I have two questions here.  The 1st is in regards to the title of this topic and the 2nd is something in regards to your attitude as a musician and such.  So here's my 1st question: 
 
1.) I have made a previous topic asking how to portray emotion through music.  In this topic, I have gotten the message that how we create music is that we channel all the knowledge that we ever experienced in life into making music and that we don't need psychology lessons on how to portray emotion through music and that it all comes from within.
 
Because we already have all the knowledge we will almost ever need in making music, that means we can already create any tune or song in our heads.  Therefore, since we can create any tune or song, wouldn't this mean we can also create the next greatest song (something as great as Beethoven) if we just channeled deep enough within ourselves? 
 
2.) How would you feel and what would you say if Beethoven himself was a bragging person and he came here on this forum, presented his music, and bragged how his music is all great and such?  Usually, for someone who brags, you would say to this person something like "You think you're the greatest.  But you are not and you are selfish for thinking so."  But as for Beethoven, he is the greatest musician.  Therefore, does this give him bragging rights in this case?
 
You already know that Beethoven is the greatest musician.  But him bragging here on this forum in this pretend situation might provoke a negative feeling or response within you despite your knowledge of him being the greatest musician.  Therefore, what would you say to him?

Welp...I have an unused site on Facebook under the name Beat Oven. If that helps ya in any way. But I can tell ya with near certainty that if Ludwig or Amadeus or any other former "genius" of yore just started puttin his noodlins up on YouTube tomorrow...most dimbulbs wouldn't give it a second glance...or listen. Them days is over ol pal.

Not sure I agree with that about not being noticed.  The next pop star?  I don't think so, but their abilities wouldn't go unnoticed.  I'd say their music would do the talking too and they wouldn't have to claim bragging rights.  IOW, who would contest their compositions?  Most would look like the fool in doing so.

I'll say this though about bragging.  I've found that some of the top tier musicians I've happened to learn about their personality...some where really bad about bragging.  But it usually came back to bite them.  The jack-wads were usually left to their own ways, as personality in music when playing with others, as we know is pretty high on the list, almost equal with abilities.  UNLESS, you're the leader and do the hiring and firing and PAYING as well.

"We already have all the knowledge we will almost ever need in making music"...
 
Where to begin (I will be a bit blunt)????
 
Especially with "serious" composition, that sentence implies that I already know all I will need to know about orchestration, counterpoint, and harmony, not to mention the tonal characteristics of every available instrument and the variations of timbre throughout the instrument's range.  Oh, and I should add the impact of all the different bowing techniques on string instruments, breath requirements and techniques for woodwind and brass instruments... etc., etc., etc.  In short, virtually no one "knows it all".
 
And as for Beethoven, all indications are that he was a real pain to deal with at times, because he certainly did know that he was that good.

Beethoven had a huge advantage over us, he was deaf and didn't have to listen to Justin Bieber.

I Am deafinately deaf! I can't see neither. I have trouble walking and holding myself and a guitar level. When I sing I sound like Carol Channing. i Am guessing I suck pretty bad. The last song I wrote and recorded my sister listened for about 15 seconds turn around and walked out of the room. All this does not discourage me because i Am of lower intellagance. I thought about it.  I think I Am great!

Eventually, we will all be like Beethoven:  Decomposing. 

Hi,
 
Wow ... you just won't quit, hey?
 
Music history, as of today, is undergoing serious changes. Changes that the "classical" world is not willing to appreciate and study, at that, but as time goes by, they will lose the battle. Why? They won't be there and the new music will. Very simple.
 
Some considerations, that would have to be detailed and discussed:
1. In the future, I believe that "composition" might also be accepted/defined as coming from a group. For all intents and purposes and music history, these moments probably also were there, and we do not have anything written on it, and this would go back to the medieval times, when the Chants were actually not all written and many folks added their own part. What we hear today, is thought to have been composed. If this works, the Beatles, will be an entity, so will several other bands due to their amount of work.
 
2. The instrumentation history is falling apart. One synthesizer, can now play all the parts of an orchestra -TOGETHER- and this is a massively helpful tool for a composer, but it also makes for the composition to be lazy and more pop music oriented, that is ... four lines of music on a staff, instead of 25 or 30! In this sense, rock'n'roll, is the simplest and the easiest to teach anyone. Not to mention that most of it is strictly tied to melody and harmony and nothing else. This history, will cause a lot of music to change and become something else that it has not been. But I find it strange that many "classical music" lovers, do not even appreciate Mike Oldfield, Vangelis Pappathanassiou, or Riuychi Sakamoto, as they are the foremost composers of the past 50 years! But we're so structured in one "format" that a guitar in there is out of place. It doesn't need to be!
 
3. Remaining to be seen, will be the "popular" point of view in the history of music. If it will create a separate venue, or simply blend in and destroy the high concepts and ideas in the music history that academia uses to define music. Popular music, and even jazz to an extent, was originally considered "street music", and thus, its value was not as "important" or as "great" as the pieces that we have come to enjoy. But then, there have been many rock/jazz musicians that have created pieces that are equivalent to a 5th or a 9th, but you YOURSELF, won't give it the time of the day for a listen! This "disparity" has to come to an end, so one can define music a lot better.
 
My only concern with the "high" levels of music definition, is that you limit the number of people that can play it and develop it. Thus, in many ways, and sometimes due to its emotional content, a lot of pop and jazz music ends up being a lot more intelligent than most classical music. I find it difficult to list a classical piece of music "composed in the last 45 years that might even stand up to a couple of Miles Davis pieces! Those might be improvised, but the subtleties and quality is far superior to most compositional sensitivities, which classical music, and YOU, have a tendency to think that you can invent emotion out of your mind.
 
You can't. You have to live it. And nowadays, you are being selective about how this can be described and shown to you in music. Therein lies the problem and where things need to be defined better.
 
All music is important. Our meanderings, not as much!

If you believe in re-incarnation then...  Beethoven -> Rick Wakeman.
 
 

I'm just going to go with 'No'.