This week's Horizon programme, broadcast earlier this evening, took a look at 'genius'. It was more successful than last week's, partly because the investigation was more measured, didn't sensationalise to a more than acceptable degree and wasn't making wild claims which it couldn't ultimately substantiate.

Although fronted by mathematician Professor Marcus de Sautoy, several different areas of genius were investigated. Those considered to be genius were agreed to have a level of creativity that marked them out above those who were merely able to say, perform spectacularly well in their field.

So, although Mozart is perhaps the most obvious candidate, which composers might be considered to have displayed true genius?

What about musicians, or is it too early to say for those still living?

I saw that part of the programme and it made sense at the time... although if you take John Cage, for instance, you could argue that he was a creative thinker but I'm not sure I'd use the term genius of him.

In a different field, I would say the mathematicians at Bletchley Park in the war were geniuses, but would you describe them as creative. Actually, maybe you would...

Beethoven.

Alan Turing, definitely. Rather than merely a level of creativity, perhaps more a creative 'leap' might be a better mark of the genius, a step that few others, if any, might be expected to accomplish, so that mere volume of work produced might not be sufficient.

Grechaninov.

I'd say Tuomas Holopainen () but I don't know how many people would agree with me.

As well as Mozart: Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, Debussy, Wagner, Gershwin, indeed many others were composers of genius in that they not only did what they did very well; they did new things in an new way and as a result the way other people did them afterwards was irrevocably different. In other words they didn't just write music - they changed the course of musical development. So did Lennon & McCarntney for that matter.

Prokoffiev and Shostakovich were probably geniuses - to produce what they did under the soviet regime required innovation and influenced a lot of people.

As I read somewhere concerning novels and writing, to be classed as a classic writer you only need to get it right once. The same is true of great music.

I would say that Bach was genius too - look at how some of his pieces work back to front, upside down etc. I suspect that no-one really realised how clever he was while he was alive.

Taking genius as comprising both comprehensive knowledge and great creativity, I would be very restrictive in choosing the composers to whom I apply the term. For a start, I would not apply it to my two favourite composers, J S Bach and W A Mozart. Both were amazingly accomplished, but neither made great leaps into the previously unknown. My prime candidates are Beethoven, Wagner and Debussy, for their ability not only to hear new sorts of music, but also to write great works that exemplify the new sounds and have stood the test of time. To understand how innovative they were, contrast the incomprehension of contemporary critics and audiences with the esteem in which such works as the late quartets, "Tristan and Isolde" and "L'apres-midi d'un faune" are held nowadays.

Other composers who worked in isolation and produced successful innovation, though less strikingly, were Haydn (who transformed the symphony and the string quartet) and Schubert (who wrote Erlkonig at the age of 18 and whose last work, the C major string quintet, is unlike anything before it and rather little since). I think of Janacek and Bartok as two others who produced novel sounds, but they both developed their styles over a lifetime, starting fairly conventionally.

I reserve judgment on composers of the late 20th C. Possible candidates are Messiaen, Boulez and Carter, but time will tell.

JSB JSB JSB

Bach-Bag x

I don't know if many will agree with me but I believe Gustav Mahler to be a genius, especially considering some of the symphonies he wrote, they are very complex to play. It took me what felt like a lifetime to master the notes for symphony no. 1.

I think that's a very fair description of genius. Turing is definitely there. I'll have to think a bit about composers re. that "creative leap". Actually I think Lutoslawski may be in there.

Well I'd say my top five for the label 'Genius' would be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Shostakovich, though only three of these would be among my five most favourite composers.

It's a really tough call.

Mozart : great composer, and I love his clari concerto, but I'd say he was a prodigy, and a great talent, rather than a genius. Brahms again I really like, and he was clearly talented, but I don't think he was a genius either. Being a genius and, for me, liking their work does not, necessarily go together. Mahler, as has been said above, undoubtedly wrote some fine pieces, but again I'm not sure he moved things on from Wagner, so I wouldn't say he was a genius. I generally can't stand Wagner's work, but he I think was a genius, as he definitely moved things on in the music world.

Others, for me, include Beethoven, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Haydn.

I think Rachmaninov has to be added to the list of geniuses. The melodies he incorporated in his music are out of this world!

The following quote is from pianosociety.com and says it all:
"Rachmaninov died on March 28, 1943, in Beverly Hills, California, just a few days before his 70th birthday, and was interred in Kensico Cemetery in Valhalla, New York. In the final hours of his life, he insisted he could hear music playing somewhere nearby. After being repeatedly assured that was not the case, he said: "Then it is in my head". "

Yes I nearly left out Mozart for the same reason as you Barry, in which case I would have included Haydn !

Liszt

I'm glad someone else found that program about infinity sensationalist - I was worried I was the only one.

I think Mozart and Bach were both geniuses and I think I would also agree with Schostakovich and Faure.

Neither are we the only two; look at the 'Infinity' thread if you seek further support.

My piano-teacher would certainly put Liszt on the list(!), endorsing MDSS's emphatic support. Liszt transformed piano-playing and while it occurs to me, After the Golden Age: Romantic Pianism and Modern Performance by Kenneth Hamilton is well worth a read.

I can't think of any live 'uns but of the dead 'uns, the name Hendrix springs to mind.

And Charlie Parker...

Derek Paravicini..

Can't disagree there...

Mozart and Beethoven are the most obvious ones, I suppose. I'd add Wagner - vile man but wonderful music. Am hoping to book tickets (if there are any left) to see Die Meistersinger at Cardiff in the summer.

Jim Steinman? His Meat Loaf albums amaze me, in which case should I have included Roy Bittan there too?

I think Prince is a genius when it comes to music - perhaps not so great in business. He was marketing his music on the internet before the business model was developed so he was ahead of the times there. He was also using text language at least two decades before most of the rest of the world. You might not agree that is a good thing, but you have to admit he was original.

YAY!

I've been umm-ing and ah-ing as to whether he's just very talented or a genius. I think there's sufficient influence on others/new stuff there to say that he is indeed a genius. Not generally my cup of tea (though there are a few fine works there), but a genius - yes, I think he is.

How do you differentiate between genius and highly developed skill?

In answer to the OP, there was only one REAL musical genius. He of BWV fame. It's a no-brainer.

Too contrapuntal? Nothing written for clarinet? Or simply not sufficiently palindromic for you?

(And it's the first time I have used that particular symbol!)

Nothing written for clarinet isn't something poor Bach could really have done much about, so I won't hold that against him

Generally, not my sort of music, I'm afraid. However, he did write the 6 'cello suites, therefore he can be forgiven for all the stuff I don't really go for

oh yes - the cello suites have been on almost continual repeat for a while now. beautiful.

The clarinet was around during Bach's lifetime. Handel wrote a trio for two clarinets and a horn and Johann Stamitz (1717-1757) wrote a clarinet concerto, but I can't find the dates of either, so they may not have been written before 1750.

Jaco Pastorius - Bass guitar player of genius.

I had a boxed set on cassettes given to me as a birthday present when I was in the Sixth Form. My mum had ordered them from WH Smith. When I listened to them I realised that one of the cassettes was a duplicate, so went back to the local store to get a replacement. I didn't know them that well, so took a miniature score along to make sure! A miniature score in WH Smith's - I don't think they'd ever seen one before!

The recordings were by Paul Tortelier, my choice influenced heavily by the masterclasses that had been televised at that time.

I liked clavicembalo's suggestion - "Rather than merely a level of creativity, perhaps more a creative 'leap' might be a better mark of the genius, a step that few others, if any, might be expected to accomplish, so that mere volume of work produced might not be sufficient".

The Stamitz was 1757. Not sure about the Handel.

The clarinet was indeed around in Bach's time (probably since around about 1700), but by no means was it universal, and many composers won't have come across it 'til much later, or indeed at all.

Too many to list. Even if you restrict it to composers of music in the classical tradition for piano (and earlier keyboard instruments).

But here are a few (some greater than others):

Giibons, Byrd, Bull, Sweelinck, Couperin, Rameau, Scarlatti, J S Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Field, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Chabrier, Grieg, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Albeniz, Moszkowski, Medtner, Balakirev, Dvorak, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Ravel, Richard Strauss, Busoni, Gershwin, Ginastera, Sibelius, MacDowell, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Martinu, Piazolla ... and many more

It is easier to list those with great enough ability to be remembered, that aspired to genius, but that fell a little short (J C Bach, C P E Bach, Clementi, Steibelt, Cui, Borodin ... etc.)

I must add Ligeti.

I must disagree about Borodin. I personally think he was a terrific melodist.

Ooh yes. I think you may be right there. I was also thinking earlier of Webern (the ultimate manifestation of the 2nd Viennese school perhaps?).

I really should have added Stanley Kubrick!

Without all the fuss about him, and his last film, "Eyes Wide Shut" on DVD (from which I could write down what to order from the final credits!), I guess I would never have become captivated by Ligeti's music of which I've now bought several CDs.

It was Atmospheres and Lux Aeterna on 2001 which brought him to my attention.

Don't think anyone's mentioned Sibelius yet. No-one but a genius could have written his Seventh Symphony.

If we're allowed non-classical, modern musicians/composers, I'dd add Brian Transeau just for ESCM