the next mozart?

[hodi]

https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/24/60minutes/main657713.shtml

[thracozaag]

  Jay's very talented (and a nice kid), but they went way overboard on that piece.

koji (STSD)

[DarkWind]

Just because he can write faster than other composers doesn't necessarily mean he's better. Heck, for all we know, they could be insanely terrible. And when the interviewer said he was the greatest talent to come along in 200 years, that really pissed the sh*t out of me. Are you forgetting about Ravel? Debussy? Chopin? Liszt? Prokofiev? Schoenberg? Tchaikovsky? Schumann? Mendelssohn? Brahms? This kid is a nobody compared to these geniuses, and more. To call him the greatest talent to come along in 200 years is really a sign of how stupid the interviewer is, and I can only assume the rest of this article is just as bloated as this statement.

[joell12068]

It would be nice to actually hear audio samples of his work.  I could not find a single one in the article.  Without actually "hearing" what he has composed, it is impossible to comment on his talent.

 

[thracozaag]

Just because he can write faster than other composers doesn't necessarily mean he's better. Heck, for all we know, they could be insanely terrible. And when the interviewer said he was the greatest talent to come along in 200 years, that really pissed the *** out of me. Are you forgetting about Ravel? Debussy? Chopin? Liszt? Prokofiev? Schoenberg? Tchaikovsky? Schumann? Mendelssohn? Brahms? This kid is a nobody compared to these geniuses, and more. To call him the greatest talent to come along in 200 years is really a sign of how stupid the interviewer is, and I can only assume the rest of this article is just as bloated as this statement.

  I'm afraid that they have to dumb down and exaggerate heinously to make simple points to the average viewer who doesn't know Bon Jovi from Beethoven.  Sad.

koji (STSD)

[Daevren]

Being a child prodigy doesn't meant anything. Most of them become normal adults.

He will grow up, and the culture and society norms may destroy his child spirit, like it does with every person. With that gone there might be nothing left.

This kid has to work just as hard as everyone else to become a real composer.

[Ludwig Van Rachabji]

From what I've read, he knew how to play cello and write music without being told. This is the part that worries me. I mean, really, is that even possible?

[hodi]

our world is full of mysteries.. yes that's true. he played the cello without even know how to play that.. it's really difficult to know what's in a mind of a genius.
besides, mendelssohn,mozart and saint-saens were great child prodigies, and they became noted composers afterwards.. so why it wouldn't happen to him?

[Daniel_piano]

Are you forgetting about Ravel? Debussy? Chopin? Liszt? Prokofiev? Schoenberg? Tchaikovsky? Schumann? Mendelssohn? Brahms? This kid is a nobody compared to these geniuses, and more.

How do you know?
Have you heard something written by him?
Since music is subjective as WE CAN'T judge it objectively, what made Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Debussy geniuses was not the (beauty of their music) but the amount of pieces written
Take Tchaikovsky for example, he got his diploma in composition at 25 years old and wrote his first works at 24
So, this kid with several meangful symphonias in a wold ruled by avant-gard nonsense crap might well be a great composer like the one you mentioned

Daniel

[Daevren]

our world is full of mysteries.. yes that's true. he played the cello without even know how to play that.. it's really difficult to know what's in a mind of a genius.
besides, mendelssohn,mozart and saint-saens were great child prodigies, and they became noted composers afterwards.. so why it wouldn't happen to him?

Well, what happened to all those children that skipped high school and entered university? Most of them never got to win a Nobel prize or something. Being a child prodigy doesn't mean you are going to be a real genius. Those people skip childhood, never take or are given the time to be a child. Maybe they become lazy. Maybe their brains just become 'normal' when they grow up. I don't know exactly.

Being a genius has nothing to do with writing beautiful music. It just means you IQ is above 140. In other words, it means that you are really really really smart. It helps with writing music but most great composers weren't geniuses.

My dictionary defines 'genius' as: "Extraordinary intellectual and creative power." I am not sure I can name one composer that was clearly a genius. Of course Mozart comes to mind, which I don't like. Maybe Scriabin, but he was probably a bit too much on the insane side. Chopin? No. Liszt? Maybe, didn't read a huge bio on him. Schoenberg? Probably not. Ravel? I really don't know.

Note also that those 'Extraordinary intellectual and creative powers' should not be limited to music, they should be universal. Otherwise we have just a person very gifted in music, like J.S Bach and Chopin.

Its hard to say.

[xvimbi]

Well, what happened to all those children that skipped high school and entered university? Most of them never got to win a Nobel prize or something. Being a child prodigy doesn't mean you are going to be a real genius.

I'd like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the Nobel Prize, because it invariably comes up in discussions about musical geniuses, and wrongly so.

The Nobel Prize does not recognize intelligence. Most Nobel Laureates are not smarter than any other scientist. The public has a wrong perception of the purpose of the Nobel Prize. The Nobel Prize recognizes a ground-breaking contribution of a scientist to the field. Most of the time, making such contributions does not involve particular intelligence (above a certain level that is required to become a scientist in the first place). Most Nobel Laureates are simply hard-working scientists who devoted their wits to an important problem (often unknowingly). There are many scientists who are a lot smarter than the bulk of the Nobel Laureates, yet never receive the Prize themselves, most of the time because the problems they are working on are not that "hot". There are also a lot of political issues.

There are some people among the Nobel Laureates who can be considered "geniuses", but to assume that only geniuses receive the Nobel Prize, or that all Nobel Laureates are geniuses is not correct.

[Daevren]

You, know. You are right. I wanted to use the nobel prize as an example.

The point was most child prodigies end up becoming normal intelligent adults. They aren't more intelligent that other people. They are just intelligent at an ealier age so it seems.


Also, if you take in account 'hard-working' and 'being lazy', how does that fit in the picture. Can you be considered a genius if you do nothing all day long?

[xvimbi]

Also, if you take in account 'hard-working' and 'being lazy', how does that fit in the picture. Can you be considered a genius if you do nothing all day long?

Your point is well taken.

Does a piano make a sound if nobody is there to listen to it?
Do you know if the moon is still around, even if you don't look at it and can't see it?

Those are related questions, and the answers are not as simple as one might think they would be.

In order to be considered a genius, one has to proof it constantly.

[Daevren]

I know, I am aware of philosophy.

I really don't like the limitations of language and the inevitable subjectivity of human views regarding things not governed by a universal law.


Its really really annoying, I can tell you.

[mound]

This article is merely a recap of a piece "60 Minutes" did on TV week or so ago, I was watching it in complete awe.

I do believe the segment included snippets of his music, they showed an orchestra working out one of his symphonies, as the kid instructed the adult conductor on dynamics.  They also showed him walking down the street, conducting in mid-air, his mind is just engulfed at all times with music and he can just pour it out on paper as easilly as I'm typing this response.  I'd be interesting in hearing complete works, but I was pretty stunned by what I did hear and see on that TV program

-Paul

[alextryan]

I wanna kill that lucky little sh*t!

[Rach3]

Amusing... a two year old playing a cello? Funny.

Talented composers might write five or six symphonies in a lifetime. But Jay has written five at the age of 12.

Therefore he must be far greater than some poor bloke like Beethoven, who spent a whole lifetime writing only nine. This kid runs circles around him!

"To be a prodigy composer is far rarer," says Zyman. "You have to conquer these issues. How do you notate this rhythm? What’s the range of the oboe? Can this be played on the piano? How do you compose for the harp? There are hundreds of thousands of bits of information that you need to master to be able to write a piece of music."

Is that all?

IMHO, composing a sonata in a few hours is not a sign of genius... it shows lack of passion, or basic technique. I should point out that with respect to real composing, 3rd year undergraduate theory, even at Juilliard, is almost nothing.

[Daniel_piano]

I should point out that with respect to real composing, 3rd year undergraduate theory, even at Juilliard, is almost nothing.

Hogwash !
So does that mean that a composition is as good as the amounf of theory the authors know and put into the composition?
What about all the composition wrote by people who never studied formally and yes wrote great pieces, from classic composers to soundtrack authors

The quality of a work is always the honesty by which you create it
The passion and the love you put in it

So if you have a musical idea that you consider beautiful and meaningful and want to share it with other people and you're able to write it down (or even just play it) then that work is any less good than work created with a lot of knowledge in theory and composition
In fact, sometime the creation of people with 10 semesters in harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration suck far lot more and are lot more manieristic and presumptuos than simple pieces created created with humilty passion and less knowledge
Arts like music, sculpture, painting, drawings and writing are strange in that knowing the theory may be a good thing and help you, but on the other hand you can create really beautifull and worthy works even if you don't know anything about drawing theory and prospective, grammatics and literature or musical theory and harmony
Just think how wonderful books have been written by people who never studied all the theory necessary to write a book and think how beautiful music was created by people who didn't even know how to read the bass cleff
Art is so much about passion and instinct and rarely lack of knowledge in theory can be a problem or male the work less worthy
All Mussorgsky major pieces have been created without any formal knowledge in harmony

Anyway, spending few times in creating a composition is not necessarily a lack of passion or basic tecnique (almost usually to create good music, as you can create beuaitufl music evne if you don't know what  intervals are) but sometimes it means that you have so much musical ideas in your had that you have to materialize them in the paper all
I love Rossini music, I think all his piano pieces, all his orcehstral suites, ouvertures and Operas are real gems with beautiful music
Rossini was famous because he used to wrote all his works in few days
Not only they were created in few days but were usually completely few day before the first rapresentation
Is the fact that he wrote so quickly a sign of lack of passion?
No, judging by his music, it was a sign that he has lot musically to say and didn't need to think much about the music since the music was already in his head

I think this is the way music should be created
Not on the paper, bar by bar, but you must have it all complete in your head, so that the only work to do is writing down the notes of the melody you're hearing on your head

Daniel

[xenon_monkey]

Such hostility towards this little bugger...

[Daevren]

The more theory a person knows the better that person will compose. Yeah, some people with little knowledge write better than some with alot. So?

This kid has a musical brain, no doubt. But he doesn't seem to have matured enough to be critical about his subconscious creations. Not very strange at this age. He surely needs to think about this and study composition.

Yes, people will always be jeolous at kids with incredible talents. Its not that strange. And his fellow students will also dislike him for it.

[Brian Healey]

It seems everybody is quick to jump down this little guy's throat. HE'S ONLY 12 AND HE'S WRITTEN 5 SYMPHONIES!!!!! I probably hadn't even HEARD 5 symphonies by the time I was 12. Are they good, you ask? They can't be that bad if he's studying at Julliard. Besides, even if he's writing average symphonies now, at the age of 12, imagine what his compositions will sound like when he's 20!

About the cello thing, though, I take that with a grain of salt. They simply said he "played" the cello, they never said he was Yo-Yo Ma. He probably "played" a few haphazard notes on the thing and his parents were all like "WOW! You're so talented!" Typical parent thing to do.

[willcowskitz]

Fascinating. It is always exciting to expand one's conceptions on human capabilities, is it not?

The first reaction to some people always seems to be envy, and I don't judge them for that because it is probably the most natural thing to feel, as true as we're alive, but I want to tell these people that ironically, destructive feelings can be converted into constructive energy.

By throwing oneself into an envious bitterness, one admits they have explored to their limits yet witnessed world far away from them, out of reach. By becoming enticed by new phenomenas and use them to extend one's view on the world and update their standards, one is already closer to understanding the world beyond those limits. The first thing to do is to admit that somebody by far exceeds your current abilities, the next thing is to meditate on what could you do to learn more about those abilities yourself.

Nature is creative, creativity runs through all your veins, we've been granted the gift of being able to express ourselves, and the reason most people never get their abilities to use is that they concentrate too much on the people around them and forget to listen to their inner voice, to try to get to know themselves before digging into other people's lives and personalities (moreover, "errors" in them).

And remember, this kid might write a hundred symphonies in his lifetime, but not single one of them is going to be the symphony you would write, if you one day saw the light and wrote one. Just because someone can run faster than you, doesn't mean you've grown roots yourself, and besides, you can always choose your own direction to run to.

Another thing worth mentioning is about our time. We're living the HYPE era; when there appears a target for amusement, it is immediately abused to raise passive hysteria. We're living in a global world, everyone knows everyone's business, and there are many people who make their living by promoting other people forward to another bunch of people who then in a way or another sell it to the masses, gaining their own bread to their table. You don't have to join the drooling masses, but instead look at it analytically. Also, Thracozaag made a good point.


It might sound a little twisted here, but here comes my favourite quote:

"A wise man learns more from his enemies than a fool from his friends."
--Baltasar Gracián (a Spanish philosopher)

[Brian Healey]

"A wise man learns more from his enemies than a fool from his friends."
--Baltasar Gracián (a Spanish philosopher)

That's not too far off from what the Godfather said:

"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."

[pianobabe56]

Pardon me if this statement is way off the mark, but I do not think that this guy deserves to be flamed like this. HE'S TWELVE AND STUDYING AT JULIARD! I have only heard of that type of thing once before. Please don't be so jealous and quick to judge until you can present a better case point. Have you written any symphonies lately? I think the kid deserves to be respected for what he has accomplished, rather than flamed by a bunch of his musical peers.

[Daniel_piano]

The most absurd thing is that is that this kid is being flamed and criticed without an hint of what his music sounds like
Should people wait to listen to his music or at least read some anecdote about it before flaming what they don't know?
Even if his pieces were all "average" he would still deserve more respect that the people that are criticing him

Daniel

[bravuraoctaves]

Simple :

Jealousy

[Nightscape]

If you would like to hear one of his pieces (and a bit of biographical info) go to this address:
https://www.fromthetop.org/Radio/Shows.cfm?sid=88

The composer also talks about his piece, and his inspiration for it.

For a twelve year old (eleven when he wrote it), he shows an impressive knowledge of melody, harmony, and form.  It's definitly a modern work, but the language is more like debussy/ravel than shoenberg/varese.  For some reason, this piece vaguely reminds me of a film score.

[Nightscape]

Actually, I was browsing this site, and I found another young composer who had a beautiful piece up to listen to for cello and piano.

https://www.fromthetop.org/Radio/Performers.cfm?pid=1566

I think that this is on par with Rachmaninov's Op. 2 for cello and piano.  This composer could be going places too if she keeps at it.

[m1469]

Your point is well taken.

Does a piano make a sound if nobody is there to listen to it?
Do you know if the moon is still around, even if you don't look at it and can't see it?

Those are related questions, and the answers are not as simple as one might think they would be.

In order to be considered a genius, one has to proof it constantly.

Yes but, I would think that just being a genius is more important than wasting one's genius on the "proving" of it, just to be considered one.   Besides, who would recognize it anyway ?  Only genius will recognize genius.  There is no need to prove it.