3 ms·
Alternative (but not exclusive) explanation: the easy pickings for geniuses have been picked over, and it takes longer than before to achieve genius-level accom
by BeFlatXIII 4y ago
Alternative (but not exclusive) explanation: the easy pickings for geniuses have been picked over, and it takes longer than before to achieve genius-level accomplishments as a solo prodigy. Neither Einstein nor Beethoven contributed to multiple fields like Newton or Leonardo DaVinci did.
[Though Beethoven—or any musician—may be bad example(s) to include here: music is a field that is much less objective in ranking quality of ideas compared to ranking impact]
- wizofaus 4y agoBeethoven's influence on the Western classical music tradition isn't disputed by any expert in that field - it truly was outsized and unmatched by any other individual composer. I'd accept the Beatles probably deserve the same recognition re popular music. It's fair to wonder how transformative they would have been if they'd existed in an era of Tiktok, Tinder and Snapchat.
- BeFlatXIII 4y agoBeethoven (or the Beatles)'s influence was not what I disputed. Rather, I dispute the assumption that the fact that they are the most influential automatically means they are also the best or most innovative.
- wizofaus 4y agoI don't see it as a debate about "best" or even really "most innovative", just about individuals (or pairs in the case of Lennon/McCartney) that achieved a level of greatness (in terms of what contributions they've made to human knowledge/creativity) that logically you might expect to see a lot more of today given the vastly greater number of humans in existence now.
- BeFlatXIII 4y agoI wonder if "levels of greatness" is a relative quantity. If fourteen living composers are objectively as good as Beethoven/Lennon/McCartney (as one may expect with a much larger population), none of them will be recognized as great as Bach.