at history to give us examples of what a musical genius would be: Generally, the very talented were more liked by the populous during their time than a musical genius. Also, musical geniuses tended to invent new ways of writing music whilst the talented, who may write very good music, just followed what was already laid before them. So, using history to find our modern musical genius, we need to look at their popularity compared to others, and whether they are composing a new form, etc.

So, obviously, our musical genius must be me.

A few examples: Bach invented Bachian counterpoint and greatly expounded on counterpoint and Baroque music in general. He was also less liked than say, Buxtehude or G. F. Telemann.

Beethoven basically started the romantic period. He was generally considered very radical, but he did have a sizeable fan base amongst the nobles. Also, music from his late period, 1815-death, had virually no appreciation omong musicians untill 50 years after his death.

Now, of course there are many exceptions to my rules, and, therefore, only present them as mere guidelines.

[leahcim]

First of all, lets separate the use of the words talent and genius, ok? I am sure you know the definition of both of those words. Now, would you agree that Beethoven, etc. were geniuses? But, that Mcartney and friends are very talented but not musical geniuses?

If we look at dictionary definitions then "talent" is supposedly about an innate or natural ability of a superior quality. Genius is supposedly about having a superior talent or great intelligence and creative power.

If it's at all possible to learn something and thus obtain a skill and have ability in it [and possibly develop an ability that is of superior quality], without having this "talent" thing, then I'd say, no, it's not clear that McCartney, or anyone else, has talent in that dictionary definition sense.

Certainly not without a lot of delving into how you would find the differences, and, if you could, then measuring the subject in some way to say whether they were talented or have learnt to do something despite their natural abilities.

[Some might argue that if you're talented you still have to learn and work. I'd agree, but nevertheless if it's possible to learn without talent, and that makes any difference or not to the end results that's what you'd be looking for to say whether someone was talented]

I guess that's why child prodigies might be considered to have genius or talent, because we might imagine they have had insufficient time for their skill to be much else than innate, natural talent.

OTOH, people often use the words "genius" and "talent" outside of those definitions [and different definitions probably exist in dictionaries too]

Genius is often used for "success" in a specific thing or field. Which would certainly apply to the whole shebang of McCartney and his friends, if not necessarily his music in particular.

Talent is often used for anyone who is good at something [which again, McCartney is clearly good at something, even if not everyone agrees that the "something" has to do with music] without much thought as to how or why they became good at it.

[stevie]

id just like to say a couple of things

mccartney IS a great musician, he IS  a great performer, and if you had any sense, youd realise that just because of his limited technical abilities with instruments, it doesnt mean he isnt also a great improviser.

the consistency and diversity of his melodic genius is second to none in our era, you cant tell me any different.

im very sure if he studied more in depth on the piano, he could improvise stunningly, and after all, all his song writing is basically the distillation of improvised vocal ideas.

[brewtality]

id just like to say a couple of things

mccartney IS a great musician, he IS  a great performer, and if you had any sense, youd realise that just because of his limited technical abilities with instruments, it doesnt mean he isnt also a great improviser.

the consistency and diversity of his melodic genius is second to none in our era, you cant tell me any different.

im very sure if he studied more in depth on the piano, he could improvise stunningly, and after all, all his song writing is basically the distillation of improvised vocal ideas.

I agree, but with respect to improvisation; not that you are wrong, but this is just speculation. When I listen to him I do feel that I am listening to genius. However, I still can't rank him with Mozart. Randomly if I had to chose between the two, my choice would definitely be the Beatles (not such a fan of McCartney solo).

[gorbee natcase]

Beethoven would be a tellevision presenter

Bach a school teacher

Mozart a window salesman

[leahcim]

mccartney IS a great musician, he IS  a great performer, and if you had any sense, youd realise that just because of his limited technical abilities with instruments, it doesnt mean he isnt also a great improviser.

I've mentioned McCartney before w.r.t a program he was in with Jools Holland about the piano.

I think it's called "The history of the jazz piano" [I'm not 100% sure because I missed the beginning, but Kemble mention a program Jools Holland visited their factory to make with that title]

Watch it if you get chance. It's a chance to see McCartney and others jamming and talking with Jools Holland, it's not the same as having Steve Vai sat next to you with a guitar, but it gives a better indication, imo, of his ability than what he chucks on record via a studio and producer.

Performance-wise as a member of the Beatles he probably rarely had to play, as they once remarked to Led Zepplin [who were doing 2-3 hour long gigs], they could stand for 30 minutes with girls screaming at them not even playing because no one could hear, they remarked they could get it down to 20 minutes if they were luckier. They certainly never did a "show" in the sense that Madonna might be considered a performer. He doesn't have the presence of a Robbie Williams or Freddie Mercury.

I think what he has is a "once a member of the beatles" lifetime card. and a few audience sing-a-longs that come with it. The guy who wrote Angels and so on for Robbie Williams, and those that wrote the Queen athems are in the same boat song-wise and I would argue put in a better performance from a showmanship pov too.

What I've seen recently [Like the gig MSN covered - possibly at the Cavern? and live aid / live8] weren't impressive. A catchy sing-a-long for the audience. Although some of musicians he gets to play with are.

He's written some catchy stuff, but as I said, I think so many have it's moot. Including his mate who got shot. afaict he's spent all the time since that day realising that getting shot was yet another thing John for the Beatles and his solo stuff that Paul never managed to beat.

IMO, in that program, he comes across as what he is, which is nothing particularly special. In terms of technique as you note he doesn't have any. In terms of improvisation he is not even close to the ability of the others featured in the program.

He's bluffing in the program and you won't need any great sense at all to see that. None of the other musicians were Hamelin or Horowitz, it's not about raw technique, but nevertheless they were muscians. He is a celebrity who was in a band created by Brian Epstein, with records produced by the beatles talent, George Martin, who correctly assessed the Beatles as "awful" when he signed them and has at least some of the characteristics you'd expect a modern day talent to have. i.e The Beatles had early Simon Cowell, Louis Walsh alikes with musically skilled producers hyping up an otherwise average band.

[countchocula]

Beethoven would not be a musician today

[leahcim]

Beethoven would not be a musician today

...if it hadn't have been for those pesky kids?

[mephisto]

liszt - the pyrotechnical insane genes would naturally have gravitated towards virtuoso guitar playing, im thinking hed be yngwie malmsteen or steve vai.

Neo-classical metal is a very conservative musical genre. Liszt did not like the music of the likes of Brahms and Anton Rubinstein(as you know they were conservative composers).

The quote: There is nothing better than to learn from the past, but why not live with the living.

Based on these facts Liszt might have become a contemporary composer- pianist. As there are plenty of pyrotechnic in contemporary piano music. And in my oppinion the piano is much more virtoustic than a guitar.

And let us not forgetthat Liszt was much more than just flash(nuage gris).

[mephisto]

id just like to say a couple of things

mccartney IS a great musician, he IS  a great performer, and if you had any sense, youd realise that just because of his limited technical abilities with instruments, it doesnt mean he isnt also a great improviser.

the consistency and diversity of his melodic genius is second to none in our era, you cant tell me any different.

im very sure if he studied more in depth on the piano, he could improvise stunningly, and after all, all his song writing is basically the distillation of improvised vocal ideas.

First let me jut say that I like The Beatles. But (using your way of arguing) if you had any sense youd realise that a melodic gift isn`t the only thing that separates good musicians from bad musicians.

I said that I liked the Beatles and Mccartney but his music lacks the emotional quality of the great classical composers(living or dead). I do personally look at this as a quasi-fact.
Simply put it his music is to "boring" harmonicly to move me the way Scriabin does, and extremely conservative.