# What does the word 'GENIUS' mean to you in the musical context?



## Hans Adamson (May 17, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon May 17 said:


> I'm sure not everybody will give the word 'genius' the same meaning, but I'd be interested in hearing YOUR criteria before naming composers. Following that name composers that meet these criteria.


Guy, I think I already did that in the other thread: 
Someone whose influence you hear everyday in the music of others. Someone who contributed to the common pool of musical idiom. This is something very rare.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 17, 2010)

I use my dictionary's definition, which is not specific to music: "Exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability."

Einstein had "Exceptional intellectual power." Bach had both "Exceptional intellectual and creative power." Brian Wilson has "Exceptional creative power and other natural ability."


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 17, 2010)

In my mind, one key aspect is a high level of intellect channeled into the creative mind merged with all the musical background one needs.
I once read, reading about IQs, if we were able to give an IQ equivalent to artists, Beethoven was measured at 220! No proof of that, but interesting.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 17, 2010)

Hearing entire orchestral symphonies in your head without anyone playing any instruments for you, and then writing each instrument/section to paper by hand without the need for corrections.

_That _to me is genius. 

Think: Mozart.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 17, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon May 17 said:


> In my mind, one key aspect is a high level of intellect channeled into the creative mind merged with all the musical background one needs.
> I once read, reading about IQs, if we were able to give an IQ equivalent to artists, Beethoven was measured at 220! No proof of that, but interesting.



Your definition is way too narrow as IQ is only one component of one kind of genius. 

Larry Bird was a basketball genius with a high basketball IQ. I doubt he could read and understand Saul Bellow. For that matter, there is a pianist in LA who is a genius piano player, having not only great chops but a great ear, and exceptionally inventive musical mind. He can talk intelligently on only 2 subjects: music and sports. If you didn't know what a great player he was you would think he was an idiot.

BTW, I once worked for a producer who after we had conversed for a while told me I was "remarkably articulate and intelligent, for a composer."

I responded that it was nice to finally meet a producer who did not eat with his feet.


----------



## JohnG (May 17, 2010)

and, since he went deaf, Beethoven. And I would guess Bach, though I don't remember ever hearing that exactly.

Probably lots of the olden days guys could write away from an instrument, though whether they produced any masterpieces or not is another question. Mozart, Bach and Beethoven certainly did. 

One of the digs at Salieri in the bizarre film "Amadeus" is a scene at which he writes -- AT THE KEYBOARD!!

Now; where is that Hollywood Strings...


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 17, 2010)

This reminds me of a discussion we had over at Northernsounds long ago about what was the true meaning of the word "jazz". In the end I think the conclusion was that real jazz had to be performed in a dark smoky club by sweaty people. Now that's jazz! OK back to "genious". 8)


----------



## JohnG (May 17, 2010)

I like Dess' list -- very thoughtful and provocative.

Quoting my own, less expansive list:

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 (in other words, transcending the limitations of audience expectations)


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 17, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon May 17 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Mon May 17 said:
> 
> 
> > In my mind, one key aspect is a high level of intellect channeled into the creative mind merged with all the musical background one needs.
> ...



Jay, I don't mean to be insulting but you should be more careful in using quotes. I never said this, I said: "*one *key aspect"


----------



## stonzthro (May 17, 2010)

Eat w/his feet - you're funny Jay!

I always thought a "genius" was the guy who made the fewest bad choices in their music!


----------



## Ashermusic (May 17, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon May 17 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon May 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy Bacos @ Mon May 17 said:
> ...



And I am saying that one can be a kind of genius without this "one key aspect, which means that it is not necessarily key."


----------



## germancomponist (May 17, 2010)

Hans Adamson @ Mon May 17 said:


> This reminds me of a discussion we had over at Northernsounds long ago about what was the true meaning of the word "jazz". In the end I think the conclusion was that real jazz had to be performed in a dark smoky club by sweaty people. Now that's jazz! OK back to "genious". 8)



A cooooool discussion result. o/~ 

Genius = Talent, high IQ, ambition, diligence ... . o=<


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 17, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon May 17 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Mon May 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Ashermusic @ Mon May 17 said:
> ...



So you actually believe their is no high degree of intellectual process going on in the mind with all the great composers we now know and appreciate? So what is going on in the brain then? It surely isn't signals coming from outer space dictating the composer everything.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 17, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon May 17 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon May 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy Bacos @ Mon May 17 said:
> ...



I think all great concert hall composers have a "high degree of intellectual process going on." I think many great pop/rock composers depend much more on a high degree of emotional and intuition process going on. Which is also a kind of genius.

I am not a Country music fan, but George Jones is considered a singing genius by his peers. James Taylor introduced a song he was going to sing at a concert the following way, and I paraphrase:

"George Jones originally recorded this song. He sings it so well, he makes you cry. He sings it so well, he makes your dog cry."

I am not sure that intellectual activity has much to do with that but I am indeed sure it is a type of musical genius.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 17, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon May 17 said:


> I think all great concert hall composers have a "high degree of intellectual process going on." I think many great pop/rock composers depend much more on a high degree of emotional and intuition process going on.



EXACTLY! Which is where the difference is. A great composer has the intellectual ability to channel and control, diverse, explore his emotion into his craft, otherwise, Janis Joplin or Hendrix would be the top geniuses ever. The craft is a huge part in this, look at what all the greats have had to study as students, this is all part of a refinement process that took hundreds of years to evolve, not a 50 year history of rock music with pop artists working only from raw talent or intuitiveness as you say. I'm certainly in admiration in front of them, but not the same way.


----------



## rJames (May 17, 2010)

A genius (in an art form) is someone who comes up with something genuinely new AND gains popular appeal.

Popular appeal means you will be remembered in history. Were there any composers in Mozart's time who composed like Stravinski? We'll never know. But if there were, he was a genius but not noted as one.

I'm not sure you can compare Janis Joplin, who evolved a natural vocal style and energy when performing with Hendrix who played guitar in a new way that had the guitarists of the era watching him with their jaws agape.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 17, 2010)

rJames @ Mon May 17 said:


> I'm not sure you can compare Janis Joplin, who evolved a natural vocal style and energy when performing with Hendrix who played guitar in a new way that had the guitarists of the era watching him with their jaws agape.



Just trying to get a point across rJames. I think you took it too literally.


----------



## synergy543 (May 17, 2010)

RiffWraith @ Mon May 17 said:


> Hearing entire orchestral symphonies in your head without anyone playing any instruments for you, and then writing each instrument/section to paper by hand without the need for corrections.
> 
> _That _to me is genius.


If this were the case, then I am in fact a genius (which I am not). I can go to sleep listening to a symphony. I also do graphics and when working with that intensely I can go to sleep with the most vivid visual dreams. Its tapping onto these fleeting sounds and images that's a bit more tricky. Now THAT, takes a genius, or a LOT of work.

I think we can see genius in many aspects of human activities. Therefore, we need to narrow the discussion even further to orchestral composers and not music in general. Otherwise, every great performer (or famous Ilio customer) is a genius. And I don't dispute that, they are. Nevertheless, its the genius orchestral composers that interest me.


----------



## germancomponist (May 17, 2010)

"The Discussion Of The Year"


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 17, 2010)

Perhaps there should be a separate category for 20th century geniuses, cause mixing Jimmy Hendrix with Palestrina is pretty awkward, and this is not a judgement on Hendrix and pop culture, just that it's mixing apples with oranges.


----------



## Narval (May 17, 2010)

"What does the word 'GENIUS' mean to you in the musical context?"

It means I really dig the dude's shit. :mrgreen:


----------



## Hannes_F (May 17, 2010)

C M Dess @ Mon May 17 said:


> Taste (from external exposer but a hyper awareness)
> Simplification (you see how every part works and omit unnecessary complexities)
> Panic is always on in creative mode
> Automation - Everything happens without a genius having to propel it...the mind propels it. Then the genius can apply the other side of the mind (mechanical) and move it in a logical way.
> ...



This list is lovely (most of it). Some additional thoughts:

Genius comes from genie which means nous in greek - mind, spirit, esprit as an essence ... opposed to matter which is its flocculation.

Nous or mind or spirit is essential to the universe (and does not develop from matter therefore).

Every human being is a genius of a certain degree because she/he owns a part of this essential spirit, or, to say it better, in her/his very essence she/he actually_ is_ this spirit. We don't notice that too much (or should we say not enough) because we perceive ourselves through our personality which could be called reflected conciousness.

If this is true then as a consequence a musical genius is somebody that can keep her/his personality transparent enough in order to catch some portions of the universal life streams and has the abilities (any that are necessary or helpful ... like writing, whistling, humming or using a computer) to transform it into an aural result.

BTW the intellect can be a strong tool that can help a genius but its tendency is more towards blocking the way because it gyrates towards the personality and therefore to egoism. An intellectual person is easily too much about him/herself and misses the chance for real genie then.

This is more from an idealistic point of view of course than from a materialistic one. Materialistic views can also have their (limited) merits but are more common anyways.

Cheers
Hannes


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 17, 2010)

Funny, when I talk about intellect, I'm not referring to what Hannes is describing, that description came out strange to me actually. Intellect can be helpful as well as in the way, but why assume assume the non helpful way right away?


----------



## Hannes_F (May 17, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Tue May 18 said:


> Funny, when I talk about intellect, I'm not referring to what Hannes is describing, that description came out strange to me actually.



Guy, that is typical. The intellect itself is not disposed to acknowledge its own blocking activities, in fact it fights this sort of awareness.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 17, 2010)

Hannes, what I'm saying in large is that there are many factors, and the intellect is a very important one. But if it's 95% intellect, that's no good, and 5% intellect is also no good. There's a middle ground in which the intellect interacts with all the other factors. 
But the intellect is key.


----------



## JohnG (May 17, 2010)

Hannes, are you talking about an artistic "genius" as some kind of receptor of universal truth / perception / communication from the world?


----------



## Narval (May 17, 2010)

C M Dess @ Mon May 17 said:


> I believe "geniuses" have suffered a form a brain damage which instead of expanding their mind, makes the cycles in their mind shorter and capable of more revolutions. As in autism. But the "connections" they see are much sharper from needing to run through fewer redundant parts. You will find many very gifted folks seem to be missing some ingredients.


Right, brain damage and missing some ingredients. Geniuses are freaks, man. They're abnormal. The rest of us, we are normal. Normal is good - no brain damage, all ingredients in place, and a properly expanded mind.

SALIERI:
I will speak for you, Father. I speak for all mediocrities in the world. I am their champion. I am their patron saint. ... Mediocrities everywhere... I absolve you. I absolve you. I absolve you. I absolve you. I absolve you all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iw7u6_o-js

(sounds not too bad for a freak, doesn't it?)


----------



## rJames (May 17, 2010)

JohnG @ Mon May 17 said:


> Hannes, are you talking about an artistic "genius" as some kind of receptor of universal truth / perception / communication from the world?



An oblique answer to this is that a genius creates something new by stumbling upon a fire that probability has ignited.

Was Henry Ford a genius? Or was the assembly line and idea that had evolved and Ford seized it?

The same is true of music. There is a leap with genius but the moment appears, inevitably, out of the "state-of-the-art."


----------



## rgames (May 17, 2010)

Genius is, in the end, a matter of opinion. Moreso in the arts than anywhere else.

I think there are basically two types of genius, though:

- Genius in Leadership: making a bold move in a new direction and taking society with you. This is Beethoven's genius, or Newton's. They fundamentally changed the path on which their community was moving.

- Genius in Refinement: taking a pre-existing direction to its logical end. This is Mozart's genius, or Einstein's. The paths their communities were tracking were established but they took them to their logical conclusions.

Whatever your opinion, though, get rid of IQ as one of the criteria. I've never seen anything so misused as IQ scores. In fact, genius really requires no "intelligence" whatsoever. Intelligence is information: it's book knowledge. Genius relies on creativity. While intelligence certainly helps, it does not in any way correlate with the breakthroughs we consider genius.

Einstein said it best: "Creativity is more important than knowledge."

Consider the professions that rely heavily on knowledge rather than creativity: medicine, law, accounting, etc. How often are their leaders proclaimed to be "geniuses"? Not very often. Now consider the professions that rely more on creativity and less on knowledge: science, music, mathematics. That's where the geniuses are. (I argue that athletics falls in this category, as well).

rgames


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 17, 2010)

Well you know which question this brings up of course, and I'm not quite sure how do word this:

Do new times create the genius composer?

or

Do genius composers create new times?


----------



## Ashermusic (May 17, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon May 17 said:


> Well you know which question this brings up of course, and I'm not quite sure how do word this:
> 
> Do new times create the genius composer?
> 
> ...



Symbiosis.


----------



## Narval (May 17, 2010)

rgames @ Mon May 17 said:


> Einstein said it best: "Creativity is more important than knowledge."


Einstein actually said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Creativity? He didn't seem to give it much importance, judging upon this: "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Albert_Einstein/

I think those people we call "genius" were actually very down to earth dudes. You may endlessly speculate and debate over what's that "special thing" they possessed that made them "special." Thing is, there's no special thing, and they were not special. These people were not freaks, they were probably more normal than any of us. Genius is as obvious and normal for mankind as stars are obvious and normal for the universe. They are wondrous and powerful, of course, yet normal. Genius is a miracle of simplicity and effectiveness. Look at a bird flying, the very same power is at work there. Genius is normality. It's what we're all supposed to be, except we fail, because we don't develop our inborn capacities. Each and every person is a potential genius.


----------



## jlb (May 18, 2010)

A work of genius in my opinion is a piece that always sounds fresh no matter what the interpretation. Eg Charles Dickens was a genius, I believe he wrote his first published novel at 21 or something. I never get tired of 'A Christmas Carol' etc.

God Only Knows is a work of genius in my opinion. Been covered countless times, always does something for me and countless others. If it is genius to Sir George Martin, Paul McCartney, Jay Asher etc that is good enough for me. If anyone thinks it is easy to write something so beautiful and simple, then give it a try.

I have heard all sorts of people mentioned on here, including Johnny Greenwood for some reason (I thought the soundtrack to There Will Be Blood was awful, absolutely awful racket). You can keep all that stuff. Music is about connecting with people emotionally.

'I have an instinct for music, or a feeling about it, and I'll have my feelings guide my hands.'
Brian Wilson 

jlb


----------



## jlb (May 18, 2010)

Sorry but I don't think 'there is a genius in all of us' I think this just sounds like Hippie stuff, some people from all fields are supremely gifted eg Usain Bolt, Roger Federer, Mozart, Andrea Bocelli, etc. Most of us are not and never will be. I don't know why some people are so gifted but that is the way it is and the way it will always be.

jlb


----------



## Hannes_F (May 18, 2010)

JohnG @ Tue May 18 said:


> Hannes, are you talking about an artistic "genius" as some kind of receptor of universal truth / perception / communication from the world?



John, that is a very good question and made me thinking a while because the answer is probably neither yes nor no alone. 

Very much depends on whether or not we want to accept that ideas, conciousness, spirit, mind etc. are words for something that is _reality_ ... or not. But in case we agree with Platon that ideas rule the world then they should be the strongest forces there are and therefore must be real and causative.

Insofar every human being, especially those that we call a genius but essentially everybody, is a receptor of ideas - ideas that are never totally new but are transformed into a new form or configuration by the inventor, composer or who ever is creative. So in a way an invention is always a transformation or recollection of something that already has been there before ... but at the same time every invention is partly formed by the connection to the individuality of the inventor and therefore it is unique. Life is infinite variation in endless repetition.

However our biggest source of those essential "universal truth / perception / communication" how you called it is not outside from us. Everybody has already everything in her/himself ... but as an essence, not evolved. And our real evolution as humans is the evolution of this essence, and this means evolution of mind, evolution of conciousness, evolution of humanity in its truest sense, whatver you name it.

Actually this may sound like a play of words but it is not, and it can have fundamental impact on how we perceive ourselves as composers and musicians. For example in this context it seems obvious that with time there will come much more evolved composers than even Mozart, Beethoven etc. Why not ... it is possible and it will happen. Mankind is evolving in the realm of mind, and as a whole we are just in the beginnings of that. What we call a genius is somebody that is ahead by a little margin and therefore a proof that this sort of evolution is possible.

This is only an approximation of a good answer but I tried my best for the moment being.

Greetings
Hannes


----------



## Ashermusic (May 18, 2010)

Hannes, I respect your spiritual approach but I do not share your beliefs. Some people are just so much more gifted than others that we call it genius and it is not IMHO only that they have managed to access something innate in all of us that others have not.

What I DO believe is that we all have at least one area where we are ahead of the curve.


----------



## JohnG (May 18, 2010)

Hi Hannes,

I am curious about a couple of things in your response. When you use the term "evolved" or "evolution," are you positing:

1. something like Darwin's version of evolution, where people get smarter because of competition and genes passing on to the fittests; or

2. a general notion that more people on Earth will produce more geniuses out of sheer numbers alone, contributing to the aggregate of mankind's knowledge and insight, thus moving all of us together toward greater knowledge, spiritual awareness, or understanding; or

3. that we should -- or are actually -- as a species evolve toward greater understanding, enlightenment, compassion, awareness, and understanding?

Or something else?

Part of my question, I will admit, stems from a vague, only partially articulated notion that I believe I have picked up from my European Continent friends that Europe has managed, with the EU and a de facto disarmament, an important evolutionary step away from the nationalism and militarism that came close in the last century to destroying civilisation. Is that partly what you are talking about?


----------



## adrianallan (May 18, 2010)

There is a danger in thinking that things are always evolving for the better.

Just take a look at the situation in many parts of the world to prove that this is not true. 

Things can get better in _some _ways, but worse in others.

Although the western world has more gadgets and material items at its disposal than ever before, I think that the culural mainstream is at an all-time low. eg. compare what was popular in the 1930s (gershwin, dance bands and the like) with American Idol.

Is the cultural elite much more healthy ? I can't think of many present-day composers who stand up to the 18th and 19th century greats.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 18, 2010)

adrianallan @ Tue May 18 said:


> Ashermusic @ Tue May 18 said:
> 
> 
> > adrianallan @ Tue May 18 said:
> ...



That to me however is the difference between commercial music and concert hall music. It is not the job, theoretically at least, of the concert hall composer to "take the needs of the listener into account" but to explore new ground. The problem is that they eventually simply reached a point with tonal, 12 tone, and even atonal music where there was virtually nothing left to mine, so we got post-serialism.


----------



## SvK (May 18, 2010)

Being able to construct masterpieces, without being interrupted or distracted by the process of thought.....

SvK


----------

