# Who would you say was or is, the last musical genius?



## midphase (May 15, 2010)

I think without a definition the question is not really answerable without this turning into yet another "fanboy" thread.

For example, are we including marketing geniuses, political geniuses, scientific geniuses as well, or is this restricted to musicians?


----------



## germancomponist (May 15, 2010)

*Re: Who would you say was or is, the last genius?*

Me, because I am so coooooool! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: 

Without joking, John Lennon is the first person I remember in my head.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 15, 2010)

Perhaps I fail to express in proper terms why Lady Gaga is not a genius, but in my book she certainly is not. And yes, I know all about her, but this is based on her music only. Lady Gaga will be among thousands of good artists, but PLEASE, don't compare her to composers like Gershwin, Shostakovitch or Rachmaninov.


----------



## germancomponist (May 15, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:


> requiem_aeternam7 @ Sat May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Does this question presuppose that there's no more geniuses and there was one long ago who was the LAST one? Or by last do you mean just the latest genius so to speak?
> ...



Oopsss, wait...., wasn`t it Guy Bacos? :roll: :mrgreen:


----------



## lux (May 15, 2010)

lady gaga rocks


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 15, 2010)

nikolas @ Sat May 15 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Also Lady Gaga has been popular only for a few years. I really don't understand how this could be compared to composers who have stood the test of time for 100 years.
> ...



Come on Nilokas, you're not being fair. There's a difference in being popular for a few years and 50 years like these guys. You're taking me too literally. But time IS an important factor, whether you like it or not.


----------



## Markus S (May 15, 2010)

Györgi Ligeti


----------



## nikolas (May 15, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:


> nikolas @ Sat May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:
> ...


I know, I know... Sorry... (I did put the emoticon though... )

And I do understand what you're saying.

But, just for an example, I have been having plenty of discussions trying to say that I find that classical music of today is music coming out of Radiohead. I mean the whole group are geniuses! They are not around only a couple of years, but 20, their music is complicated enough to apply even to classical venues, but simple enough to be bought by every guy not living under a rock, they are political beings and social beings and they totally control themselves.

Of course there's also Ligeti.

I'd say that my vote would go to Messiaen though. One of my outmost favorite composers!


----------



## germancomponist (May 15, 2010)

But: The time has changed. 

Changes are getting faster and faster. In the past only some composers have had the money or a king as a friend who spent them the mony not to have to do another daily job than composing.

Now, for example, in our time all people who buy a mac have also a music production tool under their fingers, what was included. 

The result: Today many more people have the opportunity to live out their musical talent.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 15, 2010)

For me, if any pop artist who is remotely close to this status, would be The Beatles. And for a while I was putting them quite high, but with time, maturity made me see the difference between a very talented group and composers like Gershwin, yeah, I keep mentioning him, I know, I just like him a lot, sorry.


----------



## Narval (May 15, 2010)

Folmann @ Sat May 15 said:


> I remember studying "review theory" at the university, which is the theory of how to conduct a good review. One of the main points is that a proper review needs to be context dependent. You cannot review a horror movie based on your affection for romantic movies. You have to review horror movies on the basis of its genre.
> 
> I would argue that the same applies to the problematic term: "Genius".
> 
> ...


Context is everything. For example, in the context of this thread, Folmann's post is a work of genius.




Markus S @ Sat May 15 said:


> Györgi Ligeti


+1

From dictionary.com:
genius -
- an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius of Mozart.
- a person having such capacity.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 15, 2010)

Intellect is a key word here.


----------



## JohnG (May 15, 2010)

a few nominations from the recent past:

James Newton Howard

Bela Bartok

Alban Berg

John Lennon / The Beatles

David Bowie

Thomas Newman

Jerry Goldsmith

John Williams

Criteria: 

1. mastery (music composition and, in some cases, performance and even other media); 

2. inventiveness despite working in a commercial milieu;

3. influence on culture/ other composers / music generally; 

4. extraordinary command of craft and / or writing definitive or near-definitive pieces or works, even within a genre

Haven't really tried to include concert composers, except Bartok and Berg, who I think would have been good film / media composers; both were great stage composers, in my view.


----------



## lux (May 15, 2010)

I agree with Troels here. Without a strong contextualization this thread candidates to be just a good list of cliches like "Mozart is better than Britney Spears".


----------



## germancomponist (May 15, 2010)

lux @ Sat May 15 said:


> I agree with Troels here. Without a strong contextualization this thread candidates to be just a good list of cliches like "Mozart is better than Britney Spears".



... why I did my joke in my first post here.  

But I was and am sure that Guy wanted to talk about (well known) composers..... .


----------



## José Herring (May 15, 2010)

Guy, Folman is spot on in this.

My son who is 8. Makes these incredible structures out of Legos. Stuff that I can't even conceive of much less make. He's a Lego genius spending a lot of time building and playing and has a knack for building things. My hope is that he turns out to be a great architect or makes amazing sculptures or something. But, I'm in no way comparing him to IM Pay or Michelangelo yet.

I think Trent Reznor is a genius at what he does. But, I'm in no way comparing him to Bartok. I think that in order to define genius you have to compare the artist in terms of what medium they are working in. I wouldn't expect that Lady Gaga could turn around and score a film the way John Williams does. But at the same time I don't think that John Williams would be all that successful as a sexy diva pop singer either. Both take a particular skill set. You may prefer one to the other. But, in her world Lady Gaga has a skill set that not many possess. 

You have to ask yourself one question. That question being, if it were all that easy wouldn't a whole lot of others being doing it too? If it didn't take some genius to be Lady Gaga, every common little girl in the world would end up being Lady Gaga. But, that's not happening. So she's got something that sets her apart from the rest of the pact. Some people call that genius.

Jose


----------



## lux (May 15, 2010)

germancomponist @ Sat May 15 said:


> lux @ Sat May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Troels here. Without a strong contextualization this thread candidates to be just a good list of cliches like "Mozart is better than Britney Spears".
> ...



i considered you were serious candidating yourself.


----------



## germancomponist (May 15, 2010)

lux @ Sat May 15 said:


> germancomponist @ Sat May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > lux @ Sat May 15 said:
> ...



Oopssss . o=< 

But o.k., it is time for me to post somewhat into the music cafe here. o/~


----------



## germancomponist (May 15, 2010)

I wonder how this comparison would look if you did it in 1980...? LOL

You must also calculate the People's dementia! Hahaha..., but true!


----------



## José Herring (May 15, 2010)

germancomponist @ Sat May 15 said:


> I wonder how this comparison would look if you did it in 1980...? LOL
> 
> You must also calculate the People's dementia! Hahaha..., but true!



Duran Duran
7,160,000

Mozart

32,500,000

Devo

22,600,000 

Sid Vicious

830,000

Beethoven

21,300,000

Elvis

43,200,000

The Beetles

26,300,000

I'd say the classical guys hold up pretty well for being dead about 300 years.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 15, 2010)

Nah, I'm not going to debate this. Although I do have my opinion.

I think John understood perfectly well.


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

[quote:95b6ce9d20="Folmann @ Sat May 15, 2010 9:50 am"]I remember studying "review theory" at the university, which is the theory of how to conduct a good review. One of the main points is that a proper review needs to be context dependent. You cannot review a horror movie based on your affection for romantic movies. You have to review horror movies on the basis of its genre.

I would argue that the same applies to the problematic term: "Genius".

The term "genius" is context dependent and an individual like Lady Gaga is absolutely genius on the scene (pop) that she moves on.

Allow me to do the analysis:

1. She is 24 years old and a fantastic singer - on par with Aguilera IMO.
2. She has accumulated more success then everybody on this forum combinedòÄÅ   ÑìâÄÅ   ÑìãÄÅ   ÑìäÄÅ   ÑìåÄÅ   ÑìæÄÅ   ÑìçÄÅ   ÑìèÄÅ   ÑìéÄÅ   ÑìêÄÅ   ÑìëÄÅ   ÑììÄÅ   ÑìíÄÅ   ÑìîÄÅ   ÑìïÄÅ   ÑìðÄÅ   ÑìñÄÅ   ÑìòÄÅ   ÑìóÄÅ   ÑìôÄÅ   ÑìõÄÅ   ÑìöÄÅ   Ñì÷ÄÅ   ÑìøÄÅ   ÑìùÄÅ   ÑìúÄÅ   ÑìûÄÅ   ÑìüÄÅ   ÑìýÄÅ   ÑìþÄÅ   ÑìÿÄÅ   Ñí ÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   Ñí	ÄÅ   Ñí
ÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   Ñí ÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   ÑíÄÅ   Ñí ÄÅ   Ñí!ÄÅ   Ñí"ÄÅ   Ñí#ÄÆ   Ñí$ÄÆ   Ñí%ÄÆ   Ñí&ÄÆ   Ñí'ÄÆ   Ñí(ÄÆ   Ñí)ÄÆ   Ñí*ÄÆ   Ñí+ÄÆ   Ñí,ÄÆ   Ñí-ÄÆ   Ñí.ÄÆ   Ñí/ÄÆ   Ñí0ÄÆ   Ñí1ÄÆ   Ñí2ÄÆ   Ñí3ÄÆ   Ñí4ÄÆ   Ñí5ÄÆ   Ñí6ÄÆ   Ñí7ÄÆ   Ñí8ÄÆ   Ñí9ÄÆ   Ñí:ÄÆ   Ñí;ÄÆ   Ñí<ÄÆ   Ñí=ÄÆ   Ñí>ÄÆ   Ñí?ÄÆ   Ñí@ÄÆ   ÑíAÄÆ   ÑíBÄÆ   ÑíCÄÆ   ÑíDÄÆ   ÑíEÄÆ   ÑíFÄÆ   ÑíGÄÆ   ÑíHÄÆ   ÑíIÄÆ   ÑíJÄÆ   ÑíKÄÆ   ÑíLÄÆ   ÑíMÄÆ   ÑíNÄÆ   ÑíOÄÆ   ÑíPÄÆ   ÑíQ              òÄÆ   ÑíSÄÆ   ÑíTÄÆ   ÑíUÄÆ   ÑíVÄÆ   ÑíWÄÇ   ÑíXÄÇ   ÑíYÄÇ   ÑíZÄÇ   Ñí[ÄÇ   Ñí\ÄÇ   Ñí]ÄÇ   Ñí^ÄÇ   Ñí_ÄÇ   Ñí`ÄÇ   ÑíaÄÇ   ÑíbÄÇ   ÑícÄÇ   ÑídÄÇ   ÑíeÄÇ   ÑífÄÇ   ÑígÄÇ   ÑíhÄÇ   ÑíiÄÇ   ÑíjÄÇ   ÑíkÄÇ   ÑílÄÇ   ÑímÄÇ   ÑínÄÇ   ÑíoÄÇ   ÑípÄÇ   ÑíqÄÇ   ÑírÄÇ   ÑísÄÇ   ÑítÄÇ   ÑíuÄÇ   ÑívÄÇ   ÑíwÄÇ   ÑíxÄÇ   ÑíyÄÇ   ÑízÄÇ   Ñí{ÄÇ   Ñí|ÄÇ   Ñí}ÄÇ   Ñí~ÄÇ   ÑíÄÇ   Ñí€ÄÇ   ÑíÄÇ   Ñí‚ÄÇ   ÑíƒÄÇ   Ñí„ÄÇ   Ñí…ÄÇ   Ñí†ÄÇ   Ñí‡ÄÇ   ÑíˆÄÇ   Ñí‰ÄÇ   ÑíŠÄÇ   Ñí‹ÄÇ   ÑíŒÄÇ   ÑíÄÇ   ÑíŽÄÇ   ÑíÄÇ   ÑíÄÇ   Ñí‘ÄÇ   Ñí’ÄÇ   Ñí“ÄÇ   Ñí”ÄÇ   Ñí•ÄÇ   Ñí–ÄÇ   Ñí—ÄÇ   Ñí˜ÄÇ   Ñí™ÄÇ   ÑíšÄÇ   Ñí›ÄÇ   ÑíœÄÇ   ÑíÄÈ   ÑížÄÈ   ÑíŸÄÈ   Ñí ÄÈ   Ñí¡ÄÈ   Ñí¢ÄÈ   Ñí£ÄÈ   Ñí¤ÄÈ   Ñí¥ÄÈ   Ñí¦ÄÈ   Ñí§ÄÈ   Ñí¨ÄÈ   Ñí©ÄÈ   ÑíªÄÈ   Ñí«ÄÈ   Ñí¬ÄÈ   Ñí­ÄÈ   Ñí®ÄÈ   Ñí¯ÄÈ   Ñí°ÄÈ   Ñí±ÄÈ   Ñí²ÄÈ   Ñí³ÄÈ   Ñí´ÄÈ   ÑíµÄÈ   Ñí¶ÄÈ   Ñí·ÄÈ   Ñí¸ÄÈ   Ñí¹ÄÈ   ÑíºÄÈ   Ñí»ÄÈ   Ñí¼ÄÈ   Ñí½ÄÈ   Ñí¾ÄÈ   Ñí¿ÄÈ   ÑíÀÄÈ   ÑíÁÄÈ   ÑíÂ              òÄÈ   ÑíÄÄÈ   ÑíÅÄÈ   ÑíÆÄÈ   ÑíÇÄÈ   ÑíÈÄÈ   ÑíÉÄÈ   ÑíÊÄÈ   ÑíËÄÈ   ÑíÌÄÈ   ÑíÍÄÈ   ÑíÎÄÈ   ÑíÏÄÈ   ÑíÐÄÈ   ÑíÑÄÈ   ÑíÒÄÈ   ÑíÓÄÈ   ÑíÔÄÈ   ÑíÕÄÈ   ÑíÖÄÈ   Ñí×ÄÈ   ÑíØÄÈ   ÑíÙÄÈ   ÑíÚÄÈ   ÑíÛÄÈ   ÑíÜÄÈ   ÑíÝÄÈ   ÑíÞÄÈ   ÑíßÄÈ   ÑíàÄÈ   ÑíáÄÈ   ÑíâÄÈ   ÑíãÄÈ   ÑíäÄÈ   ÑíåÄÈ   ÑíæÄÈ   ÑíçÄÈ   ÑíèÄÈ   ÑíéÄÈ   ÑíêÄÈ   ÑíëÄÈ   ÑíìÄÈ   ÑííÄÈ   ÑíîÄÈ   ÑíïÄÈ   ÑíðÄÈ   ÑíñÄÈ   ÑíòÄÈ   ÑíóÄÈ   ÑíôÄÈ   ÑíõÄÈ   ÑíöÄÈ   Ñí÷ÄÈ   ÑíøÄÈ   ÑíùÄÈ   ÑíúÄÈ   ÑíûÄÈ   ÑíüÄÈ   ÑíýÄÈ   ÑíþÄÈ   ÑíÿÄÈ   Ñî ÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   Ñî	ÄÈ   Ñî
ÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   Ñî ÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   ÑîÄÈ   Ñî


----------



## germancomponist (May 15, 2010)

requiem_aeternam7 @ Sat May 15 said:


> That's a VERY good argument, and one coming from a guy who is arguably of the few that can be classified as 'genius' (more like eccentric genius) on this forum.
> 
> 
> However I can very easily refute your statements and prove why she can NOT by the very definition of the term be described as a genius.
> ...



The reason because I called her in my other post only as a "product".


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 15, 2010)

I have just removed my Schubert poster and replaced it with Lady Gaga.


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

Gaga is a genius like Hans Zimmer is a genius "orchestrator"


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

stonzthro @ Sat May 15 said:


> Silliness anyway since the idea of genius wasn't even around in Mozart's day. It's a Romantic notion and a fairly silly one at that.
> 
> Apples to Oranges.



I thought the concept WAS around which was why the Brits had a whole scientific tribunal to study young Mozart's "genius level" when he visited London as a child, or am I wrong?


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

p.s. the only way that the word GENIUS can apply to anything in the same sentence as Lady Gaga, is that the studio exec at the very top of the food chain is the grand master GENIUS because he's milking all of the brainwashed junk culture sheeple and laughing his way to the bank, rolling in billions of dollars while confounded parents are being pressured and forced to buy their kids all the latest trends and trashy flash-in-the-pan CD albums that Gaga and co produce. 

That's the REAL genius you guys should be studying, whoever is the guy at the very top orchestrating all this and hawking this trash for mass consumption while netting billions of dollars in profits. 


This is genius more monumental than Mozart in my opinion. Mozart affected a few thousand/million people in Europe, this guy at the top is brainwashing billions of people and wreaking havoc on entire cultures in a single blow! What an ineffable intellect! Pure genius! =o


----------



## lux (May 15, 2010)

the lack of pop and mainstream culture or knowledge makes this one of the most nerd'ish forums i've ever happen to see.

but fortunately a few guys here know how things work. Apart of the classic boring "everything is produced" or "theyre just a face" stuff which i hear from when i was a child. Thats mostly bullshit as being a pop artist is not an easy task at all to accomplish today. And most of the artists are fuckin talents which expressed in a scenario rather then into another.

a/b'ing classical and pop/mainstream artists makes no sense apart of pushing our own tastes and make them a public statement, which i doubt on the long period anyone would really care about.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 15, 2010)

Lady Gaga for president!


----------



## JohnG (May 15, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ 15th May 2010 said:


> I have just removed my Schubert poster and replaced it with Lady Gaga.



Me too.


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

lux @ Sat May 15 said:


> Apart of the classic boring "everything is produced" or "theyre just a face" stuff



Sorry to break it to you, but truth is boring. Heard of Occam's Razor? The sad fact of the matter is that those "boring" truths you heard were in fact true, pop artists ARE just the face of a churning factory. 
You sound like you don't know the first thing about how pop is produced. I know a thing or two about it, I know that a pop star's controllers choose just about every facet of that star's being. 
Now if you're talking about higher forms of "pop" like Elton John or Billy Joel or something obviously that's different and those guys actually have talents and skills but don't tell me Britney Spears is talented and is a pop genius or I'll be forced to laugh at you. 
Sure there's tons of pop guys with huge talent like Brian Mcknight but for every one of those there's 10 Spears/Gagas/Mandy Moores, etc


----------



## lux (May 15, 2010)

requiem_aeternam7 @ Sat May 15 said:


> You sound like you don't know the first thing about how pop is produced. I know a thing or two about it





> Now if you're talking about higher forms of "pop" like Elton John or Billy Joel or something obviously that's different



yup i feel youre an expert. the youngest of those names stopped doin stuff ages ago... :lol:


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

lux @ Sat May 15 said:


> requiem_aeternam7 @ Sat May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > You sound like you don't know the first thing about how pop is produced. I know a thing or two about it
> ...



that's what I'm saying I have no idea what you're referring to, whether modern dumbed down pop trash or older pop or what


----------



## lux (May 15, 2010)

i see..i see


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

lux @ Sat May 15 said:


> i see..i see



dude it says you're in naples, italy. No offense but that by default disqualifies you from knowing anything about american pop music. This isn't Celentano and Toto Cutugno, you don't know how our pop scene works :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## synergy543 (May 15, 2010)

Luca, shall I call the Boss, or do you want to let this one go?


----------



## JohnG (May 15, 2010)

I would be very interested in others' nominations for musical geniuses. I think it's quite an interesting topic.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 15, 2010)

Daniel James @ Sat May 15 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I fail to express in proper terms why Lady Gaga is not a genius, but in my book she certainly is not. And yes, I know all about her, but this is based on her music only. Lady Gaga will be among thousands of good artists, but PLEASE, don't compare her to composers like Gershwin, Shostakovitch or Rachmaninov.
> ...



That is plainly YOUR interpretation. I never went near that. If I think the music or craft of Lady Gaga does not compare to Mozat's, this has nothing to do whether Lady Gaga is a pop artist.

And I think this goes with anybody being defensive about pop music. This is NOT a discrimination.


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

Daniel James @ Sat May 15 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I fail to express in proper terms why Lady Gaga is not a genius, but in my book she certainly is not. And yes, I know all about her, but this is based on her music only. Lady Gaga will be among thousands of good artists, but PLEASE, don't compare her to composers like Gershwin, Shostakovitch or Rachmaninov.
> ...



Ok but once again, at least compare an artist to an artist on equal terms. Don't say Bach's output is equal to Lady Gaga's output because Bach did his music himself, Lady Gaga didn't do a single thing herself about her entire career so it's unfair to compare one person to a conglomerate of 20 people and studio execs who direct Gaga's career. If you're going to make the argument you're making then at least please name us someone whose "genius" output is created solely by THEM and not by a team of song writers and image experts. If you say Gaga is "genius" you're merely calling her record label genius not her because she is responsible for only a small fraction of the final product that you see and hear on her album/tour so the comparison is quite disingenuous. 


Now if you guys knew anything about pop you'd know the only real pop genius is Shakira because she's a member of MENSA and has a 140+ IQ 

:mrgreen:


----------



## synergy543 (May 15, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:


> ...Until electricity, phonographs, radio, computers, internet etc musicians depended on their brains to do all that work. You would hear a piece once and that's it, you couldn't go home and play the CD 40 times. The brain is getting lazier as technology progresses.


I thought the same too....until I read a biography on Ravel. Apparently, he had quite a record collection. I can just see him cueing up a section and dropping the needle. I wonder how he actually used it? In my opinion, that technology didn't impede him too much! Although, he did talk in his time already about the decline of music and the bleak outlook for composers.

So maybe we just need to go back to records? Digital killed the music star?


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 15, 2010)

I can prove it there is no discrimination. 95% of the classical output is surely trash and went forgotten, we have the heritage the the best of the best. So it's not because it's "classical" it's better, it happens to be classical.


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

synergy543 @ Sat May 15 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Until electricity, phonographs, radio, computers, internet etc musicians depended on their brains to do all that work. You would hear a piece once and that's it, you couldn't go home and play the CD 40 times. The brain is getting lazier as technology progresses.
> ...



the exception is never the rule (Ravel)

point is guy's back there ate slept and breathed music. They didn't have iphones and internet to steal 90% of their time. People today (us) are generally not geniuses mostly because we don't devote even 40% of the time to music that guys did back then simply because we have so many distractions of modern life (iphone, facebook, forums, movie theatres, ipods, etc, etc)


----------



## choc0thrax (May 15, 2010)

Isn't Lady Gaga currently involved in a lawsuit with a producer who says he created her entire persona? If true, not very genius.

The only pop genius I know of is Michael Jackson.


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

choc0thrax @ Sat May 15 said:


> Isn't Lady Gaga currently involved in a lawsuit with a producer who says he created her entire persona? If true, not very genius.
> 
> The only pop genius I know of is Michael Jackson.



that's what I said in my previous post. She's being sued by her first producer in NJ because he says she stole everything, her persona, name, music, what have you. 
But I suppose the pro-gagas here will argue that all geniuses of history stole as per Stravinsky's famous quote. i.e. Beethoven stole Haydn's early persona and such


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 15, 2010)

synergy543 @ Sat May 15 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Until electricity, phonographs, radio, computers, internet etc musicians depended on their brains to do all that work. You would hear a piece once and that's it, you couldn't go home and play the CD 40 times. The brain is getting lazier as technology progresses.
> ...



But also Ravel was born in the 1870s, so I doubt he grew up with a phonograph in his house, perhaps later in his life he acquired one.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 15, 2010)

choc0thrax @ Sat May 15 said:


> Isn't Lady Gaga currently involved in a lawsuit with a producer who says he created her entire persona? If true, not very genius.
> 
> The only pop genius I know of is Michael Jackson.



Interesting.

I would certainly put MJ higher than Lady Gaga.


----------



## Daniel James (May 15, 2010)

Lol not getting involved.


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

when any of these bums can sing a song without having to use autotuners for their voice, then maybe they can be in the running for genius. Bach could improvise 8 part fugues on the spot on his organ but these junk culture jokes can't even sing in pitch?

Let's get real here guys. 

Lady Gaga:

1. needs a songwriter
2. needs autotune
3. needs an image consultant
4. needs a choreographer
5. needs a lyricist

can someone PLEASE show me which part of her act is genius on HER part not on the part of someone else doing it for her?


----------



## lux (May 15, 2010)

lol

...the "expert" says :lol: .


----------



## synergy543 (May 15, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:


> But also Ravel was born in the 1870s, so I doubt he grew up with a phonograph in his house, perhaps later in his life he acquired one.


Ravel lived until 1937. The book is "A Ravel Reader, Correspondence, Articles, Interviews". On p.601 in the appendix, there is a list of the records in Ravel's personal collection. You'd think they might include who he thought were geniuses. Yet, the collection was very eclectic - recordings from around the world, pop (lots of chanson and folk music) and many contemporaries - Debussy, Shostakovich, Stravinsky.....but no Bach.


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

lux @ Sat May 15 said:


> lol
> 
> ...the "expert" says :lol: .



Don't worry Toto Cutugno is still a genius in my book :wink:


----------



## lux (May 15, 2010)

nevermind


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 15, 2010)

synergy543 @ Sat May 15 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > But also Ravel was born in the 1870s, so I doubt he grew up with a phonograph in his house, perhaps later in his life he acquired one.
> ...



I know we are not disagreeing on this, but I do want to point out that my point of Ravel not having a phonograph during his youth was critical. These are the formation (or whatever the right word is) years, Ravel could of been using internet later in his life and he still would of stayed the great Ravel.


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

lux @ Sat May 15 said:


> you make my day dude, really. I love racist assholes.



ban this unruly child please


----------



## lux (May 15, 2010)

thats happening to you, racist genius, be aware.


----------



## Narval (May 15, 2010)

synergy543 @ Sat May 15 said:


> recordings from around the world, pop (lots of chanson and folk music) and many contemporaries - Debussy, Shostakovich, Stravinsky.....but no Bach.


Pop recordings but no Bach recordings, eh? Strange, I admit. Perhaps, any Bach scores in his scores collection? Any Bach scores analyses in Ravel's youth that contributed to his development as a musician? Even if there was no Bach whatsoever in Ravel's life, or even if Ravel completely disliked and ignored Bach, that won't say anything at all about Bach's music.


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

lux @ Sat May 15 said:


> thats happening to you, racist genius, be aware.



LOL you're butthurt. :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 15, 2010)

So I got two emails to the moderator complaining about posts. Have they been removed? I see reactions but not anything offensive.

***

I don't know whether Miles Davis is the last genius, but he's the biggest musical genius I've ever seen in my lifetime.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 15, 2010)

In fact I know he's not the last one, because there are many of them around today. Yefin Bronfman is one, so is Daniel Barenboim for example.


----------



## jlb (May 15, 2010)

I can't believe nobody has mentioned Brian Wilson, some of the Pet Sounds stuff is as good as Beethoven, anyone. What is all this Lady ga ga stuff, she is flavour of the moment, she is good but in 30,50,100 years forget it...her music will date


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 15, 2010)

C M Dess @ Sat May 15 said:


> Are geniuses actually oppressed in today's music industry, that is the question.
> .02



Excellent point!


----------



## rgames (May 15, 2010)

Not sure where the thread is going but I'll commenton the original topic...

I've always had a problem with the "genius" concept in general but particiularly when you try to apply it to the humanities. What defines success in music and art is a combination of genius and promotion. The more heavily something is marketed, the more people like it. So take an average composer and promote the heck out of his work and he'll probably be viewed as "more genius" than another composer with less promotion.

Didn't Mozart's father spend most of his time parading his son around Europe? If so, how could the kid *not* succeed? How many other kids were given that opportunity? There's no way to know so it's impossible to compare.

(Side note: people love to talk about the fact that Mozart was writing music while still a toddler. Ever hear those pieces performed? Probably not... People confuse being ahead of the curve with being a genius. They're not necessarily related.)

Beethoven, though, was a different story. His father was a deadbeat and a drunk, IIRC. Beethoven succeeded more on "actual genius" and probably a healthy dose of self-promotion. Plus, I've always felt that Mozart merely refined a style that existed before his emergence - his work was evolutionary, not revolutionary. Beethoven, however, really broke free from the classical style and defined a new direction for music. That, to me, is "more genius" than Mozart's "genius of refinement." I put Mahler and Stravinsky in the same category as Beethoven - "more genius" than Mozart. Schoenberg and Debussy fall close behind.

So, who are the current geniuses? I'm not sure - it's really hard to find coherent directions in music right now because everyone wants to be totally different. There doesn't seem to be that sense of communal progress - it's more of an each to his own approach right now. I think during Beethoven's time the direction was a bit clearer - right now, nothing is really emerging as a cohesive direction in music.

Well, nothing except the movement towards crap 

rgames


----------



## requiem_aeternam7 (May 15, 2010)

rgames @ Sat May 15 said:


> Not sure where the thread is going but I'll commenton the original topic...
> 
> I've always had a problem with the "genius" concept in general but particiularly when you try to apply it to the humanities. What defines success in music and art is a combination of genius and promotion. The more heavily something is marketed, the more people like it. So take an average composer and promote the heck out of his work and he'll probably be viewed as "more genius" than another composer with less promotion.
> 
> ...




That's an interesting analysis and one that is supported by many people. 

I just wanted to note that I recently read an article where it was actually argued conversely that Mozart was the true genius in breaking away from the molds of his era and it argued that Mozart in fact was just as revolutionary in his time period as Beethoven was in his. There was supporting evidence there in the form of quotes from some of his contemporaries that basically demonstrated how a lot of Mozart's contemporaries really viewed his music as VERY rebellious and against the grain and very wild, eccentric, TOO ambitious/ingenious etc. The article basically painted the picture of Mozart as a complete rebel and path beater of his time and I tend to agree with it to an extent. 
It's hard to ever argue AGAINST the genius of a guy who's considered one of the 3 best EVER and was deaf, BUT considering Beethoven's flaws (vocal music for instance, not as prolific, late music often considered unbalanced orchestrationally i.e. Missa Solemnis and 9th symphony) I would have to say that Mozart was the more perfect and perhaps more genius composer although I hold both in the absolutely highest regard...


----------



## midphase (May 15, 2010)

Can Lux and Requiem chill out already? I don't know what's gotten into both of you I don't think these exchanges are very productive.


----------



## Narval (May 16, 2010)

rgames @ Sat May 15 said:


> Didn't Mozart's father spend most of his time parading his son around Europe? If so, how could the kid *not* succeed? How many other kids were given that opportunity?


Actually, many other kids were given that marvelous "opportunity." There was a trend in Europe at that times, many parents attempting to capitalize on similar circus numbers by _exploiting_ (to put it mildly) their "prodigy" children. Johann van Beethoven was one of those parents.

To your rhetorical question, how could Amadeus Mozart *not* succeed, when given that "opportunity?", here is my answer: in the very same way that all the other wonder-boys have failed. Amadeus Mozart has succeeded as a wonder-boy because he was the real deal, the genuine genius, so to speak. However, no other "wonder-boy" has later become a creative genius as a grown-up. Of course, Mozart's reputation as a musically gifted child (like any good reputation) didn't hurt his career. But his creative genius is something to be found not in his career but in his music. Listen to that music, read his scores, really read them, and you'll probably see why Mozart deserves to be called a genius. As Shaffer's Salieri has put it, the perfection of that music is _beyond belief._

Genius is a quality, like excellent. It is the superlative of excellent. You can't really deny excellence - when it's there, it's there, leaves you but one reasonable choice: to accept it for what it is. I can hardly imagine an argument against excellence. For example: DaVinci was a genius. Can't say I really dig his paintings, but I don't rationalize my personal feelings about it. Instead, I bow down in respect and accept what I see for what it is: unsurpassed visual excellence, transcending personal taste.


----------



## Markus S (May 16, 2010)

Folmann @ Sat May 15 said:


> I am literally gonna contradict myself for a second and show you what the current landscape looks like on google.
> 
> lady gaga
> 22900000 results
> ...



Well, apart from he question if genius has to do with quality or quantity, we should check google again in 200 years, see if Lady Gaga is still around, or if someone else from our time is maybe still around.


----------



## dcoscina (May 16, 2010)

Popularity doesn't equal genius. The very nature of what makes someone a genius is a strong divergence from the norm which would almost guarentee a lack of acceptance from the general public. Mahler's music was reviled largely by the public in his time. Rite of Spring caused a riot at it's inception. 

No amount of google hits can define what makes someone a genius.


----------



## dcoscina (May 16, 2010)

Jonny Greenwood is pretty darn good.
Prokofiev to me is a genius- ge composed his first opera (including story and libretto) at the age if 8. 

I don't think Lady gaga is a genius regardless of the genre of music she inhabits. Talented? Yes. Original? Mostly. Would I prefer ger music to Bjork? No way in hell.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 16, 2010)

Luciano Berio and Stevie Wonder.


----------



## JohnG (May 16, 2010)

I agree here with Nick, that "diverging" can be exaggerated in importance. Or, put differently, that one could be judged a genius without breaking the mould.

I was taught that JS Bach, for example, was much more the epitome of a style that others had long established, by contrast with a tradition-breaker or iconclast. Because he was able to transcend the rules he inherited, to loft his works from the mundane level of others to the sublime, one could argue that he broke with tradition, I suppose, but not, I think in the sense that a revolutionary is usually mentioned.

Overall, I think originality is overrated today, part of our inheritance from Shelley, Byron, and the rest of the Romantics.

And I don't think this is a minor matter. Jay Asher often (and rightly, in my view) deplores the disregard for "the skills" exhibited by many would-be composers. Favouring pieces that drive audiences to feel offended has contributed very little to furthering sponsorship and embrace of orchestral music, while simultaneously producing a lot of rubbish. 

"Ionisations" is a fabulous piece but for every one of those, how many Young, Bold composers have afflicted hours of tedium on audiences?


----------



## spectrum (May 16, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:


> JohnG @ Sat May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > I would be very interested in others' nominations for musical geniuses.
> ...


He would be a solid candidate for genius candidate, but unfortunately he did not play his own ukelele parts on his records - so he's out of the running. ;-(


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 16, 2010)

My fantasy is shattered!


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 16, 2010)

spectrum @ Sun May 16 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:
> 
> 
> > JohnG @ Sat May 15 said:
> ...



Do you know that as a fact? Cause he looked quite solid on his ukulele, actually that part impressed me more.


----------



## spectrum (May 16, 2010)

The definition that works for me across all genres is this simple one:

"Freak of Nature Talent"

That's usually when I apply the dreaded "genius" label. When it's so unusual or unique compared to everyone else.

"Timelessness" is desirable, but it's not the best measure of what defines genius IMHO. I think there are a lot of timeless pieces of music that were not written by geniuses at all.

As has been demonstrated in this thread, "Popularity" is also not a good criteria for judging genius. 

So with that criteria of being a "freak of nature talent", I would call these folks genius - some who are very popular and some who are not nearly as well known - some of whom I am big fans of and others that I just recognize the genius of what they are, without necessarily being a fan of their art:

Stevie Wonder
Imogen Heap
Peter Gabriel
John Williams
Alan Holdsworth
Joni Mitchell
Miles Davis
Charlie Parker
John Coltrane
Squarepusher
Michael Jackson
Vinnie Caliuata
Alex Acuna
Marcus Miller
Abraham Laboriel
Hemerto Pascal
Art Tatum
Keith Jarrett
Louis Armstrong
Jaco Pastorius
Duke Ellington
Rick Rubin
Prince
Jeff Beck
Jack White
Bob Marley
Jimi Hendrix
The Beatles
Bobby McFerrin
Beardyman
and yes....whether you like his music or not, Hans Zimmer most definitely qualifies under the "freak of nature" qualification! 

and there are of course many, many more...

However, IMO I would not put someone on the genius list yet like Lady Gaga - who hasn't really accomplished enough yet to really apply that label....time will tell more perhaps. 

More importantly, I would also argue that however talented she might be within the context of her field, that she would fall more into the "Next Madonna" category, who was the originator of the popstar stuff that she's so good at....so that she's not as unique or "freak of nature" talents as the other people on my list.

With this Lady Gaga debate thrown into the mix, it does raise an interesting point (thanks Troels!) - which is that if you are not into a particular genre (for example as eclectic as my own tastes are, it's much harder for me to appreciate the talents of Madonna and Lady Gaga) - so that it may take a lot of time to pass to recognize someone's genius if are not a fan of their work. 

For example, since several decades have past, it's not hard for me to recognize now that Madonna was a genius as the popstar media manipulation aspect of her career....even though I'm really not a big fan of her music and her lack of singing talent removes most of the respect that I would give her as a musician.

Also, I don't think that being labeled a genius is really all that important. We sort of treat it like it's the ultimate stamp of approval of quality or worth, which it isn't really. It's not even being the best at something. I think of it more like a special demarkation of uniqueness that recognizes when a particular artist has something extra "freakishly special" about them.


----------



## spectrum (May 16, 2010)

Narval @ Sat May 15 said:


> True, what makes Beethoven a better musician than people like Diego Stocco is not Beethoven's capacity to "write well for the standard orchestra," but his capacity to write meaningful music that betters the people who listen to it, and that many superior people can relate to.


Whoa....ouch!

I'm telling Diego that you are whipping him with Beethoven in public! :shock: :lol: :roll:


----------



## spectrum (May 16, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 16 said:


> spectrum @ Sun May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy Bacos @ Sat May 15 said:
> ...


Yes. It's something I learned this year from the guy who replaced his parts.

As you can imagine, I was devastated.


----------



## jlb (May 16, 2010)

Still no mention of Brian Wilson. God Only Knows will be played in a 1000 years. Even Paul McCartney says it is the greatest ever. Don't talk put your head on my shoulder could have been written 200 years ago, by any of the big boys, Beethoven you name it. The warmth of the sun...stunning.

Eric by the way I think you have created an absolute classic with Omnisphere, for me it is the only synth I need

jlb


----------



## spectrum (May 16, 2010)

jlb @ Sun May 16 said:


> Still no mention of Brian Wilson. God Only Knows will be played in a 1000 years. Even Paul McCartney says it is the greatest ever. Don't talk put your head on my shoulder could have been written 200 years ago, by any of the big boys, Beethoven you name it. The warmth of the sun...stunning.


Agreed! He definitely qualifies in my book. 



> Eric by the way I think you have created an absolute classic with Omnisphere, for me it is the only synth I need


Thanks! 8)


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 16, 2010)

spectrum @ Sun May 16 said:


> So to be a musical genius, your music has to be complex? Mmmmm complexity doesn't define great music.
> 
> .



I wonder who said that? I certainly didn't.


----------



## spectrum (May 16, 2010)

But it's a criteria for musical genius according to your last post....right?



Guy Bacos @ Sun May 16 said:


> Hmm! I don't know about that, as much as I like Brian Wilson, I just can't put him at the same level as Shostakovitch. The complexity of Shostakovitch's craft is by far more complex.
> 
> I think some rules should of been established indeed.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 16, 2010)

Yep, but only one of the criteria.

Complexity, but well crafted, basically implies a lot of depth.


----------



## synergy543 (May 16, 2010)

So if Bach grew up in Country Music family playing twangy guitar guitar licks, he'd still be a genius or not?

Hmmmm.....haven't seen any country music geniuses nominated yet. Not sophistimacated enough?


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 16, 2010)

When I saw this thread I thought about Stevie Wonder, Brian Wilson and Antonio Carlos Jobim. They are today's geniouses because they have added original ideas to the common pool of idioms in the musical world. o=<


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 16, 2010)

Hans Adamson @ Sun May 16 said:


> When I saw this thread I thought about Stevie Wonder, Brian Wilson and Antonio Carlos Jobim. They are today's geniouses because they have added original ideas to the common pool of idioms in the musical world. o=<



But then you'd have to add hundreds of names to that list, I can certainly think of many others with those criteria, as much as I admire those 3.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 16, 2010)

synergy543 @ Sun May 16 said:


> So if Bach grew up in Country Music family playing twangy guitar guitar licks, he'd still be a genius or not?
> 
> Hmmmm.....haven't seen any country music geniuses nominated yet. Not sophistimacated enough?



If Bach or Beethoven were born in the middle of Africa, of course they wouldn't have become what they became.


----------



## synergy543 (May 16, 2010)

Well, it all boils down to semantics and pigeonholing categories. So, it depends upon the definition and category.

New Age genius or Soft Jazz genius?


----------



## synergy543 (May 16, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 16 said:


> synergy543 @ Sun May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > If Bach or Beethoven were born in the middle of Africa, of course they wouldn't have become what they became.


But if he were born in the Bronx, he might have been one cool rapper! Just imagine.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 16, 2010)

synergy543 @ Sun May 16 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sun May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > synergy543 @ Sun May 16 said:
> ...



MC Beethoven.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 16, 2010)

synergy543 @ Sun May 16 said:


> it all boils down to semantics and pigeonholing categories. So, it depends upon the definition and category.
> 
> New Age genius or Soft Jazz genius?



It boils down that the Montreal Canadian are loosing 5-0! 

Imagine Tiny Tim singing the National Anthem!


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 16, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 16 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Sun May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > When I saw this thread I thought about Stevie Wonder, Brian Wilson and Antonio Carlos Jobim. They are today's geniouses because they have added original ideas to the common pool of idioms in the musical world. o=<
> ...


If you require a criteria for "genious" to be complexity you would not just have hundreds qualifying, but thousands. (o) The genious does not lie in the complexity, and Shostakovitch couldn't be the last, or latest because he is dead and others have come after him. Unless you believe he was the last person worthy.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 16, 2010)

Hans Adamson @ Sun May 16 said:


> The genious does not lie in the complexity, and Shostakovitch couldn't be the last, or latest because he is dead and others have come after him. Unless you believe he was the last person worthy.



Once again, that's not what I said. What I'm saying is that it is one important factor among others. There is not a single composer of the past we have labeled as genius without their craft having some complexity to it. Their genius is to make it look simple. This is the case with all the greats, so I have to say that this is a fact not just a personal opinion. Complexity just refers to a high refinement of the craft, not complex for the sake of being complex.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 16, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 16 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Sun May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > The genious does not lie in the complexity, and Shostakovitch couldn't be the last, or latest because he is dead and others have come after him. Unless you believe he was the last person worthy.
> ...


Complexity can always hide lack of genious. The real lackmus test is to show genious in a smaller less complex format such as songwriting.


----------



## Narval (May 16, 2010)

- Who would you say was or is, the last musical genius?

- X, Y, ...

- You think so? Then you don't know what genius is. My genius is more genius that your genius.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 16, 2010)

Hans Adamson @ Sun May 16 said:


> Complexity can always hide lack of genious. The real lackmus test is to show genious in a smaller less complex format such as songwriting.



Yes, but a songwriter will always be limited to that one skill, but if we look at all the great composers, let's take Schubert for example, he could write 6 songs in a day, and the next day work on a string quartet, an opera, an impromptu etc and nearly every one of his pieces are masterpieces, I'm not sure you could say the same thing about a pop songwriter, not even Brian Wilson.

The other thing is that pop songs reaches us in one way only, even Carlos Jobin which I LOVE, will always reach you the same way. Composers like Gershwin will reach you in so many different ways, not just songs with "slow" or "moderate" tempo. You have to be able to appreciate the differences. Their music is so rich, and they do it with such ease, that is what I call genius.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 16, 2010)

Guy,

Maybe you need to limit your poll to an assortment of composers you think are qualified to be mentioned.


----------



## cc64 (May 16, 2010)

in no particular order

Ennio Morricone
JW
David Evans/Paul Hewson
Thomas Newman
Arvo Pärt
Peter Gabriel
Gilmour/Waters
Lennon/McCartney
Henry Mancini
Page/Plant


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 16, 2010)

Hans Adamson @ Mon May 17 said:


> Guy,
> 
> Maybe you need to limit your poll to an assortment of composers you think are qualified to be mentioned.



That may be a wise decision, the next time. Of course some will say, why isn't Lady Gaga part of the group?


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 16, 2010)

I see what you're saying. So maybe instead of a poll, you should just issue a statement which composer is the latest genious. 8)


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 16, 2010)

Hans Adamson @ Mon May 17 said:


> I see what you're saying. So maybe instead of a poll, you should just issue a statement which composer is the latest genious. 8)



You mean in my view?


----------



## spectrum (May 16, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 16 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Sun May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Complexity can always hide lack of genious. The real lackmus test is to show genious in a smaller less complex format such as songwriting.
> ...


A lot of the genius' on my list have comparable skillsets and accomplishments.

What Imogen Heap does on a Daily basis is even more impressive in some ways, because it involves so many different disciplines - and I cannot even think of anyone else that does the combination of things she does at the level she does them at....there's not even a close second really.

Plus she's not dead yet, so that's kind of nice too.  



> I'm not sure you could say the same thing about a pop songwriter, not even Brian Wilson.


You realize that what you are saying is that songwriters can't be geniuses - only composers can....which sounds more than a little snobby and silly.

Certainly Irving Berlin qualifies under your criteria and so does Lennon/McCartney and Carole King....and of course Brian Wilson!

If the requirement for genius status is that nearly every work is a masterpiece, then that rules out Bach and just about everyone else too.

Most of the people that have every work be a masterpiece have a much smaller output. 



> The other thing is that pop songs reaches us in one way only, even Carlos Jobin which I LOVE, will always reach you the same way.


C'mon...that argument is silly.

Plenty of genius are not versatile. In fact, some of them are genius because they spent their life's work perfecting one highly original direction.



> Composers like Gershwin will reach you in so many different ways, not just songs with "slow" or "moderate" tempo.



Do a random shuffle of the entire Beatles catalog and you're telling me that they are all the same basic "vibe"?

Or Miles Davis' work?

Or Peter Gabriel's amazing body of work?

huh?

Not even close.



> You have to be able to appreciate the differences. Their music is so rich, and they do it with such ease, that is what I call genius.


Exactly true of all the people on my list.

Let me ask you a couple questions Guy:

Whose music do you not personally like, but that you recognize the genius of the artist?

and

What living non-orchestral musician/composer do you consider a genius?


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 16, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 16 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Mon May 17 said:
> 
> 
> > I see what you're saying. So maybe instead of a poll, you should just issue a statement which composer is the latest genious. 8)
> ...


Someone's always goint to try and debate it - even if it's a fact. ~o)


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 16, 2010)

Spectrum,

Let me say for the record, I'm not just into orchestral music, or haven't always been into it, I was already in a rock band playing the bass, as a teenager. You also won't find a bigger Beatle fan than me and I'm the first one to take the defense of pop music when some snobby person will put it down. I spent 5 years just writing pop songs before getting into the midi stuff, I love just about any style of music except rap and most country music. I've experience all these styles of music, I've played them, so I feel I'm in a good position to make some comparisons. And the way I see it is, there is a difference between being "extremely talented" such as Carlos Jobin, and "true genius". That is my opinion. I know it's not how everybody feels.


----------



## re-peat (May 17, 2010)

JohnG @ Sun May 16 said:


> I agree here with Nick, that "diverging" can be exaggerated in importance. Or, put differently, that one could be judged a genius without breaking the mould.
> 
> I was taught that JS Bach, for example, was much more the epitome of a style that others had long established, by contrast with a tradition-breaker or iconclast. Because he was able to transcend the rules he inherited, to loft his works from the mundane level of others to the sublime, one could argue that he broke with tradition, I suppose, but not, I think in the sense that a revolutionary is usually mentioned.(...)



You don’t have to cause a revolution to qualify as a genius — Bach is a fine example (even though even he raised more than a few eyebrows in his day) ­­­­­—, but it often is the case because true geniuses, without exception, produce/leave a body of work that defies and transcends convention, analysis, description and convenient vulgarisation. A true genius is undeterrable in his/her commitment and passion, with or without disregard for every existing rule or axiom (whichever approach suits his/her objective best). And that’s a force that, more often than not, will cause something of a landslide in how the specific expression of creativity to which he or she is devoted — be it art, sports, science, comedy, business or whatever —, will be experienced, practiced and perceived. A true genius nearly always redefines the way his/her chosen field of creativity is being looked at. 

Another thing you’ll often see with true genius (in my opinion anyway) is that, over time, their work often takes on something of an iconic stature because, once recognized for what it really is, it breaks out of the ‘frame of perception’ that it was originally defined by: some of Picasso’s work, for example, is no longer mere art, it has transcended 'being art' to become a powerful and meaningful (‘full of meaning’) image, a universal symbol even for the power and beauty (or ugliness) of the human mind.
The same thing has happened with some of Bach's and Beethoven's music: it stopped just 'being great music' and has become something which we now embrace as defining humankind and its powers of creativity. And that can only happen with a work of genius. (There's a good reason why people from all over the world, from every continent, race, religion or inclination devote their entire professional life to the music of Bach: genius. Not something we'll see happening anytime soon with the songs of Lady Gaga or the music of James Newton Howard, despite its many fine qualities.)

As for craft: it is vital, yes. Of course it is. But it’s invariably the moderately talented who always go on about the importance of craft and deplore its degradation. Which is understandable of course, because craft is all they have, it’s what they cling to in the absence of anything more substantial or profound. You won’t find a genius that isn’t in full command of the craft required to express what he/she needs to express. People however, operating on that stratospheric level of indescribable excellence, neveròÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒN	ÆR   ÒN
ÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒN ÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒNÆR   ÒNÆS   ÒNÆS   ÒNÆS   ÒNÆS   ÒNÆT   ÒNÆT   ÒNÆT   ÒNÆT   ÒNÆT   ÒNÆT   ÒNÆT   ÒN ÆT   ÒN!ÆT   ÒN"ÆT   ÒN#ÆT   ÒN$ÆT   ÒN%ÆT   ÒN&ÆT   ÒN'ÆT   ÒN(ÆT   ÒN)ÆT   ÒN*ÆT   ÒN+ÆT   ÒN,ÆT   ÒN-ÆT   ÒN.ÆT   ÒN/ÆT   ÒN0ÆT   ÒN1ÆT   ÒN2ÆT   ÒN3ÆT   ÒN4ÆT   ÒN5ÆT   ÒN6ÆT   ÒN7ÆT   ÒN8ÆT   ÒN9ÆT   ÒN:ÆT   ÒN;ÆT   ÒN<ÆT   ÒN=ÆT   ÒN>ÆT   ÒN?ÆT   Ò[email protected]ÆT   ÒNAÆT   ÒNBÆT   ÒNCÆT   ÒNDÆT   ÒNEÆT   ÒNFÆT   ÒNGÆT   ÒNHÆT   ÒNIÆT   ÒNJÆT   ÒNKÆT   ÒNLÆT   ÒNMÆT   ÒNNÆT   ÒNOÆT   ÒNPÆT   ÒNQÆT   ÒNRÆT   ÒNSÆT   ÒNTÆT   ÒNUÆT   ÒNVÆT   ÒNWÆT   ÒNXÆT   ÒNYÆT   ÒNZÆT   ÒN[ÆT   ÒN\ÆT   ÒN]ÆT   ÒN^ÆT   ÒN_ÆT   ÒN`ÆT   ÒNaÆT   ÒNbÆT   ÒNcÆT   ÒNdÆT   ÒNeÆT   ÒNfÆT   ÒNgÆT   ÒNhÆT   ÒNiÆT   ÒNjÆT   ÒNkÆT   ÒNlÆT   ÒNmÆT   ÒNnÆT   ÒNoÆT   ÒNpÆT   ÒNqÆT   ÒNr              òÆT   ÒNtÆT   ÒNuÆT   ÒNvÆT   ÒNwÆT   ÒNxÆT   ÒNyÆT   ÒNzÆT   ÒN{ÆT   ÒN|ÆT   ÒN}ÆT   ÒN~ÆT   ÒNÆT   ÒN€ÆT   ÒNÆT   ÒN‚ÆT   ÒNƒÆT   ÒN„ÆT   ÒN…ÆT   ÒN†ÆT   ÒN‡ÆT   ÒNˆÆT   ÒN‰ÆT   ÒNŠÆT   ÒN‹ÆT   ÒNŒÆT   ÒNÆT   ÒNŽÆT   ÒNÆT   ÒNÆT   ÒN‘ÆT   ÒN’ÆT   ÒN“ÆT   ÒN”ÆT   ÒN•ÆT   ÒN–ÆT   ÒN—ÆT   ÒN˜ÆT   ÒN™ÆT   ÒNšÆT   ÒN›ÆT   ÒNœÆT   ÒNÆT   ÒNžÆT   ÒNŸÆT   ÒN ÆT   ÒN¡ÆT   ÒN¢ÆT   ÒN£ÆU   ÒN¤ÆU   ÒN¥ÆU   ÒN¦ÆU   ÒN§ÆU   ÒN¨ÆU   ÒN©ÆV   ÒNªÆV   ÒN«ÆV   ÒN¬ÆV   ÒN­ÆV   ÒN®ÆV   ÒN¯ÆV   ÒN°ÆV   ÒN±ÆV   ÒN²ÆV   ÒN³ÆV   ÒN´ÆV   ÒNµÆV   ÒN¶ÆV   ÒN·ÆV   ÒN¸ÆV   ÒN¹ÆV   ÒNºÆV   ÒN»ÆV   ÒN¼ÆV   ÒN½ÆV   ÒN¾ÆV   ÒN¿ÆV   ÒNÀÆV   ÒNÁÆV   ÒNÂÆV   ÒNÃÆV   ÒNÄÆV   ÒNÅÆV   ÒNÆÆV   ÒNÇÆV   ÒNÈÆV   ÒNÉÆV   ÒNÊÆV   ÒNËÆV   ÒNÌÆV   ÒNÍÆV   ÒNÎÆV   ÒNÏÆV   ÒNÐÆV   ÒNÑÆV   ÒNÒÆV   ÒNÓÆV   ÒNÔÆV   ÒNÕÆV   ÒNÖÆV   ÒN×ÆV   ÒNØÆV   ÒNÙÆV   ÒNÚÆV   ÒNÛÆV   ÒNÜÆV   ÒNÝÆV   ÒNÞÆV   ÒNßÆW   ÒNàÆW   ÒNáÆW   ÒNâÆW   ÒNã              òÆW   ÒNåÆW   ÒNæÆW   ÒNçÆW   ÒNèÆW   ÒNéÆW   ÒNêÆW   ÒNëÆW   ÒNìÆW   ÒNíÆW   ÒNîÆW   ÒNïÆW   ÒNðÆW   ÒNñÆW   ÒNòÆW   ÒNóÆW   ÒNôÆW   ÒNõÆW   ÒNöÆW   ÒN÷ÆW   ÒNøÆW   ÒNùÆX   ÒNúÆX   ÒN


----------



## lux (May 17, 2010)

very good points all.

i only have a different view about 



> The same thing has happened with some of Bach's and Beethoven's music: it stopped just 'being great music' and has become something which we now embrace as defining humankind and its powers of creativity. And that can only happen with a work of genius.



which i perceive is, by rule, heavily conditioned by a plethora of non-artistic and masses-aggregating factors which nothing share with the peculiar matter, was it music or any form of expression. It also looks well signed by "authoritative" opinions during history, critique and such.


----------



## jlb (May 17, 2010)

I also just wanted to point out that Brian Wilson can only hear properly out of one ear. Anyone who is disputing his genius, go and listen to some of the records, they still sound fresh to me

jlb


----------



## re-peat (May 17, 2010)

*Jlb,*

I must have almost every Brian Wilson recording in existence and I love much of it to pieces — my personal favorites being the heavenly tryptich _'A Day In the Life Of A Tree'_, _'Till I Die' _and _'Surf's Up'_ on side 2 of the 1971 'Surf' Up' album — but calling him a genius? Mmmm, ... no, I don't think so. Sorry. Like Stevie Wonder, he enjoyed a few amazing 'state of grace' years (in Wilson's case: the late sixties, early seventies) during which much of his output was indeed phenomenally good and he is most definitely a 'freak-of-nature' talent, but that's still some way short from earning him the genius epithet (in the sense that I call Beethoven a genius, that is) in my opinion.

*Luca,*

Allow me to disagree. It's plausible to assume that certain extra-musical, non-artistic factors (academic snobbery, to name just one) might have contributed to the unique stature of Bach and Beethoven, but there's got to be something much more powerful and profound at work when you simply observe how people from all over the world, from all ages, from one generation to the next and coming from totally different cultures, have continuously embraced the music of these composers. That's not something that can be conditioned or fabricated, no matter how authorative the fabricating forces, that's sheer human genius. The kind of art that comes from, and subsequently speaks to, the very core of the human identity.

_


----------



## jlb (May 17, 2010)

Luca,
Well please allow me to totally disagree with you. A few others as well:

If there is one person that I have to select as a living genius of pop music, I would choose Brian Wilson. Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened... Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds. 
*Paul McCartney*


I consider Pet Sounds to be one of the greatest pop LPs to ever be released. It encompasses everthing that's ever knocked me out and rolled it all into one. Brian Wilson is, without a doubt, a pop genius. 
*Eric Clapton *


Pet Sounds is an unbelievable record. It's like classical music. Wonderful compositions, beautiful singing. I think the compositions stand up to any kind of interpretation. I've heard "Put Your Head On My Shoulder" played on the cello and it sounds like a piece music that's been with us for hundreds and hundreds of years. It sounds like it's always been there. And I think maybe in a hundred years' time people will be playing their songs on the piano trying to work out where they came from. 
*Elvis Costello *

Best Wishes

jlb


----------



## lux (May 17, 2010)

re-peat @ Mon May 17 said:


> *Luca,*
> 
> Allow me to disagree. It's not unreasonbable to assume that certain extra-musical, non-artistic factors (academic snobbery, to name just one) might have contributed to the unique stature of Bach and Beethoven, but there's got to be something much more powerful and profound at work when you simply observe how people from all over the world, from all ages, from one generation to the next and coming from totally different cultures, have continuously embraced the music of these composers. That's not something that can be conditioned or fabricated, no matter how authorative the fabricating forces, that's sheer human genius. The kind of art that comes from, and subsequently speaks to, the very core of the human identity.
> 
> _



i see your point. still:

Well, academic snobbery wasnt exactly what i had in mind (even if it is one factor). I'm more inclined to point at how some composers (Bach and Beethoven being two great examples) really had their works spreaded all over into school programs (from childood to college) and conservatories, just two name a few. It pertains also to the huge number of public representations (which are, of course, a choice of a few persons and, when coming from public money, of public administrators.

Of course this hasnt to do with recognizement of value, which is not debatable by any individual, me included. I feel can tell expecially because i cant seem to appreciate Bach's repertory even with my strongest efforts.

But the global-social value of a composer isnt in my opinion the exact mirror of his/her greatness by comparison with other composers whose works never reached to keep staying under light spots for so many years.

So Bach and Beethoven geniuses? of course yes, expecially considering the historical age of the first's works and how they crossed such a large portion of modern era. Most important emblemas of the human capacity? I'm not sure.

Luca


----------



## lux (May 17, 2010)

jlb @ Mon May 17 said:


> Luca,
> Well please allow me to totally disagree with you.



well, his name is Piet. Luca is me


----------



## jlb (May 17, 2010)

Sorry Luca! 

Piet, I'm glad you like the music of Brian Wilson. I have studied all the great composers when I did a music degree and I can tell you that some of that stuff is the work of a genius. We can argue about it all day but I am telling you, you can put that stuff up against any composer that you can mention.

jlb


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 17, 2010)

It will take a lot more than die hard fans of Brian Wilson to award him the status of 'genius'. One is seeing as genius when he is singled out among composers of his genre. Is Brian Wilson singled out? Is he an example given in the study of music in universities? Is he at least appreciated by all circles of music and not just from the pop world of music? When I go to a music store I see all over the place, "the Genius of Bill Evans", "the Genius of Art Tatum", "the Genius of Thelonius Monk", the Genius of Lady Gaga". One could argue this is for commercial reasons, never-the-less. I mean if we start throwing that word to all composers that did great things, the word looses all meaning. It has to be for a very selective group of people who emerges among the best of the best. I'm not convinced if I'd asked to post the top 10 Brian Wilson's music, I'd change my mind. If Brian Wilson is a genius, then you have to nominate 1000 other fantastic pop artists as well, in all fairness. Does this make sense?


----------



## Narval (May 17, 2010)

[quote:5fa3261f60="jlb @ Mon May 17, 2010 5:18 am"]I have studied all the great composers when I did a music degree and I can tell you that some of that stuff is the woòÆ‡   ÒVfÆ‡   ÒVgÆ‡   ÒVhÆ‡   ÒViÆ‡   ÒVjÆ‡   ÒVkÆ‡   ÒVlÆ‡   ÒVmÆ‡   ÒVnÆ‡   ÒVoÆ‡   ÒVpÆ‡   ÒVqÆ‡   ÒVrÆ‡   ÒVsÆ‡   ÒVtÆ‡   ÒVuÆ‡   ÒVvÆ‡   ÒVwÆ‡   ÒVxÆ‡   ÒVyÆ‡   ÒVzÆ‡   ÒV{Æ‡   ÒV|Æ‡   ÒV}Æ‡   ÒV~Æ‡   ÒVÆ‡   ÒV€Æ‡   ÒVÆ‡   ÒV‚Æ‡   ÒVƒÆ‡


----------



## jlb (May 17, 2010)

Narval, I think you are on the wrong forum. I thought the idea of the site was musicians helping musicians? Or is it musicians arguing about who is a genius? I'm not going to say anymore about Brian Wilson, the music speaks for itself. 

Interesting comparison of Dr Dre with Brian Wilson Narval. You are clearly an idiot of the highest order, a total buffoon. You are making a fool of yourself here, not the first place I have seen you do this on this forum. I didn't say I know more, or have studied more than anyone. I don't have any time for stupid unhelpful comments.

jlb


----------



## Ashermusic (May 17, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon May 17 said:


> It will take a lot more than die hard fans of Brian Wilson to award him the status of 'genius'. One is seeing as genius when he is singled out among composers of his genre. Is Brian Wilson singled out? Is he an example given in the study of music in universities? Is he at least appreciated by all circles of music and not just from the pop world of music? When I go to a music store I see all over the place, "the Genius of Bill Evans", "the Genius of Art Tatum", "the Genius of Thelonius Monk", the Genius of Lady Gaga". One could argue this is for commercial reasons, never-the-less. I mean if we start throwing that word to all composers that did great things, the word looses all meaning. It has to be for a very selective group of people who emerges among the best of the best. I'm not convinced if I'd asked to post the top 10 Brian Wilson's music, I'd change my mind. If Brian Wilson is a genius, then you have to nominate 1000 other fantastic pop artists as well, in all fairness. Does this make sense?



This is an old argument and goes to the very nature of "genius" and "art." By definition, can any pop art rival concert hall/museum art for the title of genius, since generally the latter is so much more complicated and requires more training? Some argue yes, some no. Personally, I ma ambivalent.

For me, genius can be selective. Brian Wilson is a genius at songwriting and arranging records. Is that the same level of genius as Charles Ives? Probably not. Is Mozart's genius the same level as Einstein's? Probably not.

We are comparing apples and oranges, which leads to unfair comparisons. For instance if pressed, I would consider Paul Simon more of a genius than Shostakovich, but it is not a fair comparison since they are doing such different things.

Where you are dead wrong, Guy, is your statement "If Brian Wilson is a genius, then you have to nominate 1000 other fantastic pop artists as well, in all fairness." In the world of pop music since the rock era, there have probably been less than 200 people who have created a body of work that is critically and popularly perceived as genius over its lifespan. Brian is one of a very elite group.


----------



## jlb (May 17, 2010)

I agree with you Jay 100% :D A very select group of songwriters indeed.

Perhaps we will all have to agree to disagree 

jlb


----------



## jlb (May 17, 2010)

Guy I love your work and respect your opinion, but I don't think this thread is musicians helping musicians. I would draw it to a close if possible. 

You will never convince me, or Jay, or Eric P, or any of the others, or Paul McCartney that Brian W is not a genius. I think it has been quite an interesting thread though. Thanks :D 

jlb


----------



## dcoscina (May 17, 2010)

I find the word "genius" is one of the most abused words in our times...


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 17, 2010)

Jay,

Earlier I have mentioned reasons why we probably will never see a musical genius again. I really don't think you can ignore that fact, so I will remind you again. Music is all about your ability to work with sounds and communicate this to the people, right? For this, one needs an excellent ear, the better it is, the more you will excel. I think so far, you can agree with this, it is not difficult to see this is the case with all great musicians, classical or pop. There are some differences with the time we live in now, about the last 75 years, and before that. Imagine yourself growing up in an environment where you cannot listen to a single CD, radio, TV, computer etc...It is very hard to conceive this since it is impossible to be in that position anymore, and our brain has gotten use to this laziness that it can rely on technology. Just thinking about this is quite disturbing, but in those days, that's how they grew up, they probably absorbed what they heard 100 times more then we do today, and this would constitute a huge part in the ability to manipulate notes, the musical computer was integrated in their brains, not on your desk with sequencers, CD players, radio or even vinyl records. Now add to that, without all the inventions born from electricity, such as TV which also one of the biggest way to get your brains to fall asleep, and let's not forget the huge industry of kids video games, instead they USED their brains in an active way. We know that nearly everything takes place before the age of 8, and when you have a large popuation living in these conditions, you could expect a few will emerge and become Bach, Beethoven or Mozart. I hope you are not denying this fact Jay. You know as well as I do that Bach's music is mind boggling, when you think he never even did drafts, and they are all masterpieces. Could anybody do something comparable today? Are you saying that what Brian Wilson has done is comparable? I know you're insisting it's in a different capacity, I know, I know, but that doesn't change anything in my mind, cause for me it's totally unrelated to the argument. Well, that's my take.


----------



## JohnG (May 17, 2010)

I find Guy's comparison of the way people are brought up disturbing, not because I disagree with him, but because of how accurate his description is.

Many parents, even very wealthy ones, simply throw up their hands and accept that their boys will spend hours EVERY DAY playing video games, never learning to play an instrument, which would take a half hour. It saddens me.

In some ways the Internet era is great -- we all benefit from free access to so much information -- but coupled with television, we are also offered yet another way to "browse" away our lives and remain constantly entertained. I doubt that I'm alone in saying it's rare to speak with someone who, if not driving, isn't checking a PDA or watching a computer screen or even typing while we are talking. Some people will consult a blackberry even when you are standing right in front of them. 

And since I am bewildered by his music's popularity, I will avoid taking sides about Brian Wilson. I feel sorry for him having spent so many years in misery.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 17, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon May 17 said:


> Jay,
> 
> Earlier I have mentioned reasons why we probably will never see a musical genius again. I really don't think you can ignore that fact, so I will remind you again. Music is all about your ability to work with sounds and communicate this to the people, right? For this, one needs an excellent ear, the better it is, the more you will excel. I think so far, you can agree with this, it is not difficult to see this is the case with all great musicians, classical or pop. There are some differences with the time we live in now, about the last 75 years, and before that. Imagine yourself growing up in an environment where you cannot listen to a single CD, radio, TV, computer etc...It is very hard to conceive this since it is impossible to be in that position anymore, and our brain has gotten use to this laziness that it can rely on technology. Just thinking about this is quite disturbing, but in those days, that's how they grew up, they probably absorbed what they heard 100 times more then we do today, and this would constitute a huge part in the ability to manipulate notes, the musical computer was integrated in their brains, not on your desk with sequencers, CD players, radio or even vinyl records. Now add to that, without all the inventions born from electricity, such as TV which also one of the biggest way to get your brains to fall asleep, and let's not forget the huge industry of kids video games, instead they USED their brains in an active way. We know that nearly everything takes place before the age of 8, and when you have a large popuation living in these conditions, you could expect a few will emerge and become Bach, Beethoven or Mozart. I hope you are not denying this fact Jay. You know as well as I do that Bach's music is mind boggling, when you think he never even did drafts, and they are all masterpieces. Could anybody do something comparable today? Are you saying that what Brian Wilson has done is comparable? I know you're insisting it's in a different capacity, I know, I know, but that doesn't change anything in my mind, cause for me it's totally unrelated to the argument. Well, that's my take.



I understand where you are coming from on this Guy. Back when I was studying composition at Boston Conservatory with the late Avram David, a student of Stockhausen, he used to make the same arguments to me.

I was obsessed with Burt Bacharach's songwriting and thought it was genius. ( I still do.) Although I loved all the music I was studying, my heart was with commercial music. He said to me something like, "Is it possible that Hal David's lyrics are moving you as much as the music? Is it possible that he is not a genius, but a well-0trained crafty hack? Is it possible that you are experiencing this emotionally on a rather superficial level?"

H was not. He did things in songs that no one else did IMHO. Avram's response was to sigh and say that if I was determined to enter that arena, we needed to work hard to make damn sure that I had the requisite skills to compete with a guy like Burt.

I worked hard. I became in my estimation a crafty composer but I did not become what Burt or a Jerry Goldsmith is because they possessed a genius beyond the not inconsiderable talents I am blessed with. 

I think you are confusing the term "genius" with intellectual genius. That is only one form of genius. Is Brain WIlson intellectually a genius on the level of Bach? No. Is he emotionally? Probably yes.


Now is that the same level of art as what Luciano Berio or Bach did? Probably not. But within the world of creativity it exists, it is still genius. Is what Brian achieved "comparable?" No because you cannot define the term "genius" abstractly from the arena in life it exists with.

You mention Gershiwn. He was a genius at songwriting and piano playing. He was NOT a genius at classical composition on the level of a Bach and would have recoiled in horror had you suggested to him that he was. When he studied with Nadia Boulanger for a while, she recognized his uniqueness and instead of trying to turn him into the next great classical composer sent him away telling him he knew all that she could teach him to do to be the best Gershwin he could be. (Darius Milhaud btw did the same with Bacharach.)


----------



## Narval (May 17, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon May 17 said:


> It was proven that cows produce more milk while listening to Mozart.


It's a matter of good manners and mutual affinity, it is well known that when given milk little Wolferl performed better.

Yes, very good point, the cows' refined taste is largely underrated, especially by vegetarians. Pretty amazing animal (hence the expression holy cow). In Russia they feed them rye and then play them Mussorgsky, gives some good vodka.

I also heard that pigs grow fatter when you read them from Spinoza. The power of genius is compelling.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 17, 2010)

Bad day, huh Narval?


----------



## Narval (May 17, 2010)

Au contraire, mon chum. Lighten up Guy Bacos!


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 17, 2010)

Narval @ Mon May 17 said:


> Au contraire, mon chum. Lighten up Guy Bacos!



Sorry, I was getting use to your obnoxious comments. I guess you caught me off guard this time.


----------



## Narval (May 17, 2010)

obnoxious, shmobnoxious


----------



## spectrum (May 17, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon May 17 said:


> It will take a lot more than die hard fans of Brian Wilson to award him the status of 'genius'. One is seeing as genius when he is singled out among composers of his genre. Is Brian Wilson singled out? Is he an example given in the study of music in universities? Is he at least appreciated by all circles of music and not just from the pop world of music? When I go to a music store I see all over the place, "the Genius of Bill Evans", "the Genius of Art Tatum", "the Genius of Thelonius Monk", the Genius of Lady Gaga". One could argue this is for commercial reasons, never-the-less. I mean if we start throwing that word to all composers that did great things, the word looses all meaning. It has to be for a very selective group of people who emerges among the best of the best. I'm not convinced if I'd asked to post the top 10 Brian Wilson's music, I'd change my mind. If Brian Wilson is a genius, then you have to nominate 1000 other fantastic pop artists as well, in all fairness. Does this make sense?


But there are literally billions of music creators that have lived on the planet since the dawn of music.

What I think is WAY too limited is restricting the list of geniuses of ALL those music creators to 10 composers.

Guy, I get the sense that you think there are no rock or pop geniuses?

What's the starting point here? No Pop music at all?

The Beatles meet pretty well all of re-peat's criteria, which I think are really solid.

It's a high standard indeed to hold the genius status to a "generationally transformative" one....but at least it's a start.


----------



## midphase (May 17, 2010)

Was John Cage a genius? I think so, yet he defies all standard definitions of genius.

I'm with Eric, this discussion is way too broad and the related thread way too divisive to lead to any useful conclusions other than "I'm right and you're wrong" type of stuff.


----------



## spectrum (May 17, 2010)

re-peat @ Mon May 17 said:


> You don’t have to cause a revolution to qualify as a genius, but it often is the case because true geniuses, without exception, produce/leave a body of work that defies and transcends convention, analysis, description and convenient vulgarisation. A true genius is undeterrable in his/her commitment and passion, with or without disregard for every existing rule or axiom (whichever approach suits his/her objective best). And that’s a force that, more often than not, will cause something of a landslide in how the specific expression of creativity to which he or she is devoted will be experienced, practiced and perceived. A true genius nearly always redefines the way his/her chosen field of creativity is being looked at.
> 
> Another thing you’ll often see with true genius (in my opinion anyway) is that, over time, their work often takes on something of an iconic stature because, once recognized for what it really is, it breaks out of the ‘frame of perception’ that it was originally defined by.
> 
> ...


I'm finding it very hard to refute or disagree with what you've said, even though that would require narrowing my broader list from the genius rank to simply "freakishly talented". 

Your observations, questions and arguments are really excellent and broad-ranging...very thought-provoking, thanks! 8)


----------



## midphase (May 18, 2010)

I do think that the word "genius" tends to be thrown around quite loosely nowadays.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 18, 2010)

re-peat @ Mon May 17 said:


> JohnG @ Sun May 16 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree here with Nick, that "diverging" can be exaggerated in importance. Or, put differently, that one could be judged a genius without breaking the mould.
> ...



This is a remarkable post, re-peat. IMHO you really have come as close as anyone to defining genius.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 18, 2010)

midphase @ Tue May 18 said:


> W this discussion is way too broad and the related thread way too divisive to lead to any useful conclusions other than "I'm right and you're wrong" type of stuff.



Still, it created interesting exchanges, with opposite views. 

I'd like to know midphase, what's your definition of genius?  But on the other thread.

http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16511


----------



## Mike Connelly (May 18, 2010)

Gershwin, Copland, and Bernstein. I'm surprised the only mention of LB is one dismissing him, I'd argue that while he's inconsistent, he created some of the greatest music of the late 20th century and did an amazing job of crossing the line between the artistic side and the more popular side. As well as elements of "modern" combined with more traditional elements.

Some great definitions of the term, although I disagree that popularity need be a criteria. Plenty of works of genius were dismissed at the time and only respected years later.

It's funny to see The Beatles listed as a genius, I totally agree that they were a collective genius but I probably wouldn't consider any of them a genius individually. I can see why Wilson and the Beach Boys are so well respected, but to me they don't even come close to the Beatles. Definitely Stevie Wonder, although he went pretty cheeseball after his brilliant early 70s stuff.

For country, the best I can come up with is Ricky Skaggs, for the playing and the songwriting.

It's hard to have perspective on really recent stuff, the one possibility that comes to mind is maybe Beck.

I'll have to check out some Lady Gaga, haven't heard much of it yet.


----------



## Ed (May 18, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Tue May 18 said:


> It's funny to see The Beatles listed as a genius, I totally agree that they were a collective genius but I probably wouldn't consider any of them a genius individually.



You mean like Captain Planet? 



> I'll have to check out some Lady Gaga, haven't heard much of it yet.



This is the only thing you need to listen to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qST5eVLudrQ


----------



## Narval (May 18, 2010)

Ed @ Tue May 18 said:


> You mean like Captain Planet?


I think what he meant looks more like this


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 18, 2010)

> is ‘genius’ always a lifelong blessing



I don't know, but there are a lot of fields - and not just athletics - in which most people do their major work when they're young. Physics is one.


----------



## midphase (May 18, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Tue May 18 said:


> midphase @ Tue May 18 said:
> 
> 
> > W this discussion is way too broad and the related thread way too divisive to lead to any useful conclusions other than "I'm right and you're wrong" type of stuff.
> ...



And I'd like to talk this over a nice glass of cold brew and some homemade chocolate!

Any upcoming trips to L.A.?


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 18, 2010)

midphase @ Tue May 18 said:


> I'd like to talk this over a nice glass of cold brew and some homemade chocolate!
> 
> Any upcoming trips to L.A.?



Haha! Funny you should mention this, just today got comments on FB about this. See Gayle's comments under 'The Englishman's Pursuit'

http://www.facebook.com/guy.bacos?ref=name


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (May 18, 2010)

Son House.

No Son House = no Muddy Waters or Robert Johnson

No MW and RJ = no blues, rock and roll


Also Osbourne Ruddock tied with Lee Scratch Perry, fathers of Dub, which strongly influenced/helped inspire all kinds of dance music like disco, techno, house, ambient, drum and bass... even punk!

Eric Persing. No Eric no ________________ (fill in the blanks with any of at least 10,000 film and tv composers who rely on the fruits of his programming/sampling work every day).


----------



## NYC Composer (May 19, 2010)

re-peat @ Mon May 17 said:


> *Jlb,*
> 
> I must have almost every Brian Wilson recording in existence and I love much of it to pieces — my personal favorites being the heavenly tryptich _'A Day In the Life Of A Tree'_, _'Till I Die' _and _'Surf's Up'_ on side 2 of the 1971 'Surf' Up' album — but calling him a genius? Mmmm, ... no, I don't think so. Sorry. Like Stevie Wonder, he enjoyed a few amazing 'state of grace' years (in Wilson's case: the late sixties, early seventies) during which much of his output was indeed phenomenally good and he is most definitely a 'freak-of-nature' talent, but that's still some way short from earning him the genius epithet (in the sense that I call Beethoven a genius, that is) in my opinion.
> 
> ...



Piet-

For all of our disagreements about modes of expression, I find it interesting that we are both hooked on that 'Surf's Up' triptych-especially the 'Surf's Up' part. 'The laughs come hard in Auld.. Lang... Syne...'

There are moments of surpassing beauty there...'I heard the word...wonderful thing..a children's song...'...all coming before the last killer round/hook. It still gives me chills.

Odd but lovely lyrics by Van Dyke Parks. Thanks heavens for marijuana.

As to genius, well. One man's delightful caviar is another man's rancid smelling fish eggs. I'm often surprised more artists and craftsmen aren't killed over wine and arguments about the nature of art and genius.


----------



## re-peat (May 19, 2010)

Larry,

"Surf's Up" is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful things ever recorded on tape. And those moments in the song that you mention are the exact same ones that make me nearly faint with utter bliss everytime I listen to them. Really very, very special.

_


----------



## jlb (May 19, 2010)

I agree, I think a few things he did are some of the most amazing things ever recorded, that is why I maintain he is a genius. I rest my case :D 

jlb


----------



## Narval (May 19, 2010)

Arguing against an artist's genius is a lost cause. So is trying to demonstrate an artist's genius (especially to someone who doesn't like his or her music). That is, not because genius is a matter of feeling, taste, or popularity, but because most people act as if it is that way.

But does genius really depend on agreeing and disagreeing? Is a genius appointed by some consensus? By voting? Is this a democracy? I always thought genius to be aristocracy. The most superior one. It would be kind of petty for a genius to depend on people's vote, wouldn't it? Is [insert artist name] a genius because some people call him genius, or do some people call him genius because he is a genius? Denying Bach the status of genius only says imo something about the denier, nothing about the genius of Bach. Genius is a matter of fact. (of course, feel free to replace the name Bach with the name of your genius)

Genius transcends (or so it should, otherwise it would deny its own nature) such trivial things like agreements, disagreements, taste, feeling, popularity, etc. Genius is supposed to be the superlative of what a person can achieve in a certain creative field. Genius is supposed to unite people under certain values and not to di-vide them, but to pro-vide for them. Thank goodness for all these creative artists! They all deserve to be appreciated and to be called geniuses.

"Talent is what you possess; genius is what possesses you." - Malcolm Cowley

Genius is an _angel_, visiting some people more often than others.


----------



## snowleopard (May 22, 2010)

I'm with Narval. There's way too much "taste" involved in such a thing, especially without proper context, as Troels said a few pages ago. 

In my lifetime the musicians who were most emotional, gifted, and changed music the most in my opinion, and I mean music, not musical _performance_ artists, would maybe be: 

Lennon/McCartney

Bernard Herrmann

Vangelis 

Gyorgi Ligeti

Steve Reich

But so many other names could be put in here as well. Probably everyone on that's been listed here is worth consideration.


----------



## David Story (May 22, 2010)

I like the term "great": art that becomes timeless and universal. Not the polite adjective use of great, something more substantial.

John Williams is likely to be played long after we are gone, all over the world.
Perhaps Reich, the Beatles or Goldsmith- all longshots.

But the artist that speaks to new generations may be obscure to us. We may see only the genius composers and performers who are popular today, that we remember fondly.

To me, a great composer has many works that are frequently heard and imitated worldwide for centuries.

We all learn from genius, but some geniuses reach the core values of life in a timeless language. We'll never know who those people are for sure, in our own time and place.

But the "next Stravinsky" is alive today.


----------



## jlb (May 23, 2010)

Everyone on the post keeps mentioning the Beatles. The Beatles thought Wilson was a genius and so did George Martin. Not to mention Elton John, Billy Joel etc some of the greatest songwriters of the last 50 years. That is good enough for me.

"If there is one person that I have to select as a living genius of pop music, I would choose Brian Wilson. Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened... Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds."

George Martin

jlb

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I wouldn't put Wilson in the same bracket as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, but genius yes.


----------

