Depression is Evil

[starstruck5]

Does anyone know why Rachmaninoff doubted his abilities as a composer|?  I know he suffered from depression -but I don't understand why -he had everything going for him -??

Depression is so destructive -because Rachmaninoff should have composed much much more -and the world would have been all the richer for it.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Rachmaninoff should have composed much much more -and the world would have been all the richer for it.

My man...  

But we can't really say that he shouldn't have suffered from depression.  He would've composed different music.  For the better, or for the worse.  

But ANYWAYS, the reason why he was depressed was because when he composed his first Symphony, it was performed by a drunk conductor who's name was like Alexander Glasnov or something.  And on top of that, The conductor flamed Rachmaninoff and his first symphony.  So it goes down like this...

Alexander: Hey Rach kid!  Your symphony freaking sucks!!!  Do you think you're cool or something!

Rachmaninoff:  Uuuh  no?

Alexander:  Well I'm gonna perform it right now!  And then after that, I'm gonna flame you and your symphony!  And give me another beer...

Rachmaninoff:  Aren't you a little too drunk to conduct my Symphony?  I mean, sure you say it's not that great, but...  Really?

Alexander:  Did I studder?!?!?!  I said give me another beer!

Rachmaninoff:  Find dude...  Do whatever you want kid.  I'm outta here.  Peace...  

*After the performance*

Rachmaninoff:  What the freaking heck!  I feel soooooooooo salty!!!!  I'm such a bad composer!  That's it, I'm done!  I should have stuck with skateboarding!  Man I'm a loser...  



And THAT'S what happened.  

[davidjosepha]

I know he suffered from depression -but I don't understand why -he had everything going for him -??

Depression as a mental illness isn't logical. Yes, he fell into a depression after his first symphony flopped, but the fact that he remained in that state for so long shows that it was more than just a result of the symphony. A normal person would obviously be very upset by the failure, but would have moved on. He just got stuck in that state for a long time, leading me to think it was mental illness related.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

leading me to think it was mental illness related.

Well depression is a mental illness.

[forte88]

Well depression is a mental illness.

Depression could be a mental illness, but sometimes it's a natural adaptation process(life lessons), something that is experienced as pain, but in retrospect necessary to improve. People without any selfreflection are less to suffer from 'mental illnesses'.
Prozac is keeping people happy but at what cost?

[davidjosepha]

Well depression is a mental illness.

Yes and no. If your mom dies and you get depressed and stay that way for a few weeks, that's not a mental illness. That's a reaction to something that happened. Depression is a mental illness when it doesn't have a definite reason. When your mom dies, if someone asks you why you're sad, you say, "My mom just died ", but when you have depression as a mental illness, if someone asks you why you're sad, you just don't know.

With Rachmaninoff, it's understandable he became depressed after the huge let-down with his first symphony. But the fact that he remained that way for so long leads me to think it wasn't just about his symphony anymore.

[davidjosepha]

Depression could be a mental illness, but sometimes it's a natural adaptation process(life lessons), something that is experienced as pain, but in retrospect necessary to improve. People without any selfreflection are less to suffer from 'mental illnesses'.
Prozac is keeping people happy but at what cost?

That's just spouting bullshit. Depression isn't a necessary part of life, and telling someone that it's better for them to be depressed and create beautiful music than to be happy and maybe not is just ridiculous. It's better for you, maybe, because you don't have to pay the cost of the art. But Rachmaninoff didn't owe anyone anything. Assuming the only reason Rachmaninoff was such an amazing composer is because he was depressed, I would still, if given the chance, go back and give him some Prozac, even if that meant he never composed anything ever again. I'd be sad, yes, that his music was gone, but his happiness is more important than him creating music.

Now, that's making the assumption that he wouldn't have composed if he hadn't been depressed, which I disagree with. He might've had a slight happier tone to his music, in general, but the ability he had could express any emotion, not just grief.

[hmpiano]

But ANYWAYS, the reason why he was depressed was because when he composed his first Symphony, it was performed by a drunk conductor who's name was like Alexander Glasnov or something.  

Alexander Glazunov I think you mean, and in my book a better composer (even when drunk).

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Yes and no. If your mom dies and you get depressed and stay that way for a few weeks, that's not a mental illness. That's a reaction to something that happened. Depression is a mental illness when it doesn't have a definite reason. When your mom dies, if someone asks you why you're sad, you say, "My mom just died ", but when you have depression as a mental illness, if someone asks you why you're sad, you just don't know.

So as long as I have a reason, I can quit my job, sleep all day, lose motive to take care of myself,  and lose interest in an actives that I enjoyed...  I don't have a mental illness?

According to the DSM (diagnostic statistical manual for mental disorders), after about two weeks it's considered a mental disorder.  But of course it's not like a fine line or anything.  You can still be diagnosed with depression and have a reason.  It doesn't have to be all that rational, I could say I'm still depressed about my crayfish dying from when I was five.  

Irrespective of whether or not that person has a reason, if it's destructive to the persons physical, health, irrational, out of the norm of the culture, destructive to other people, and some other criteria I can't remember, then it's a mental illness.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Alexander Glazunov I think you mean, and in my book a better composer (even when drunk).

If you say so 

[hmpiano]

If you say so 

Maybe it's just a mental disorder. 

[davidjosepha]

According to the DSM (diagnostic statistical manual for mental disorders), after about two weeks it's considered a mental disorder.  But of course it's not like a fine line or anything.

I believe I misspoke. I didn't mean to say "people with mental illness have no reason for being sad" in the sense that there aren't concrete things that are making them sad. What I mean is that it's irrational in people with a mental illness. It's rational to be upset about a family member dying for a period of time and even for years, but not wanting to get out of bed for weeks over it is irrational, and I believe would classify it as a mental illness. The issue with two weeks is, a person who is depressed in a mental illness way often doesn't realize that their sadness is irrational. So you can't just say "Are you just sad for the hell of it?" and base your diagnosis on their response. It's considered a mental illness after two weeks because people without a mental illness would probably be able to get over any extreme symptoms of depression in that amount of time. A normal, mentally healthy person isn't going to be so upset they do the things you mentioned like quit their job, sleep all day, and lose motivation in everything and maintain these changes for very long. A healthy person will rebound from the sadness relatively quickly, a couple days max, I'd say.

I think we're both getting at the same thing here. Being depressed doesn't mean you have depression, in the clinical sense. I just mean to say that you can be depressed for a period of time without it being a mental illness.

In other words, a normal person would be pretty perturbed by the results from his first symphony. I'd probably be so embarrassed and ashamed I'd want to quit composing too. But the fact that he let these feelings persist for so long makes me think it's not just a normal reaction, but in fact, mental illness.

[forte88]

That's just spouting bullshit. Depression isn't a necessary part of life, and telling someone that it's better for them to be depressed and create beautiful music than to be happy and maybe not is just ridiculous. It's better for you, maybe, because you don't have to pay the cost of the art. But Rachmaninoff didn't owe anyone anything. Assuming the only reason Rachmaninoff was such an amazing composer is because he was depressed, I would still, if given the chance, go back and give him some Prozac, even if that meant he never composed anything ever again. I'd be sad, yes, that his music was gone, but his happiness is more important than him creating music.

Now, that's making the assumption that he wouldn't have composed if he hadn't been depressed, which I disagree with. He might've had a slight happier tone to his music, in general, but the ability he had could express any emotion, not just grief.

You don't have a clue what art entails, now go take your prozac dummie

[iansinclair]

Depression -- such as Rachmaninoff's -- is indeed a mental illness, and it does a great disservice to those who suffer from it to say otherwise.

So are the related illnesses: bipolar and manic depressive.

What is notable about all three of these is first, that an astonishing number of great composers, choreographers, performers, writers, and visual artists suffered from one of them.  Is this a coincidence?  I rather doubt it.  Perhaps the best known example I can think of right off hand is Irving Berlin, who was manic depressive.  It being modern times, he was treated for it -- lithium, I think but am not sure -- which cured the disorder, OK -- but he never wrote anything worthwhile after he was "cured".

Which would I rather be?  Bipolar (which I am) or chemically "cured"?  I'll take the bipolar, thank you -- and fortunately my family is supportive of my choice.

[goldentone]

Depression is not a mental illness.  It is an emotional condition of losing hope that many, if not most people, have fallen into at one point in their lives.  You can come out of a depression as I did.  If depression were an illness, you couldn't free yourself from it, but people do all the time.  There are those who remain depressed, and in those cases it has become a stronghold.  Depression is self-centered in nature.  I know someone who had been depressed for years, and probably still is, and there is an unwillingness in her to let go of it.  

[davidjosepha]

Which would I rather be?  Bipolar (which I am) or chemically "cured"?  I'll take the bipolar, thank you -- and fortunately my family is supportive of my choice.

I don't think any talent or creativity you may have (I don't know, exactly) is a result of of your bipolar disorder, though. From what I've heard about the meds for depression, bipolar, and other mental illnesses is that in addition to taking away your depression and bipolar, they take away a lot of your emotion and make you feel empty. So I'd say the fact that someone becomes less creative after being cured is a correlation, not causation--the bipolar isn't causing the creativity, the meds are just taking it away.

[iansinclair]

No, I didn't mean that -- the bipolar is not the cause of what little creativity I have!  No causation there at all, so far as I know.  But the meds flatten the emotions more or less completely, and at least a certain level of emotion seems to be necessary -- at least for me -- to play well.  So there is a relationship.

And for goldentone -- perhaps it is a matter of definition?  I would never say that it wasn't possible to recover from clinical depression on one's own.  I am quite sure that it is.  It is also, however, possible to recover from, say, pneumonia on one's own.  I find it curious that many people are quite happy to acknowledge various physical ailments as real illness, but refuse to acknowledge that some (not all) mental problems may also be real illnesses as well.

[landru]

Alls I know is that shiny happy people don't put the Dies Irae (funeral march) theme in almost everything they write.

My two cents is that I believe that Rach would not have been the composer he was without the mental challenges and makeup he had. Those things influenced him and it came out in spades in the music.

[davidjosepha]

My two cents is that I believe that Rach would not have been the composer he was without the mental challenges and makeup he had. Those things influenced him and it came out in spades in the music.

Be that as it may, I don't think it was necessarily worth it. Was it worth it for us? Well, of course, we got all the good from it but didn't have to deal with the depression. Was it worth it for him? The thing with success is, it appears great, but really, it doesn't affect happiness much. Studies have shown that after people have a major life change for the good or for the bad, after about 3 months, they go back to roughly the same happiness level they were before it happened. Meaning, the fact that Rachmaninoff was a very successful composer and performer probably didn't improve his life very much. I very much doubt Rachmaninoff was any happier being successful and depressed than he would have been if he had taken meds for his depression. Even knowing what I know, and loving his music, I would have told him to take the meds. He didn't owe us anything. His life was for him, and if he would have been happier without depression but also not having written any great music, that's what should have happened.

[m1469]

There are a lot of depressed people in the world who don't write a lick of music or do much of anything that's considered "artistic" at all, or artists of various sorts who are perhaps considered depressed but aren't producing high quality art or much art at all.  So I think it's actually reaching quite a bit to try to concretely link particular mentalities to whether or not art is going to be created due to whatever mentality a person has, and to determine the quality and depth of that art in comparison to ups and downs of human existence.

Also, discussions like this are similar to trying to compare the playing of nowadays artists with legendary artists, such as Liszt, when we don't have actual sound to compare with (besides the fact that everybody is different and unique, etc.  ).  But, IF Rachmaninov, for example, really was depressed when he was writing, that doesn't mean he would suddenly stop producing quality music if he wasn't.  There's no way to know.  

Horowitz was not "himself" for 12 years and during that time didn't perform.  If depressed emotional/mental states automatically nurture artistic tendencies, I find it odd that a legendary artist such as Horowitz wasn't on stage, producing astronomical music, during the lowest times of his life.