Researchers find high levels of lead, mercury and arsenic in Beethoven's hair
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
He couldn't physically hear the performance of it, but it's possible he could "hear" what it would sound like - and he very possibly heard it in his head before writing a single note down on paper (or however he recorded his music).
I'm not sure everyone has this ability, but whenever I've written/recorded music, I almost literally hear it before I even try to create it or play it. My memory of sound is REALLY strong. I've never had someone go "oh yeah, me too!" when I discuss this though, so I have no idea if it's a common thing or what. It's like borderline hallucination, the clarity with which I can recall music and sound. I would wager that a lot of composers over the years have had this ability, especially since you couldn't exaclty spin up an orchestra in your livingroom while composing an operatic piece in 1800 :)
He also, sometimes, has a photographic memory for music. In university he had a listening test on a piece of classical music. He was able to visualize the score that he had studied when in high school, and identify the types and numbers of instruments.
The important point about this story is that the Church so revered the wonderful Miserere that it kept its score secret so it could only be performed in Rome, so Mozart had no other choice but to memorize it.
Reputably, Mozart had perfect pitch and a phenomenal musical memory and he composed almost without corrections—a look at his handwritten scores and that's obvious, they're neat and near perfect.
Your son is clearly one of those lucky people so gifted.
_
FYI, if interested, here's a YouTube recording of what Mozart wrote down from memory (truly amazing if you ask me): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDOENZediM8
You mean “Mozart in the middle of his career” at 14 ;) (he was already an international star for seven full years before he was 14)
Sorry. Yeah you're right. I recall when I got to the age of 35 he died at I asked myself what the hell have I done in my 35 years.
The comparison was embarrassing (even now years later I still use that comparison).
Thanks to Köchel and others essentially Mozart's entire life's work is very well documented and that over those 30 years he produced about 626 musical works most of which are of the highest standard, and of those some rank as works of sheer genius, not only have they stood the test of time but they still remain popular and well loved by millions some 233 after his death.
Mozart's talent and his life's work can thus be held up as a standard—a level of excellence—to which many of us would like to aspire.
What makes Mozart special, perhaps more so than many other famous composers, is how much he achieved in such a short life. He's up at the pinnacle with others who have achieved great things. Even for those of us who are not composers Mozart's yardstick can remind us of our own often-limited talents and work and how we wished they were better or how we might go about improving them. At times I experience such notions when listening to his music.
There is only one standard of accomplishment and it's set by people like Mozart.
Accepting that is humbling, but it's required to know yourself and grow. My contributions probably won't amount to much, but Mozart (et al) have shown us what good looks like and it's fun to strive.
Right, not yet anyway. But one thing's pretty certain I won't be a household name 233 after I'm dead. ;-)
A great aspect about famous composers such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. is that they still remain household names several centuries after their deaths because their compositions bring immediate pleasure to us whenever we hear them.
Now, that's a lovely way to be remembered.
Mozart is immortal in that sense
I’m the same. Details in sound is the same as details in vision for me, I can remember the fine details of complete songs seemingly forever (yet my memory for everything else is terrible). And I have the same thing where I have the sound and musical progression of what I’m about to make in my head, ‘playing’, before I even start trying to make it happen on a synthesiser or on my modular system. And I don’t just mean known sounds like violin, piano, etc. I’m doing sound design as well as composition in my mind (I can hear it) before I start doing it for real.
I can easily believe that Beethoven was capable of “hallucinating” the music that he was composing in the same way.
Interestingly, I don’t really get this when reading sheet music, only when I’m creating or reflecting. Presumably, it’s a different pathway in the brain.
If you didn't buy the song, does it count as an illegal recording? /s
This was the main subject of a science fiction short story, unfortunately I cannot remember its title or author.
My first thought was "Huh? What?" My second thought was "Yes, I can taste a recipe." So I read it, imagined cooking it, and tasted it in my mind.
It tasted good, and of course I had a couple of minor suggestions. Maybe one was more garlic, but I always want more garlic.
She agreed with my ideas and had a couple of improvements of her own. When she made the dish, it was very very good, and tasted even better in real life than the original recipe tasted in our minds.
I can imagine whole detailed worlds and hold them in my imagination, but nothing tastes like anything, and I definitely can't taste recipes.
To be fair, it's possible it's underdeveloped because I don't taste things terribly well in reality either, but now I'm wondering about how all the senses translate to imagination!
You can generalize the construction to any sense you can imagine.
In one season there a guy who dislikes sweets (or sugar I can’t remember) but said he could taste it by smelling. The chefs didn’t believe him, but I think they were proven wrong.
I absolutely hear music in my head but my sense of harmony is underdeveloped compared to my ability to suss out melodies. A few years ago I had a dream that ended rather cinematically with a 1979-era jazz fusion song that sounded like Alan Holdsworth sitting in with Weather Report. I can work out the bassline and top voice of the keyboards but immediately struggled with everything in between when I went to transcribe it. I learned (and subsequently forgot half of) second species counterpoint in high school theory class but it doesn't seem to help when it comes to the outside voicings that this type of music requires. Rhythms have always been kinda rough for me as well given the amount of time I've spent experimentally dotting quarter notes in Guitar Pro. I am, however, easily able to learn more diatonic popular music like rock and pop punk without consulting transcriptions barring any super-wide intervallic leaps.
I'm a barely-competent "musician" (heavy air quotes) as it is so I'd have to imagine that most mid-level musicians have what you're talking about.
I can play entire songs in my head during those drowsy moments, but once fully awake/alert, I lose the ability.
What to play next occurs to me and my hands just do it.
Have not checked if this Ted talk[1] holds up but for me playing instruments is very unlike anything else. Woodworking and cooking, while I enjoy them, do not have the same holistic euphoria to them.
You can read it here it’s pretty short.
https://nac-cna.ca/en/stories/story/beethovens-complete-heil...
What I also find highly fascinating are the entries in his conversation books which document how relatives tried to teach him basic math. It's strange to see that one of greatest composers in human history was unable to grasp multiplication or division.
Beethoven's music is usually divided into 3 periods. The first is really classical sounding, like late Mozart. In fact, Beethoven was a fan of Mozart and some sources say that Mozart appreciated Beethoven's compositions too. Go listen to string quartet no. 1, or symphony no. 1 for a bit. StructureStructured, restrained, even elegant. There's definitely emotionality in there especially compared to peak Classical era like Haydn. Those guys may as well have shit marble, as Mozart put it. Check out the pathetique sonata for something about as emotive as Beethoven got at the time.
Then came the diagnosis of progressive deafness. This letter is the best insight into Beethoven's mind at the time, and "existential depression with suicidal ideation" seems like the right description to me. He stopped composing for several months.
When he returned to composing in 1803, it's a totally different sound. This is the wild, emotional Beethoven we generally think of. Waldstein sonata, symphony 5, string quartet no. 9 are good examples here. It's Rage Against The Machine before electric instruments were invented.
If you're interested in the third period, read on.
The transition to third period is more gradual, around 1815. There isn't a hard biographical line in the sand like the Heiligenstadt testament, but his relationship with his nephew/ward Karl got awful, his love life fell apart, and his deafness took a sharp turn for the worse, all around the same time. His old tricks to keep composing, like sawing off the legs of his piano so he could feel it in the floor (poor downstairs neighbors!) were not effective anymore, and he was reduced to mostly communicating on a chalk tablet.
His music turned inwards, became more introspective. Themes like life and death and afterlife, godliness and debasement, retribution and redemption flood the work. It also gets much more complicated harmonically. He does a lot of contrasts, between the grandiose and the intimate, for example. Symphony 9, particularly the Ode To Joy, is quintessential. Also check out string quartet op.131, the Hammerklavier piano sonata, and the missa solemnis in D.
Now go out and impress your friends at dinner parties with your deep knowledge of Beethoven! Tune in next time for Bach: the original "ba-rock" star.
That is Bach, and it rocks. It's a rock block of Bach, that he learned in a school called the School of Hard Knocks.
On a large tangent, I tried asking GPT-4o to check the article whether it mentions that previously that theory already existed (could have overlooked it). GPT-4o confidently made up a complete quote from the article, then doubled down after I said I couldn't find the quote, and finally reversed its opinion 180 degrees. It's of course much too early to tell, but my feeling from a handful queries has been that GPT-4o hallucinates quite a bit more than GPT-4.
A good way to think of AI is like a cubic spline. The formula that pops out of all of the nodes strung together make a thing that resembles a cubic spline. Everything is valid along that formula but only at the nodes where it crosses the real spline. Everything else might be close +/- some error rate. But it can also create hills and valleys that you should not reach. But are perfectly valid for the spline. The more noes you add the higher the calculation is. But the more accurate it is. But that can also create wildly weird things between the valid points.
This is a real form of syphilis, but AFAIK there's no evidence other than the ode to joy.
It seemed like such a simple question, but it just made up a very plausible, but entirely incorrect answer. I asked it several times in different ways why and how I could tell if it is correct and all it could tell me was to look it up myself and cross-reference which enitrely defeats the purpose of using it.
Hepatitis B uses reverse transcription as a part of its lifecycle like a retrovirus, leaving some genetic markers in the host.
I know the local creek that the local water treatment plant empties out into, and the creek smells like sewage. The water intake is maybe km away down river. Aside from obvious chemicals like paint that people might flush. All kinds of medical/drug chemicals they're on are also peed out as well. And those can be active in tiny amounts.
It's only fairly recently that we realized how dangerous these metals are and started removing them from things like plumbing (that word comes from french/latin for lead), fuels, paints, even eating-wares.
I think north america was using leaded gasoline up until the end of the 70s or so.
No chronic lead poisoning after all. Lead poisoning started only within ~100 days before his death, mostly caused by medical interventions (lead based antiseptic, lead based medicine) when he was treated for symptoms of an undiagnosed hepatitis and cirrhosis of the liver.
But at that time the musical instruments of the day were incredibly "standardized".
Basically it was all orchestral instruments such as violins, percuasion, and all the usual fair -- and by the time Beethoven went deaf he was intimately familiar with these such that he could IMAGINE it all in his head.
Even if you went deaf tomorrow, in 20 years time you would still be able to imagine a violin -- it is a very distinctive instrument.
So I think this feat -- while wonderful-- is pretty explainable.
Most artists still need the feedback loop of do something, evaluate it, iterate.
What is "normal"? Normal for now, or normal for the 17th century? Looking at the hair and makeup regimes of the wealthy, they were all probably soaked in poisons. Arsenic seems more common than garlic, lead used more liberally than salt. If we apply modern standards for poisons, nobody should have survived those times.
So no different than the average consumer-society sedentary person. Just let poor old Beethoven rest in peace.
Bill Gates is super sus, rich, and powerful, but he must feel like hell every time he wakes up or bends down.
At the premier of his 9th Symphony, he was off to the side of the "real" conductor, waving his baton while the orchestra ignored him. When it stopped, the audience went wild. The contralto gently turned him around so he could SEE the ovation, being unable to hear it.
I wonder if his deafness helped him create that music.
1. He was wildly successful before he started going deaf. Like performing for and requested by the kings and emperors all around Europe successful. Like graduating from being apprenticed by Hayden successful.
2. He had played and composed a truly insane amount before losing his hearing. As a modern analogy, his father “Tiger Woods”ed him. He had all-day and all-night kind of regime from the time he 4 years old. He had famous teachers and was forced to perform in front of the nobility starting at the age of 6. He was pulled out of school as soon as possible to spend all of his time playing. His life was music, in a way very few humans ever experience anything.
3. Classical music is structured in a way that, it is not uncommon for composers to put the whole piece together on paper before hearing it. In composition exercises, pieces are critiqued without them being played. Exercises even at the highest level don’t need to be played to be judged. Pieces are often submitted and judged without anyone hearing them. It can be hard for someone not used to classical music to understand this.
edit: here's a old article about people who lack an inner monologue https://www.iflscience.com/people-with-no-internal-monologue...
Meanwhile music plays in my head constantly, so I don't think they're related.
Since he already composed great music before he became deaf, I think no.
You can notice this in his 7th symphony for example. https://youtu.be/Qu_kAWCKSo8?si=swCapaFJM9CwYwWV
This movement is incredible because it’s so simple. It’s basically beginner piano. And yet it’s overflowing with emotion.
How many authenticated locks are known to exist?
Well yeah, lead smelters probably have a higher lead concentration in their hair than in their blood. However, if you ingest the lead and it shows up in your hair, it's probably safe to say that the blood concentration must have been pretty high (although it's not possible to infer the exact number of course).