Would he accept Mozart's gift of musical genius under the one condition that he could only do it for free?

Would he accept Mozart's gift of musical genius under the one condition that he could only do it for free?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YAq7Im6XvGk
welltempered.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/classical-music-notes-mozart-was-an-‘aspie’-says-expert-beethoven-maybe/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

yes

yes. he would have traded places with mozart without a second thought. he wanted to be gifted and recognized for it.

I would have been happy with fucking Mozart's wife.

The story is built around the idea that salieri worked like a dog his entire life and only attained a fraction of the musical ability mozart was given.

The reality is mozart was trained like a dog every day of his childhood life to be a musical prodigy. So his childhood was taken from him resulting in his arrested development. Whereas salieri had a childhood and the result was mediocrity.

So shut the fuck up with this insipid bullshit, goddamn.

>The reality is mozart was trained like a dog every day of his childhood life to be a musical prodigy. So his childhood was taken from him resulting in his arrested development. Whereas salieri had a childhood and the result was mediocrity.

fuckin kids...watch the movie again in 10 years

Feel free to elaborate on how that is an incorrect read of Amadeus

You can't.

no

>pretend to like a movie
>can't discuss it at all

>pretend to be 18
>not 18 at all

>everyone calls Salieri mediocre
>his stuff is ok
>most of the people here couldn't even do a quarter of what he did
>they all think of themselves as Mozarts

absolutely he would

he was a jealous asshole but obviously he wasn't jealous of Mozart's lack of money

STUPID QUESTION

For you look so mature and reasoned in this exchange.

I gave a pretty succinct and accurate read of the movie. You Sup Forums'd

It doesn't actually matter if Mozart trained in his childhood more than salieri. The point was that he had god like talent that could in his mind be interpreted as divine in nature. Even if salieri worked on it since childhood he wouldn't of reached his immense talent because he wasn't given the gift. Mozart had done entire symphonies by the age of 10. Parents push their children like this all the time musically, it's very common, but less than 1% if that will achieve that level of brilliance.

Thinking that Mozart was a prodigy because he worked harder at it is retarded. He was and was always going to be a genius no matter what. That's why the guy who replied to you thinks you're a child, because you missed the entire point of the film. Embarrassing really.

Read up on the real mozart's childhood. The kid was practically tortured to be a musical prodigy. His abilities weren't god-given, but learned the way only children can really learn. The result was an emotionally stunted man-child with an ability set that he didn't appreciate or even respect, which frustrated salieri to no end, a man who worked hard in his adult life to achieve resounding mediocrity. So salieri saw mozart as shitting on something he'd give anything to have. But mozart had already had taken from him more than salieri could conceive to give.

and this is the same thing I said before, you just completely misunderstood it and got angry at your misunderstood version

You are retarded if you think being a genius can be forced upon somebody. Plain and simple.

>user tries his hand at projecting
>he's a prodigy at it

a rare sight for Sup Forums, anons discussing a film and not taking notice of the thread's attempt to make fun of the janitors

>His abilities weren't god-given, but learned the way only children can really learn.
I absolve you of your dumbfuckery.

I think your both getting hung up on the nature vs nurture concepts here. Obviously, a bit of someones musical talent is a natural given ability, but the majority is learnt through the nurture aspect. But even given that, there is still a larger aspect devoted to random events that are impossible to predict. These little/large random events shape the ability/desire of the person learning the craft, and ultimately, decides how well they well absorb the forced aspect of nurturing.

So the "God" given talent, is more to do with random events that shape the particular person and push/pull them in directions that will help or not help them in becoming a great musical talent, or whatever else they are being groomed for.

You are ascribing mystical qualities to genius.

I understand this, but you cannot teach someone to be a prodigy. It's already in them, the talent is waiting to be tapped.

>you cannot teach someone to be a prodigy.

This is technically correct, as everyone has the capacity to be a prodigy.

It's not mystical it's pure genetics, put Einstein and a random child in similar scenarios with the same upbringing. Einstein will come out on top every time. That's how being a genius works, it can't be forced, its natural and you either have it or you don't.

>it's pure genetics

You are ascribing mystical qualities to genetics.

Also read up on Einstein's early life.

Mozart is overrated anyway

>everyone has the capacity to be a prodigy.
That is absurd.

They don't, considering that people can be inherently smarter than 99% of the planet and will be regardless of their upbrininging. You can be a smart person if you have a rigorous upbringing and your parent are hard on you, but you will probably never split the atom. Because talent like that only happens rarely if that.

>says the user who eats bugles with same fingers he used to itch his sphincter

>people can be inherently smarter than 99% of the planet and will be regardless of their upbrininging

So your problem with a correct read on amadeus is you believe strongly in nature and hold DNA as a magical force.

it's almost like the movie is ahistorical

...

>tfw I've been playing piano since I was 13, am now 22 and am still only average.
>tfw the kid in this video was 13 at the time and is miles better than I could ever hope to be.

youtube.com/watch?v=YAq7Im6XvGk

I can play the Promenade movements but that's about it.

That too, but the movie isn't reduced to sheer idiocy by the historical context.

Seriously dude if you think parent can force children to become geniuses you are seriously retarded. Honestly it's not that hard, put someone in a similar environment who is a genius, with someone who is not, if they both work harder the genius will come out in top. It's biology, it's inherent in our DNA, intelligence is mostly based on genetics.

>intelligence is mostly based on genetics.

Yes, genetics mean a human will have a greater capacity for thought and expression than, say, a pig.

Beyond that, humans developed for adaptability and learning. As genetics lacks the resolution to determine who a person will be after 50 years of experience.

It's a dumb american movie that needed a "villain" like all their other movies.
He had no other motivation than "be the bad guy that goes against the hero for no reason", don't read too much into it

If that's to hard for you think of IQ tests, or why some children who grew up in poverty can achieve things greater than a child who was pushed hard as a child to be something their not. It's really simple, some people have it, most don't.

And at this point you're taking extremely simple view of environment and outright ignoring the fact a poor kill won't have as many distractions or outlets as a rich kid.

Which is typical of people who believe in IQ tests and the idea the reason they're a failure is losing the genetic lottery.

pajeet pls use designated shitting street, thanks

The way it's framed, Mozart is more so the antagonist with Salieri being the main protagonist.

How could anyone type this post and hit submit

There really isn't a clear antagonist or protagonist. Its just a relationship between two different types of asshole.

and of course mozart didn't have the capacity for byzantine manipulations that salieri had. As genius is generally marked with huge deficiencies in other aspects. Like basic functionality.

Kek, dude just give it up, the idea of a genius isn't hard to understand, it cannot be taught, it has to be inherent to you and you alone. Some people are born stronger than others, some are born with intelligence in the 1%. It's a concept that has been around since the beginning of time, newton, Da Vinci, etc were all born with great abilities. These individuals are freaks of nature and no parent can instill talent in someone. Some people train musically at young ages and never reach the level of genius others have in the past, another child may reach it with ease. It's natural, it's been happening since the beginning of time. Amadeus is about how salieri is our savior because he recognized the mediocrity within us and witnessed what he believed to be an act of god.

You're using a half-understood model of genetics (and replacing the unknown-to-you parts with magic) to codify reality into manageable terms.

It's not magic, people are born with limits. Some reach theirs sooner than others. I'm in need school for fuck sake, no one in he scientific community would ever agree with you that everyone has the ability to become a genius. Your posts have proven this, because you simply can't understand or are bitter that being a genius isn't within all of us. Get over it.

>I'm in need school for fuck sake
... there's a joke here... Maybe just stop posting with a phone.

Anyway, sounds like you're just heavily rationalizing your own inadequacies with the genetics card and, as has been asserted numerous times, holding genius as mystical/magical because its beyond your understanding.

Not really I am fully content with my own mediocrity, but I am still in med school on the path to make 250 dollars an hour. I know that there are people with talent out there that makes mine pale in comparison, it doesn't bother me, it's basic biology. Again remember the metaphor for the piano, one user even posted how he trained since 13 and is still average, another 13 year old is already way more advanced than he is. If you cannot grasp the ability of talent, then you are truly a degenerate who is upset that he makes minimum wage like a loser.

not an argument

Yeah, he was the 18th century Michael Jackson.

Doesn't mean he wasn't a genius though. You can't put everyone through a childhood like that and end up with a Mozart.

Mozart was composing symphonies on the fly in front of royalty at age 10, often times while blindfolded

you can't beat that into a child, that's a gift from God

>There really isn't a clear antagonist or protagonist.
I thought it was pretty clear. Salieri narrates the story and you mostly follow him. He'd be the protagonist. Most of his conflicts in the film are caused by Mozart, making him the antagonist.

>it doesn't bother me, it's basic biology.

>I'm not bothered by something I've already rationalized.

wow really?

You rationalized something you don't fully understand (genius) with something you don't fully understand (genetics).

This is what rationalizations are. This is what they're for.

You're on the nature side because nurture is far more complex and can't be boiled down to any one factor to explain away everything.

Just because he's telling the story, doesn't mean he isn't the antagonist or regularly display antagonistic qualities.

Kek man you really are reaching here, you probably don't have a background in science so why are you pretending to be knowledgeable about something you don't even understand? Talent isn't mystical or magic, people aren't born equal, some are superior to others. Again think of the metaphor for children who practice piano. Maybe soon you will stop embarrassing yourself.

Oh so you fully understand genetics? Which specific gene sequences are responsible for musical prodigy vs lady gaga? What genes can cause a person to become a mathematician vs a conspiracy theorist? I need exact genetic markers here.

If you actually had a background in anything other than shitposting the first thing you'd know is how little you know.

Did you not know that a villainous character can still be a protagonist?

Just because we don't fully have a grasp of the human genome doesn't mean that completely invalidates what we already know about inherent intelligence. Making a broad generalization like that is so asinine it's actually hilarious that you think you're even making an argument. Nature is always the winner in how talent is distributed, your view isn't even accepted scientifically. It's complete bias that has no place in reality, you are a degenerate who is making minimum wage, you're out of your depth.

And mozart is equally villainous, at least in salieri's eyes, for squandering talents he'll never even approach.

>what we already know about inherent intelligence.

We know exactly shit about inherent intelligence because studies into inherent intelligence can't be completely removed from environmental factors.

Unless you're talking about the studies where gene-mapped fetuses are raised in perfectly controlled environments in order to isolate the factors that determine intelligence. Ya know those studies that don't exist.

Kek man people have talents that others don't. That's why some people no matter how hard they study cannot be a doctor. People aren't born equal. You're funny man, you really don't get it or this film.

You haven't had a counter-argument for a while and now you're doing nothing but repeating yourself.

As is thus for every naturist vs nurturist debate.

>people who know literally nothing about the concept of intelligence trying to comment on it

Genius is a developed specialty over time for sure, but there is a limit to just how "genius" you can be before you hit a wall put up by your brains genetics.
Its called the g factor. Look it up, maybe youll learn something

you are a prime example of a moron who thinks himself intelligent because he equates not shutting up to winning the argument, despite not having made one valid point, or even refuting one made against him.

>we know exactly shit about inherent intelligence
oh boy...
you really are in over your head
>intelligence cant be completely removed from environmental factors
m8... you dont really believe this do you?

open a dictionary

>lose argument
>start posting from multiple devices.

...

>a wall put up by your brains genetics

Yes, no human can be smarter than is possible for a human.

>I am so insecure that i cant comprehend that someone else would disagree with me
>i am so stupid that i cannot recognize what is clearly someone responding to a thread they are only just now seeing

I thought maybe you learned something from the thrashing that other guy gave you but clearly you're still an idiot. You do know thats why you'll never be a genius right? Because you dont learn from your mistakes.

I'm pretty sure he would. Did we even watch the same movie?

the g factor refers to "general intelligence" but more scientifically it refers to the brains processing power and speed. Everyone is capable of becoming an expert in any field, but only those who have the g factor are the ones who you see truly excel in spectacular fashion.

I'd love to see the well controlled studies that have proven this hypothesis.

Oh wait.

"Play......salieri "

>Being Salieri is Suffering

>have no arguments for hours
>samefag when called on it
>double down on samefag when called on samefagging

... i was kinda enjoying the debate as well. Kinda. But hey.

he does it to himself though

>Doing that embarrasing grammy gag... to himself

S-sure,man...it was t-totally on purpose

Take literally 20 seconds to google it and you'll see that this idea has been around for almost a century
Several journals have even said "The practical validity of g as a predictor of educational, economic, and social outcomes is more far-ranging and universal than that of any other known psychological variable."

This is actually hilarious. Please keep posting. You might actually be a genius if you're trolling because nobody can actually be this stupid.

The story is built around the insane ravings of an old ass Salieri.

Of course the recollection of Mozart isn't totally fair.

You think Salieri was a stooli because Mozart said so? You bought that lie.

>hundred year old psychology

>valid

I guess that explains why I've never heard of it. I'm not taking community college psychology courses and calling myself "STEM"

itt people who will never know the pain of being second best

the life of the mediocre or the loser must be pure bliss

Salieri really does torture himself for no good reason over mozart's "gifts." For he doesn't recognize how completely broken mozart was by/for his gifts.

holy shit this is too good
You literally didnt even attempt to research it.
The quote i used is from a study done in 2002. Thats how fucking on point the idea is. Its 100 years old and its still being proven right.
Another one shows that signs of high g factor specific elements in brain activity are 80-90% predictive of significantly higher IQ scores as well as general problem solving ability.

Negro, its psychology. It by definition can't prove anything scientifically because no experimental environment can be controlled nor any variables isolated.

>2002
>G factor

actually that does ring a faint bell. A bell that hasn't rung in a long time because g factor was discarded entirely shortly after.

see, this is how i know you arent reading anything about what you're attempting to discuss. You arent making any real argument against the idea, just that it sounds far fetched to you, and that would be a fair starting point, but at this point you're just bieng wilfully ignorant.
The g factor is a psychometric theory so its psychological but its far more based on external data and testing, and it actually correlates quite nicely with some neuroscience findings.

Son, this is the first time in 15 years that I've even seen anyone so much as mention g-factor, much less try to argue it was valid. You may as well be trying to argue for caloric.

I guess you forgot about the studies in 2008 and 2009
The only real challenge to it is the Flynn theory, which is at best inconclusive, and one from Stephen Gould who used "muh hurt feelings" as a criticism.

>first time in 15 years
You haven't been paying attention then. But whats more likely, is that you just dont really know what you're talking about.

I think you might have missed the point.
Then again, I've always just read it as an interpretation of Nietzsche's genealogy of morality, so what do I know.

>inconclusive

All psychology is inconclusive. Because so much of the scientific method has to be discarded due to how little is known. Actual investigations into the nature of and physical causes for intelligence (a long with any sort of behavioral phenomena) are being done in neuroscience. G-factor may have gotten a minor nod, but it was discarded again.

Hell, the concept of neuroplasticity alone all but cements nurture as being the primary determining factor in intelligence.

>but it was discarded again
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
I accept most of what you've said here actually, but that part is just a complete ass pull.

Neuroplasticity would basically determine g-factor and so much more. So g-factor is entirely redundant and useless as a concept.

He was an idiot savant, his father saw that he was interested in music from a very young age and decided to train him. His parents actually thought his older sister was the gifted one until Mozart proved otherwise.

He likely had aspergers and often rubbed people the wrong way by the way he acted including Saliery. In truth he actually respected other composers including Saliery and would pay homage by producing variations of their works which he was best known for.

>He likely had aspergers
oh my sweet jesus stop

>oh great, a chance to discuss Amadeus
>it's just nature vs. nurture shitflinging

If that is actually the argument you are unironically going with then its no longer worth even attempting to discuss with someone as willfully ignorant of a blatantly obvious reality as you are.

>welltempered.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/classical-music-notes-mozart-was-an-‘aspie’-says-expert-beethoven-maybe/