Dave Runnion

I wonder why you'd suppose this? Just because huge numbers of people appear to have no patience for CM doesn't mean that mentally deficient people (with good hearing) can't appreciate it. OK, so even stupid people can like Classical Music too. I'd venture to guess, and, for their sakes, to hope that a good proportion of bona fide idiots are quite capable of enjoying CM. Further, my hunch is that mentally incapable people might be more musically susceptible than ordinary folks Music Therapy? ?since only "mentally capable" people tend to close down with prejudices and hasty judgements about certain kinds of music (among other things). We wouldn't want that, would we? Not sure I like the association with "mental competence" and "closing down with prejudices and hasty judgments." Besides, when some of us "close our minds" to certain things it cannot automatically be assumed that we reached our decisions in haste or that our prejudices lack evidence to support them.

Also, don't forget the clear counter-instance posed by idiots savants, some of whom have an uncanny facility for playing music without any training ...without being able to account for how they do it. Yes...

If one accepts the notion that CM is harder to understand than 3 chord beat music, then a greater level of intelligence is required for understanding something that is more complex. But, as life imitates art, many people probably embrace CM so as to appear intelligent, That's entirely possible, but I doubt it can be maintained for very long; that is the faker either won't really be that intelligent or really ever get to know Classical Music. like ruthless businessmen who go to church to appear religious. Well, the analogy seems a bit lurid to me. Intelligence is less about how your brain works and more about what you choose to fill it with. Sort of a nice aphorism, but not sure it's that simple.

Finally, many people exhibit their macho-ism (lack of intelligence) by rejecting CM as not for real men, but for nerds instead. Ah Phooey! To those, I recite the words of J. Lennon in "I Am the Walrus" - "Expert texpert choking smokers, don't you think the joker laughs at you." I'm not sure this works either. Look, there are plenty of nerds who don't like Classical Music, they're into far weirder stuff.

If you are highly disciplined in some ways you may just need to let go in others. But the high level of mental disciple that is a part of playing well itself represents one form that intelligence takes, it seems to me, especially if the discipline is self-imposed. Some behaviors, even fairly complex ones requiring a lot of discipline can begin as rigorously imposed, usually through parental sanctions, and then over time become self imposed as the story he recounts describes;

Pirkle's claim that: "Intelligence is less about how your brain works and more about what you choose to fill it with" I knew they wouldn't all like it. is interesting. It may be that the quality of judgment is indeed a sign of intelligence, and explain why otherwise smart people sometimes do dumb things. It would open up that can of worms about whether some judgments of taste are better, because brighter, than others, though. Yeah, and we certainly don't want to go there.

But one weak point in discussions like this one is how to define intelligence. Usually IQ tests measure the ability to solve logical problems, but this is only one of many intelligences. Do you for example use the same talent when you solve a mathematical problem as when you tell a joke in a witty way so you make people laugh? [Question is rhetorical; answer is "no"]. A lot of people don't suppose it takes much intelligence to be a great comic, but perhaps it does.

Also, there is difference in what kind of musical activity you dabble with. Dabbling in various kinds of mental activity: I stand guilty. You will find you use different talents when you listen to music, perform music, or compose music. Oh, yes one does! These really are three separate hats requiring distinct perceptions, same goes for listeners. But music is a language that everybody can understand, all in their own way. I want to chime in the example that there have been Idiot Savants who had remarkable musical skill, and to be rated as an Idiot Savant, you need an IQ on under 65.

As far as I'm concerned, some people like the savants, have a gift from God. That's the only way I can explain it. Even people with Perfect Pitch (who are not savants) may need some kind of training to ever be a good musician. I mean, they still have to learn technique and fingerings. Some don't. They just play.

If people want to think you are intelligent, the smart thing to do is NOT ARGUE with them. Oh, yes! Music can be played by dummies, but it's far more interesting when intelligence joins the choir.

I've been lurking on this thread for some time, wondering if it is: a. silly, b. funny, c. to be taken at face value. Ah, I'll take c.

Assuming the answer is c, I offer the following comments. It is so obvious that there is a high correlation between intelligence and a musician, composer or player, that it hardly bears saying. There may be the odd dunce playing in symphony orchestras but surely Bach, Haydn and Mozart were among the geniuses of their era (as was Barbara Tuchman and is William Manchester of our own). A reader of history, no doubt.

How do you define intelligence? If this is defined with the ability to solve logical problems (a.k.a what you measure with a classic IQ-test) you will find Beethoven at IQ 160, Mozart and J.S Bach at IQ 165, Handel at IQ 170 (estimated numbers from Mensa's site) ooooh boy! Mensa! According to them, my dad and I are both bona fide geniuses, and many others at very high - Wagner had a great capacity for instance - BUT: the ability to solve logical problems is not the only intelligence you use when you compose music! Composing music is a complex process which take many working processes of the brain in use. So, high intelligence doesn't necessarily allow you to be a good composer (implied that you practice much)! 165 is a high IQ, but there must on earth be many who has that IQ, and there were few people in world history that became great composers.

Think also of the Idiot Savants!! We have been! And that is exactly the point of issue! Consider sportsmen for seeing my point; they have made physical tests with top sportsmen, and these tests clearly show that it is not those who get the best results in physical test, i. e. those who hence should get the best results in competitions, who become the winners in competitions. It is because there are more factors involved than just physical strength. Some would say it sits in the soul. Your diversion out of strict rationality is refreshing. So it is with great composers (and many other genres as well). Always have to slide that in, "oh, I'm no snob, I like all kinds of music and their creators are geniuses too so everything's cool." I can say that most of the great composers had something more than just pure musical talent; they had a "genial psyche" (Really? Ok), and a part of that is that they were very egoistic nothing more "genial" than an egoistic approach to life, really works well with other people too. That is why it is so lousy to accuse just Ricky Wagner for being a jerk well Ricky couldn't help a lot of things, like having nervous skin that chafed him against his stiffly starched clothes or having to bend over and take it from behind to earn the means to put on his operas - most of the great composers were - read about the composers and you will find that many of them were jerks too from time to time not like Ricky, he was a jerk ALL the time, sometimes you will have to read between the lines though, as many biographers love their subject for writing. Beethoven was thought to be a misanthrope he has plenty of company, so were Debussy, Brahms said many lousy things about women yeah, the lousy shame of it and Wagner for instance yeah, especially him, LOL, Haydn wasn't that charming. "Papa Haydn" as he is classically described to be, Handel used very lousy methods against performers and others to get his will through yeah, they drove their musicians like madmen, LOL, Shostakovitch said the truth always, how cruel the truth ever was as I recall it had something to do with the inevitability of death, Janacek, Tchaikovsky, Mahler were often aggressive. Yeah, it's pretty scary to see sickly little men get themselves all riled up in front of you. If you know what's best for you, you get out of their way, quick! At closer study you will find that also composers who traditionally are described as socially talented, fall into this jerk category too; there are many eye witnesses describing Mendelssohn's snottiness oh yeah, he could be so snotty, especially if he sneezed on you, and Mozart didn't think his wife could live up to his ideal of a woman well a lot of bubble headed women are unfortunately stuck in similar situations, therefore he walked around telling people she was "nothing but a slut" which may have been perfectly true. I could go on for long time. My point is that most of composers had a great ego, meanwhile, or probably thanks to that, they had a will to develop themselves and magnetic personalities, and a good sense for how to impress people, make commercial success for themselves, to build up an image about themselves. They were in other words, the shamans of their time.

Anton Bruckner a womanizer? I suppose it's possible, but I am doubtful if this could have been so.

Idiot Savants, then, can have good musical talent, and there have been Idiot Savants who composed wonderful music I'm not aware of ANY idiot savant composers, but of performers there are many well known, but they came on short in too many other fields, socially so that's why we don't know about them?. There has never been an idiot savant who knew how to sell himself. Therefore they came on short as composers as well. I see.

Why do you think Brahms was a bachelor his whole life! Because he wanted to be. There are no real untold stories here, unless it is that Clara Schumann was the only woman who won his love and there would be no other. Back before the women's suffrage, feminist movements, and Rosie the Riveter and all that other stuff, men assumed the dominant role in just about every household. Some men just took it too far like in Brahms case. Some still do. Beethoven also fell in out of love with many different women. All of the relationships he tried to have halfway broke his heart. He always fell in love with women who were, well, out of his league. Or just out of his class. I believe this also had something to do with his pride or arrogance. He ended up being a bachelor all his life as well, although I have heard rumors that he may have had a child out of wedlock. (Someone please respond to that!) Maybe he did, there were plenty of rumors that he could have done so at a few times in his life. But the truth is he probably didn't have any children. Wagner was horrible as well as all the world knows. They say "Behind every good man is a good woman". And how about Ricky Wagner? He had Cosima Liszt behind him and she reputedly held more extreme views than he did, was in fact a big influence on him. This may be why some of these composers fell in the "Jerk" category. Some were just too damn arrogant and they were to never experience true bliss through love and happiness with that special someone. But then again I must contradict myself. Some people will rather not marry whether it be for the sake of their art or any other reason. I don't like to call these composers jerks. They left us some great music. But their personalities could probably make you gag in disgust.

Jeremey wrote: "I've noticed something over the past couple of years. My mom noticed it too. When people discover that you can play a musical instrument (especially if you play well), they think you are bright and gifted." Yes, they do. So if you want to APPEAR smart, it is suggested you take up an instrument and start learning about Classical Music? Will it really make you smart? Or were you smart to begin with? Are you doing it only because you want to appear smart? Please, don't do that. I don't think it will work the way you want.

I am sure that many people think this, and many others wish it were true. If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride, etc. Personally, I think that engaging my mind in playing the piano at least keeps my aging mind working quicker. Taking Ginko Biloba would probably help just as much for all we know. The mental acuity needed to sight read notes, remember which ones are sharped, flatted of naturaled, plan fingering ahead as you play is invaluable in keeping up mental abilities. OK, so you believe it, but do you KNOW that it does?

However, every day when I come home from work, I think about just how terribly intelligent I am LOL. This is because I mostly work with idiots ROFL!!!.

ALKAN Web Page: http://www.nettally.com/joelhill/alkan/ Updated May 2000

I find this thread interesting but somewhat self serving - "I love classical music, and there's a positive correlation with intelligence" or hopefully at least not with stupidity, excepting idiot savants, it's just common stupidity, that's what we don't want, like all those other clueless boobs we work with who are always so annoying. So we can all give ourselves a pat on the back and feel wonderful. Cheers!

For me, the main consideration is that most people, regardless of intelligence level, want music primarily for entertainment purposes. On some level, yes. Any positive correlation between "smarts" and classical music pales in comparison.

I agree completely and would offer this, sure to be controversial post - we are, in fact, in the entertainment business. Anyone who is up on stage and not aware of this role is missing something quite important. One could read a novel (literature) (or see a movie) and perhaps write down what they have learned. One could go to an art exhibition (not modern art) why? and write down what they had learned, or perhaps realized looking at great paintings. But I doubt if one could listen to CM and write down what they had learned, since music is such an abstract form of communication. Well, it's still done all the time.

I think that Lizst and Liberace had that part figured out. Being in the entertainment business? Yes. One quick personal story to illustrate the point - While I was in Seoul staying at the Intercontinental Hotel, after a couple of weeks I began missing playing the piano. In their big lounge where businessmen (persons) met there was a grand piano on a small stage. I asked the host (manager) if I could play it, guaranteeing him that it would be entertaining to the hotel guests - that is, I was not just going to bang away at it. He said "I'm sorry, we do not let the guests play the piano". My associate said something to him in Korean, and he quickly motioned me to the instrument. Not having played for several weeks I was hesitant to play something from my limited but difficult repertoire so I choose to just improvise something Chopin-ish or Beethoven-ish (sometimes exercises can sound like good music). For 30 minutes my hands flew over the keys with electrifying octaves, chromatic runs, diminished runs, arpeggios, over and under melodies which I was inventing as I went along (I was actually exercising by fingers). I got a grand applause from the guests. Afterwards, I asked my Korean friend what he had said to the manager. He said "I told him you were a famous concert pianist and that I was surprised that he did not recognize you". We all had a big laugh over that one. That's a great trick. There are so many unrecognized famous concert pianists aren't there? I'm sure we all know dozens of them.

My point is that what I played was not harmoniously clever, nor the melodies I invented particularly good, but the people loved it, they had actually stopped talking to listen. They were entertained! So I repeat, at the risk of raising anger, we are ultimately in the entertainment business Yes!, not the music science business How boring!. Musicology is ultimately the means to an end, not the end itself, IMHO. But of course.

While in Korea I attended a concert and the pianist was a friend of my friends. After the concert, Tch 1st in B flat, we all went to dinner. The pianist was a young 20ish, guy who played quite well. We became friends as I was the only other pianist at the table (not in his class, of course). As he indicated that he wished to tour, I gave him this advice. "Never forget that you are in show business just like Hollywood stars, TV personalities, and famous athletes. Few in your audience are going to care how many competitions you have won or who your teachers were. They are there to be dazzled by your pyrotechniques, sensitivity, good looks Yes indeed! and the way you move your body while you are playing. He went on to the Master's Program at Julliard and I hope he takes my advice." Well, if he does all this but remains an artist rather than an artifact, he'll do well enough.

We have not established whether classical music makes one more intelligent. Wish that we had. We have mentioned how some people may use Classical Music as a prop to make others think they are smart. We do not see that this tactic has much long term usefulness. If one loves Classical Music, one may consider oneself blessed or cursed depending on one's mood. Some of us who do love Classical Music are made happier knowing that our music is enjoyed by others. We who have gotten some transcendent message through a particular piece of music are eager to share what we've found with others, hoping they'll feel it too.