为贝多分抄写/摩根图书馆

[Knowing]

昨天去看电影<Copying Beethoven>, 直译应该叫抄写贝多分，大概翻译成<为贝多芬抄写>更贴切。跟<戴珍珠耳环的女孩>一样，都是追着大师作品的蛛丝马迹演绎(inspired by real event)，用陌生女孩的眼睛带领观众窥看大师的生活，跟踪一部名作的诞生。故事本身并不重要，无非是要串起导演心爱的名作，过过瘾。这本片子里，学作曲的女孩来到仰慕的大师身边做助手，为他眷写曲谱。我一看就哗的一声。贝多分除了出名脾气暴躁半聋半狂，字迹也潦草的要命，更兼没有整洁的习惯，在曲谱上乱图乱改是常事，为他抄写，真是苦差一件。我并不是古典音乐迷，上一次听贝多分还是中学时在家被父亲灌输着，怎么会知道这些琐事呢？因为摩根图书馆大修后重开，收藏中重要的一部分是名作家的手稿和作曲家的草谱。作家里整洁漂亮的写手很多，最出挑的要数简奥斯丁，手抄本小说看上去几疑为打印体。作曲家们潦草的多，但是最糟糕的绝对是贝多分草谱！当时我就想，见字见面这个中国古老智慧，真是放之四海而皆准。

少女是由Diane Kruger 扮演，她由在Troy 里演海伦被大家齐声责备不够美貌，这本片子里就更差劲了--老是穿的灰朴扑的，大概是为了符合在修道院寄居的身份。少女来到维也纳学作曲，在当时还是惊人之举，父亲要她住在修道院里被做修女的姑姑看管才放心。修道院的大墙也拦不住热情的小男友爬到窗前，只为一诉衷肠。Ed Harrison 演贝多分脾气够暴躁，但是马上为他开脱--拉出不成器只在他身上诈钱的侄儿，他世间唯一亲人，一次又一次辜负他，连一点表面功夫都不肯敷衍。贝多分黯然了，观众也心疼的恨不能伸手拍他肩膀。好在有少女，从清洁干到抄写，兼俱女佣，知己，助理，心理医生。这种俗套真叫我发狂，凡是电影里接近大师的女人，如果拘泥剧情不能跟大师上床，就都要弯腰拖地板，表示五体投地是怎地？

长话短说，整部电影的高潮不在最后，而在前面，贝多芬半聋着还坚持要指挥乐队首演第九交响曲，少女在乐池里打摆子为他带引。导演醉翁之意不在酒，恨不得把整部第九交响曲从头演到尾。当然没有，但是段落间过度很好，没有一点断裂生硬。第九交响乐是严肃古典音乐的代表作，大多数当代人都敬而远之。这部电影里，交响乐不再抽象，挟带非常具体强烈的情绪，席卷观众整个身心，我们觉得好像每个音符都有意义；这段有多长，十分钟？二十分钟？我没有注意，在特别惊人的力量之下，时间常常兼俱一瞬和永远的特质；短暂是因为全身贯注而不觉时光飞逝，长久是因为强烈的音乐把大量情绪灌进神经又引起激荡，感觉上想了很多事情；其实事后想我到底想了什么？也没想什么，都是音乐引起的反应而已。情绪高涨以后再松弛下来，好比跑完长跑坐进热水按摩池，非常舒适满足。这跟轻松的小夜曲带来的愉悦感是不同的。

这场戏也是俩人关系的顶峰，就象<戴珍珠耳环的女孩>里画肖像vemeer 给女佣时穿耳洞，她润嘴唇解头巾一样，性张力很隐晦的以艺术创作的形式传递出来，也到此为止了。

贝多分到晚年的确有些疯狂，尤其是耳聋，使他高度痛苦。他觉得自己是天才，跟上帝直接沟通--也是，能写出第九交响曲这样的音乐，真得需要天才，我完全无法理解怎么有人能同时构思那么多个声部和乐器的合奏，光在脑子里一想就要晕了，所以我不是贝多分--同时他憎恶上帝夺取他的听觉令他痛苦。他又极度看不起不是天才的人，可世界上有几个人能跟他比肩？！难怪他孤独。这些情绪在脑子里成天搅和，再加几部交响乐此起彼伏，可不得半疯。刚读过<Blink>, 我觉得，他可能是某些能力特别差-- 欣赏别人的长处，感激别人的善意，体贴关心别人的情绪，首先来自观察别人。autism 就是缺这个能力。更准确的描述，普通人看到人用大脑里某块比较高级的地方处理，看到物体用另一块低级简单点的地方处理。autism 都用后面那块处理，所以看到人的表情跟看东西一样，不知道对方想什么呢，精细表情都白搭。贝多分没准也缺。再加上没法控制自己的情绪，就更没法维持正常的社会关系了。这问题不是象电影里一样，简单的发他一红颜知己就可以解决的。

这部电影基本就是把贝多分的音乐视觉化了，而且做的很成功。别的嘛....我都用<戴珍珠耳环的女孩>打比方了，你们可想而知。

[Jun]

Ed Harris looks unrecognizable in the poster I saw! He's played Jackson Pollock before, now Beethoven. What next?

[silkworm]

我觉得他有妆扮成毕加索的潜质，嗬嗬。

[Knowing]

Ed Harris was good but didn't seem crazy enough to me. I meant -- Beethoven was slightly crazy towards the end of his life, but Ed Harris came across as a genius who was just acting weired rather because of loneliness not insanity. Also he was too good looking. But maybe the director meant this way? Not only did she want to awe us with his music, but also wanted us to love him as a fragile human being.
Diane Kruger, on the other hand, was terrific. They really downplayed her beauty. Her outfit was -- not sure if intentionally -- ugly. With that look, she could barely launch a rubber duck. But she played the role very well.

[Jun]

The reviews all panned the movie. Someone called it "profoundly silly." And Harris is described to have played Beethoven as "Jackson Pollock's crazy uncle."

[Knowing]

The movie (precisely the storyline) is not profound but very enjoyable. Not the lighthearted type of entertainment, but in a emotionally stressful way -- Ok I am confusing everyone -- just think of it as a music video for Symphony No. 9 and you will understand. It has visualized Beethoven's music so that average people like me also get a high from Sym No. 9 that usually only available to classic music fans.


Just like <Girl With A Pearl Earring> is, really, a very cliche silly story. But audience don't care, we watch it like a moving Vermeer painting.

[花差花差小将军]

Anthony Hopkins played Picasso in a movie called Picasso and was very good. I remember the scene that Picasso lives with one of his young lovers and still visited his older lover (also mother of his child) to get a periodical haircut from her

[helenClaire]

这本片子里，学作曲的女孩来到仰慕的大师身边做助手，为他眷写曲谱。

这个起头有意思，符合当时的历史背景么？谁家送女儿去学习作曲？
关注到这个小细节是因为前一阵子和几个人讨论为什么古典音乐时期里没有出过知名女作曲家，“知名”的定义是类似贝多芬，很多不听不感兴趣古典音乐的人照样听过贝多芬的名字。
显然存在的社会压迫和性别压迫的理由似乎站不住脚，因为同时期出过女作家，比如奥斯汀、勃朗台姐妹，至少在英语世界里是household names.写作和作曲一样，并不是当时妇女可供选择的职业出路。
那么是天生大脑不适合作曲?---这说法一没证据二政治不正确三参与讨论的人并不相信，但纯为了讨论做这个假设，仍然不能解释，因为大家寻找的不是群体统计数据，而是一个名字，几百年里先后生存过的上亿女性，哪怕随机变异出几个genetic freaks，打破一切世俗的羁绊。。。基数也够大了，还是没有。困惑。

[森林的火焰]

我猜写作是一个人的独角戏，女性坐在家里一样可以写。写得以后，联系出版商就好了，流程相对简单。在小沙龙里还有男人欣常，代为宣传。作曲的花费大，那时候的作曲家都有那么几个恩主包养，要排练就排练，要买乐器就买乐器。作曲先在纸上写写，然后听听现场，又改，又听。。。不筹到一笔可观资金办不来。然后请来的乐队或演奏家还没准儿脾气大，女人跟这些陌生人打交道，因为社会规范的局限，比一个男人难得多。其实说到底还是性别压迫――女人不被认可管理，组织和领导一个project。其实很多成名大师也并没有这种组织能力，可是他们有名气，有恩主，手下的人都伏伏贴贴。如果是个女的跟乐队指挥交谈表示她的意图，十八世纪的清一色男性乐队，我都可以想象他们在试图踏入他们世界的女人面前表现出的傲慢。

[helenClaire]

The majority of Chopin's works is for solo piano, and he is a household name. No, you don't need an orchestra to become a famous composer.

[Jun]

这个起头有意思，符合当时的历史背景么？谁家送女儿去学习作曲？

Of course not. The whole movie is fictional, even stuff about Beethoven in the movie is made up.

关注到这个小细节是因为前一阵子和几个人讨论为什么古典音乐时期里没有出过知名女作曲家，“知名”的定义是类似贝多芬，很多不听不感兴趣古典音乐的人照样听过贝多芬的名字。
那么是天生大脑不适合作曲?---这说法一没证据二政治不正确三参与讨论的人并不相信，但纯为了讨论做这个假设，仍然不能解释，因为大家寻找的不是群体统计数据，而是一个名字，几百年里先后生存过的上亿女性，哪怕随机变异出几个genetic freaks，打破一切世俗的羁绊。。。基数也够大了，还是没有。困惑。

I don't know but there are a couple of things came to mind:

1. Genetic predisposition may be a possibility.

2. Economics. Unlike most people's perception, artists work for a living, like the other working stiffs. Musicians and artists especially. It's a craft that one has to learn, then master, then sell, not unlike a goldsmith or a blacksmith or a tailor. It's not something one can sit home and doodle to amuse oneself. The apprenticeship is long, expensive, and laborious. Most important, learning the craft and selling it both require extended time of being outside of one's home. That's not gonna happen for women in that society.

3. Education. Who's going to spend hours and hours and hours to train a woman in art and music when she has to be trained on a different career to make her living? Of course, this career is called being a wife and a mother. And the training itself is also long and hard and time-consuming.

I remember reading that there were female musicians who were well known concert performers at the time, but never composers. Who's going to play her stuff if she writes it? It's like letting a manuscript rot in the basement without a publisher.

Throughout European history there were also extremely few female sculptors and painters that are "well known." Same factors of access, education, incentive, and market. Making music and making art are expensive, not unlike making movies today.

So in comparison writing, telling stories, is the cheapest channel for creative energy. Most practical, easiest, most flexible, the least resource-intense. [/quote]

[Jun]

Chopin might need only himself to play his work, but he also needed lots of money to tour and play for audiences all over Europe. Musicians need management to get to stages and concerts and to get paid.

[helenClaire]

I'm not trying to play down the hard times women living before me had to go through, but still,

1) genetic predisposition. Just by chance, a woman of different genetic predisposition must have been born from time to time.
2) economics, 3) education, both can be solved by money, and there have been wealthy women all through history.

Sure, any combination of above is enough to bring down we mortals. But once in a while, a genius will come along, like a natural force, nothing could stop her. All I ask for is one name. Against all odds, this one woman somehow broke through.

Imagine a Joan Austen from a middle-class family, for whatever reason, she didn't take on the usual career of becoming a wife and mother, but she lived a relatively comfortable life as a loving daughter, sister and aunt. During her spare time, instead of writing Sense and Sensibility like her cousin Jane, she wrote piano sonatas, dozens of them! All beautiful and brilliant...why not?

OK, maybe these works are still lying around in somebody's attic or basement, they will be discovered one day. I haven't given up hope just yet.

[Jun]

All I ask for is one name, against all odds, this one woman somehow broke through.

You are asking for one woman to achieve the same kind of fame in music composition that rivals Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Schubert (sp?), and ... (fill in the names, which isn't a long list) during a specific time frame (about ... eh ... 500 years?), within a specific geographical area (Europe), within a specific socioeconomics class (wealthy), wielding a specific instrument (piano, violin, ...), who must have received a particularly rare education over a particular long and laborious process for an economically useless if not disadvantageous purpose. She must not have married at the normal age (about 13, 14, 15) and had children one after another or died in childbirth too soon. She must have had extraordinary parents and extraordinary teachers and, more extraordinarily, a bunch of other musicians (all men and employed by a small number of very rich patrons) who are willing to play her composition and MOST EXTRAORDINARILY, some rich consumers of music who were interested in listening to the symphonies she wrote.

This long and convoluted argument actually takes me back to evolution. Given a long-enough period of time and a vast vast vast number of mutations, some really extraordinary things could happen. But you can't predict exactly what will happen. Like, for example, given another 10,000 years of mutations, will humans become actually smarter? (Nope, we are not biologically smarter than we were 5000 years ago.) Unlikely. Or, one could ask why the hell have humans not grown a pair of wings after so many years of evolution? Wouldn't it make us "fitter"? Yeah, it would, but it didn't happen, so it didn't. End of story. Can't control random events.

[helenClaire]

Oh, Jun, I don't know why arguing with you is so much fun.

Yes, you can say that's what I'm asking for, and I actually don't think it's too much to ask for, consider there was a female military leader in Medieval France, and there was a female emperor in China.

It's possible but it didn't happen. I'm disappointed even though I don't have the right to be. I agree that " Can't control random events."

Apology to knowing for hijacking your post. Please continue your writing.

[Knowing]

No please continue, I love the discussion!
I actually am more and less on Helen's side. Come to think about it, how strange that not one single feamale composer 'made it'. The reason Jun listed made sense, BUT, consider this. Some female born in a composer and musician family, her father taught her and her brother how to play. Or a girl born in rich family and married into another rich art patron family. My general impression was they all had to learn some music as part of the education. If someone had extraordinary talent, she would be able to explore her interest and somehow made a name.

Consider Camille Claudel. Not that females were encouraged to be scuplters. But they were not exactly locked inside either. She went to learn with famous artists and later met Rodin. Her talent shined even when the whole society and her family were against her career.

I don't know classic music enough to actually say that though. If some female composer were mildly famous I would not know about her anyway.

[Jun]

No, arguing with YOU is MORE FUN!


I just came up with a WILD idea after I wrote the above reply. There is a speculation in neurology about certain types of genius, like music and math that are clearly congenital and possibly genetic. The speculation says that the genius is not having something additional in the brain, like additional cells or connections or more complex wiring, but rather they come from one or more defects that inhibit something and in turn exposes certain wirings that are normally kept low or inactive.

I have long pondered the mystery of artistic talents, which seem to have no apparent evolutionary advantage but seem to be persistent in the human genome over time. Well, this would explain it once and for all. Biologically it is a lot easier to lose a functional gene than to gain it. It's like, it's more likely that typos result in a nonexistent word, than random slamming on the keyboard result in a meaningful word. This is why the regulation of genetic expression is so massive and redundant. If one switch is knocked out, you still have a bunch of other switches. A defect may not kill you but things may not work as well as "normal."

So it's quite common to lose some function of some genes -- happens all the time. Some people can't run fast, some can't breed too much, some are ugly. But they live and do the best they can and everything still works out. Then, some have less inhibition in certain areas of the brain ... and they become artists! and math wiz!

Now here's the wild idea I came up with. It is known that the Y chromosome is very very different from X. This means that a lot of the genes of X chromosomes have no duplicate copies on Y, and some genes on Y also have no duplicate copies. That makes men more vulnerable to losing some of their functional genes. The risk is not bad enough to eliminate the sex altogether, but it does make men more, uh, fragile. Less stable. Things are a bit more likely to run off the course. What if the genetic predisposition for mathematics and music (they could be linked or stemmed from the same gene) are related to the same DEFECT in a neurological pathway? The consequence may be a disadvantage in the long years of humans wandering and hunting and breeding in the wild, but somehow became not too bad after civilization happened.

This would explain why men are more likely to occupy the extremes of a number of traits while women tend to concentrate in the middle of the bell curve. Hmm...

So, if my wild theory is somewhat true, the next question is: If women are indeed less predisposed to musical genius, who the hell cares? Why the hell is that something to be ashamed of? That's not a sign of women's inadequacy or inferiority.

[Knowing]

Come to think about it -- we have all heard numerous woman nicer writers and painters and singers, but most composers seem to have very bad luck with women. Also they did not live as long. Clearly a disadvantage in spreading genes.

[Jun]

Also I'm not sure the example of Camille Claudel and Artemisia count. If Helen was asking for a female composer of the same fame and recognizability like Beethoven, the counterpart in art would be Michelangelo. I don't think most average people would recognize Camille or Artemisia unless they've seen the movies.

I am CONVINCED! that music talent is almost entirely genetic. Art, I don't know, maybe a little. Language, somewhat, perhaps, but far less directly biological, it seems. Women's natural advantage in language is as likely to be innate as men's biological advantage in math and music. But, the social structure is such that whatever women are good at are considered cheap and worthless (or less worthy). Like physicians are highly paid in the west but lowly in Soviet Union back then because women physicians outnumber men.

[tiffany]

ah, I have been to a seminar about developement, of course the investigator studies rats, but her work has significant implication in humans as well.... errrh, this sentence sounds sooooo nerdy and scientific, hiahia...

anyways, the investigator's thinking on the issue of developement is that for male, it is less complicated, the process just starts and grows full blown, whereas in female, there are a lot more modulation going on so as to keep everything sortta moderate.

who knows what kind of genetic quirk it is that makes a composer hear things and compells him/her to write it down..... but, if a composer do hear things when composing, it is sortta like a symptom of schizophrenia, and am I right in saying there are not as many women who suffer from this particular mental problem? Interesting correlation...

[森林的火焰]

Y chromose is the "junk" chromosome, where the genome keeps its trash. So it can't survive without X. XYY can survive, but very aggressive and violent, and die rather early.
Genetics, or say, evolution definitely inclines to get rid of disadvantageous stuff, but for those "no harm", they don't get lost as easy as we think. Not to say something like "music talent gene", even many pseudogenes which makes no sense, butt only ancient imprints are still kept in the genome. Deletion of those genes do no harm at all for the animal, but the genome is like magpie just keeping everything it inherits from the zygote. Only those creatures under high environmental stress tolerate no redundancy in their genome, like some virus or bacteria.

[Knowing]

I am CONVINCED! that music talent is almost entirely genetic.

I would argue differently. Not that I know so much about art. But I think because neither of us are artsy, we are intimidated by art and more likely to think artistic talent is genetic. Yes they are more so than other things, civil engineering, for example. But I believe there are more people with talents than those who finally make it. Raw talents need to be polished and pursued before it shines. One can't compose symphony out of pure inspiration -- classic music, you said it yourself, has a lot of structure and rules. Just like not anyone with a good voice can become an opera singer. Unless you argue willpower is also genetic.

[tiffany]

hmm, I agree with Jun about talent is genetic. Indeed raw talent needs polish like serious training to shine, however the raw stuff has to be there. Silver cannot be polished into gold, no matter what.

Serious training can make an expert, or a critic, out of an ordinary person, but only someone who was born with it is capable of shine like a strar.

[Knowing]

True, but most people don't know if it is silver or gold inside their brain until they polish all the way. And I wonder if many people never get the chance to dig out the gold inside due to lack of exposure or encouragement or mentorship. Maybe gold is not that rare...
Anyone who has done any creative work knows it is never all smooth -- you have to really squeeze yourself. Or is it just me?

[tiffany]

well, there is one of those "have to dance/sing/write/compose/play a piano, ect...." thing that is true calling, very few people have that. I kindda feel like if this specific calling hasn't come through for me by now, it is probably not there in me.... I do know I cannot dance/sing/compose/play any instrument

[洛洛]

我想在简奥斯丁那个时代，能有钢琴的还是少数富裕的家庭（或者音乐世家）。我看简奥斯丁的传记，她也因为经济拮据曾经把钢琴卖掉过。

[Jun]

But I think because neither of us are artsy,

Why do you think that is, hmm...?

But I believe there are more people with talents than those who finally make it.

True. You could be born in Papua New Guinea and never see a piano, but you end up being a drummer in the village.

You may not make it even if you have it, but you definitely won't make it if you don't have it.

Raw talents need to be polished and pursued before it shines. One can't compose symphony out of pure inspiration -- classic music, you said it yourself, has a lot of structure and rules. Just like not anyone with a good voice can become an opera singer. Unless you argue willpower is also genetic.

Willpower may be genetic but it seems far removed from whatever genetic composition that makes certain people musical genius.

Sure, we all have predisposition to something. I for example am more sensitive to words than average people. This could be biological mixed with early environmental stimuli.

But in terms of music and mathematics genius, it is different from the kind of genius of Shakespeare or Karl Rove or Jane Austen or Thomas Edison. Think Rain Man. Seriously there is exaggerated biological processes going on way beyond the normal range of variation. Watch the 60 Minutes segment about the boy who writes symphonies. He describes hearing several channels of music in his head spontaneously without thinking. His hearing has been tested and shown to be more sensitive than normal people. I wish I could remember the name of the black jazz musician. He was never taught how to play the piano, but from an early age he could jump on the bench and start repeating the music he heard once and do improvisation (jamming).

Music itself is directly and intimately biological. I'm sure of it. You can't learn that stuff. You can perhaps channel it if you have something to begin with. It requires a very large dose of innate biological setup.

In response to Tiff's question about male-female ratio of schizophrenia: The answer is not sure. There is evidence of a slightly higher risk ratio for men, but it's slight, around 1.5 or so. So who knows.

****

Disclaimer: I'm talking about genius, not above-average talent. There were and are a lot of talented musicians who, through hard work and will power, will become pretty good and make a decent living, but they'll never be Beethoven.

There's nothing to be ashamed of for being normal or average or, NOT A GENIUS. They are freaks.

[Knowing]

写完了！

[笑嘻嘻]

小K写得真好看。
你们在基因的路上越走越远了。 我更愿意用经济来解释。其实这个讨论事关名声。一个名字，大家都知道的名字，其实是个名气问题。嘿，我看过Camille的作品。她跟罗丹的雕塑都是把人物的情绪表达在雕塑中。我个人觉得Camille 雕得更好，更有个人风格。艺术研究上，也有人提出过罗丹剽窃了Camille，但反正这事儿没人能证实。站在我个人的角度Camille的雕塑给我的震撼力不比米开朗基罗的差。米开朗基罗的雕塑是力量、和谐、美。Camille雕的是伤心和绝望。最重要的是，Camille的年代比米开朗基罗晚很多很多。在米开朗基罗的年代, "教会是艺术的父亲, 艺术家是艺术的母亲." 艺术家需要有经济来源，你们都同意这一点。很显然教会不会雇用一个女性雕塑家，所以也许在米开朗基罗的年代，一直到后来也有跟米一样天才的女性雕塑家，但是没有人会雇用她们。罗丹幸运地在很早有名气很大，很会赚钱。所以他能够拥有自己的工作室，并且在自己的工作室里雇用学徒。（米也曾经是别人的学徒。）如果不是Camille有足够的天才，同时有足够的美貌，如果不正好碰到了罗丹而是一个循规蹈矩的规矩雕塑家，不把她从原本的小地方拉出来，嘿，我们今天谁也不知道Camille。并且Camille的成名一则借助了她曾是罗丹的情人，二是她的天份不能被罗丹的所掩盖。
终于说道我要说的了，名气。我们喜欢说现在看到的艺术品都经受住了时间的考验。但是换个角度想，不是所有好的作品都能有足够幸运得以流传。这中间很重要的一个Pattern是这些大艺术家生前就声名远扬，他们的作品才有机会得以流传。像罗丹，他是一个很会经营的人。贝多芬，以桀骜不驯，蔑视权贵而著称，但是他的桀骜不驯使他更出名。我们都知道他在爱情上不顺利，但是在生计上，好像总是这家做不下去了，就有下家是不是？还有一个例外是梵高。但是梵高的例外也是时代和经济历史的例外。梵高的时代，印象派成名已久。当初的印象派，就是美国新贵们仰慕欧洲艺术，跑到欧洲买了不少欧洲人不买的印象派画作。梵高比较运气在于，他离我们并不远。他的名声大作在于美国人欧文斯通写了他的传记之后。
总结一下，一个艺术家先要有名声才能有机会得到时间的考验。只有小说家不是这样的。也许是因为音乐、美术跟感觉离得太近，而感觉这个事儿是没法量化的。而名声是在男权世界是很难放到女人头上的。假定这个世界上没有贝多芬。贝多芬的第九是个女人写的，她的手稿没烂没扔，没被战火销毁，在欧洲某个地下室乖乖地呆着，今天有人发现了，有10个研究音乐的觉得是天才之作。有多少群众会去听呢？懂古典音乐的在今天是少数，少数人里觉得的杰作最多被冠上阳春白雪的小资帽子。没有广大的最大量的群众听众，一个大师如何产生？

[tiffany]

基本上我同意阿大的意见。
看来这个电影我可以不去看了。

[Knowing]

为啥？愤怒的责问，我辛辛苦苦写了那么长一篇观后感夸这本没什么好评的小电影，不就是怕它被埋没么？

[Jun]

小K这么一说我倒有点想去看了，视觉化古典音乐哎。让我也沾染一下风雅。

笑大，Helen最先问的问题是，虽然是男权社会，但是艺术和文学里总归还是有那么几个传世的女性人物。而音乐里一个都没有－－当然有名的演奏家在十八九世纪还是有的，不过谁也不记得演奏家的名字。作曲家是一个都没有。象你所说的，越到近代越难压制女性的教育，经济，和社会角色了，有名的女作家和艺术家也越来越多。当然这跟生活水平和健康卫生普遍提高也有关系，玩艺术的人多了，不用全民种地养活自己；加上信息传播的提高，出名也越来越容易。可是到目前为止也没有出现一个有名的女作曲家（不过我是外行，孤陋寡问也可能）。这个怎么解释？

而且我在上面也说了，音乐和数学里面的＂天才因素＂绝对是个很大的成份，跟其他领域有很大很大的不同，视觉艺术和讲故事就没那么多的先天生理因素。音乐和数学里面的天才都是很小就表现出这方面的倾向和天赋，简直是不需要推动，控制不住地往里面掉，跟（刻苦努力的）常人有极大的区别。而巧合地是，音乐和数学的旷世奇才几乎全是男的。我们知道男性的染色体比较脆弱，容易出现某些功能失灵的现象，没有女性的染色体那么稳定。如果音乐和数学的天才不是得到什么高级基因而是正常的调节功能失灵，也就能解释在这些异常的病例里面，男性数量超多。

我不是要给Larry Summers 翻案，下结论说男人生来比女人在数学和音乐上强，而是说，男性人群的变异比较多比较极端，而变异经常导致某些正常功能的失灵，音乐和数学上的天才可能是某种正常调控功能的失灵，所以才会有男性特别多的现象。这不等于说随便从大街上抓个普通男人，他的数学一定比一个普通女人强，更不能以此理由不给数学系的女讲师升级转正。

普通级别的天赋，超过常人，下点功夫培养就能搞得不错成名成家，不象贝多分那样神神叨叨的，这个大概不是神经搭错线的结果，而且男女都有，不算在我所指的＂旷世奇才＂之内。实际上我觉得绝大部分艺术家都挺正常的－－没有科学根据啊，就那么一说而已。梵高那是精神分裂症，不是什么神奇的毛病，外头多了是了，似乎跟他的艺术成就也没什么直接关系。

数学和音乐的天才（不包括普通的天赋加努力），在某些方面很象autism和Asperger's syndrome的症状。正常人有种mirror genes，给人揣摩和模仿他人的能力，通过别人的行为表情语言肢体等等信号进行沟通，如果mirror genes出毛病了，就会有自闭的现象，就是不能以己度人，更无法揣摩别人的情绪和感情。自闭症男女都有，但是男性比例大大高于女性。

[Knowing]

旷世奇才样本太少，这假说完全没法验证嘛。不如弄点Larry Summers 的基因样本来研究研究他是不是有基因缺陷， 他据说也是旷世奇才，聪明的吓人那种。还有很多rumor 说他缺乏社交能力可能是有Asperger’s syndrome 的症状，Asperger 是autism 的一种。

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/ ... bsurdia_1/

我又要提Blink 了。Blink 里说，暗示对潜意识的作用是很大的。实验证明，刚读过跟老有关的几个词，人走路的速度会放慢，动作会迟缓，因为潜意识在调整身体状态。用这个解释女性普遍较少涉足科学和工程领域比基因说听上去可信多了。

[tiffany]

我其实也想起来这个著名现代女作曲家的问题来着；后来想了想，现代著名男作曲家貌似就不是很多哎，尤其是古典音乐。

[Jun]

用这个解释女性普遍较少涉足科学和工程领域比基因说听上去可信多了。

That I agree. Who the hell needs genetic defects or bizaare genius to be a scientist or an engineer? These are jobs for normal people who are not driven to live a crazy and obsessed life.

[Knowing]

贝多芬还觉得咱们的生活才痛苦呢 -- 日复一日庸庸碌碌的。没有天才活着也是浪费资源，对人类一点贡献都没有。

[tiffany]

回小k愤怒的质问，就是我现在需要的是mindless entertainment，天才的痛苦，我不care，谁让他们甜菜来着；而且他们痛苦的我特没共鸣，而且他们的痛苦一点儿都不娱乐。

[Knowing]

Mindless entertainment? I suggest Borat. Too many fart jokes for my taste, but the good parts are REALLY good.

[Jun]

没有天才活着也是浪费资源，对人类一点贡献都没有。

Gosh I cannot disagree more!

None of these 天才 has any fundamental and practical fundamental contribution to humanity.

The true contribution to humanity is ... you know what I always say.

天才 is bullshit for the human race, nice to have but not essential. People are so blinded the glamor, but it's all frivolity and no true meaning. Would anyone rather live in a world without Beethoven or a world without computers?

[密斯张三]

我想起来一个，Clara Schumann，可能作为钢琴家的名气更大些。当然这也是跟八卦挨边的。八卦是名气的养料。

本着勤奋好学的精神搜索出来的花名单：
http://www.kapralova.org/DATABASE.htm

总得来说，从前是缺女作曲家，女数学家。但就算不提理工科领域，那年头女外交家、女医学家、女画家、女哲学家、女人类学家、女啥啥家也都没有的哇。

[Knowing]

天才 is bullshit for the human race, nice to have but not essential. People are so blinded the glamor, but it's all frivolity and no true meaning. Would anyone rather live in a world without Beethoven or a world without computers?

不一定艺术天才才算天才。你这是不把豆包当干粮！科学上的重要人物也是天才。计算机界图灵就是天才。物理学爱因斯坦也是天才。

[tiffany]

同意小k，天才还是重要的，光繁衍后代我们也就是另一类企鹅。

[Jun]

Einstein has made very little practical contribution to human society, other than being another celebrity-wanna-be that inspired millions of kids who think they can do theoretical physics too.

[Knowing]

Einstein has made very little practical contribution to human society, other than being another celebrity-wanna-be that inspired millions of kids who think they can do theoretical physics too.

I can't disagree more. Sure he did not invent light bulb and have a direct impact on human society. But his work laid foundation for many aspect of present-day physics. Again present-day physics might not have direct impact on your daily life, but it does have huge impact and very "practical".

[洛洛]

回小k愤怒的质问，就是我现在需要的是mindless entertainment，天才的痛苦，我不care，谁让他们甜菜来着；而且他们痛苦的我特没共鸣，而且他们的痛苦一点儿都不娱乐。

你可以写小说，痛苦的自娱着。

[Jun]

The huge impact of present-day physics -- like what?

Atomic bomb would have been invented anyway, and the key figure that led us down the road is no other than a woman: Lise Meitner. OK, maybe Einstein's contribution on relativity was helpful. I don't have the credential to say anything about that. But I suspect Einstein is no more GENIUS than Plunck, Heisenberg, Meitner, and the others in the field.

[Knowing]

Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, showing that light was composed of discrete particles, now called photons, which are essentially energy quanta. That basicly laid foundation of the whole modern information technology, and important research techniques used in the development of integrated circuits. Integrated circuits, that is --Computer!

[Jun]

Maxwell and Plunck provided the foundation for the above said theory, not to mention the contribution of Niels Bohr et al to quantum physics (which Einstein refused to believe for years and years). I'm not denying his contribution to physics but I don't see how it's disproportionally bigger than the other physicists' contribution at the time.

Of course, NUCUUULAR energy will eventually replace fossil fuel energy so that's also relevant, but no way am I going to lay all this on one man.

[tiffany]

jun u r like: sure he invented the wheel, but of course, wheel would have been invented somehow, hence he is not all that importand, despite all the wheels whirling around in the world.

[洛洛]

刚刚才打开小k的链接，这乐谱一点儿不算潦草！我现在手边老板的草图比这个难认多了――看来我就算回到那时候也是个合格的抄写员（如果我懂乐理的话），其他的我就敬谢不敏了。