For nearly every distinct era of history, we can find a prominent figure in it. In the world of science, we have Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Neils Bohr, and numerous others. In the world of music, we have Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Liszt, Niccolò Paganini, Pytor Tchaikovsky, Aaron Copland, and many others too. “Prominent figure” is a conservative description for these people, if I wanted to be more dramatic, I would call these men geniuses. There is a difference in the result of sensationalizing these figures. Being a fan of Stephen Hawking will not change how a scientist receives Hawking’s papers; the scientist either agrees or disagrees. However, the reception of music is highly dependent on many different factors. Theory alone cannot explain why a piece of music has value. Melodic and harmonic analysis cannot explain why a person likes a piece of music, and it becomes even harder to explain with music theory if that particular person did not like another piece with a similar melodic or harmonic structure. Perhaps, a person values a piece of music for the message they claim it contains. In a Longinian model of genius, this person is attracted to the expressive powers of the composer.1 Alternatively, a person values a piece of music because they are inexplicably enamored by the composer’s style, which is explained by the Platonic perception of genius.2 The two models of genius offers a general explanation of how music is valued in western society.
The two models of genius I mentioned is how Peter Kivy distinguishes between the genius that is possessed and the genius that is the possessor.3 These models are based on the observation that some composers appear to be gifted the mastery of music by a divine being, whereas others appear to have bent the medium to their will and in doing so achieved mastery. A common example of this dichotomy is the difference between Mozart and Beethoven. Kivy says that “rather than being seized by his genius, Mozart is, as it were, enveloped into it.”4 Beethoven on the other hand has the image of hard work. These examples could have been pulled out to specifically show this dichotomy, but we even use it today. The idea that there are naturally athletic students as opposed to students that work hard for their spot on the team is not an entirely foreign concept. For example, the underdog trope is built on this dichotomy except it favors hard work. Genius on its own, helps us label those that have achieved greatness, while its subcategories begin to explain how they achieved greatness. As there are no objective standards of value, the term genius, like tags in a search engine, greatly helps in identifying how and why the people value the music they listen to.
Is genius, however, enough to justify the sublime? The sublime being works of utmost value. The words I want to go back to are “possessed” and “possessor.” These words suggest something supernatural, and in an unhealthy way. In either the case of the possessed and possessor, one can say that these composers are obsessed or completely dedicated to their cause. Schumann, when commenting about Liszt’s concert in Dresden, says “you listeners know what little of all the pains his art cost him.”5 Schumann uses the idea of cost as one testament among others to Liszt’s greatness. “Cost” or sacrifice is something common to both the possessed and the possessor, and sanity is a catch-all currency for genius. In James Deaville’s paper Soundness of Mind: Music and Madness in Popular Imagination he claims that “, “madness” is a construct, which has historically and culturally served as the binary to “sanity.”… that position madness as a dangerous Other,” and from this, we see that madness is also a quality of genius.6 It doesn’t matter which subcategory the genius belongs to. If they achieved sublimity, they must not be normal if not mad.
As we have delved so far into answering why a composer can achieve sublimity it the subject bleeds into a different question, “why is this music sublime?” Could perceived madness of the composer inspire the listener as opposed to the implicit quality of the music? Based on this, I offer an implication and its converse.
1. If their work is sublime, then they are a genius.
2. If they are a genius, then their work is sublime.
This is in retrospect, quite obvious. In fact, a composer becomes a genius in the public mind by the logic of the first statement. It is logical that if a piece of music makes a good impression on me, I would admire the composer. I could then say “it is illogical, however for me to claim a piece of music is good because I admire the composer.” However, this conclusion is biassed towards the assumption that the value of music is contained within the work itself. The bias suggests that sublimity is logical. Do people not experience the sublime partially due to their reception of that musician? This brings us back to the Platonic form of genius. Kivy also says that the audience also becomes infected by the same divine powers that possessed the poet, and that their enjoyment of the piece is as irrational as the way it was created.7 Sublimity in this way is irrational. I might add that sublimity in general is irrational. Kivy, notes that flaws and rule-breaking are necessary for a Longinian genius.8 The distinction between the mistakes that a genius makes and one that an amateur makes has no rigorous rationale. Pinning down the sublime is like trying to grasp what came before the universe. It makes sense that there should be an explanation, but nothing truly satisfying can be found.
Genius is not relegated to composers of antiquity or of academic backgrounds. How can we discredit those that see sublimity in modern composers and artists? The current framework of music theory helps to rationalize the structures within the sublime music created by western composers. Musical style is certainly not limited to that of the western tradition, and genius in other traditions can perhaps help us identify important works that can help build a suitable framework for understanding.
- Kivy, Peter. Possessor and the Possessed: Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, and the Idea of Musical Genius. Yale University Press. 18-21, 95-113.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Schumann, Robert. Schumann on Music A Selection from His Writings. New York: Dover Publications Inc.
- Deaville, James. “Sound of Mind: Music and Madness in Popular Imagination”. The Oxford Handbook of Music and Disability Studies. (June 2016).
- Kivy, Peter. Possessor and the Possessed: Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, and the Idea of Musical Genius. Yale University Press. 18-21, 95-113.
- Ibid.
