"Genius"

cornbb

Doctor J wrote: »

And I would look at The Doors, Aphex Twin, Radiohead, Pink Floyd etc and marvel at what you see in them to justify genius status. Some good tunes in there, but genius? I don't see it. Don't get me wrong, I don't for a minute think the Spice Girls are collectively or individually anything above mediocre, what I'm getting at is the term of genius and where the justification in it lies. The girl participated in the discussion with her own opinion and she was attacked in a disgusting fashion here, but who among us has the definitive say on who or what constitutes musical genius? Surely staggering record sales and continually sold out public performances is a large public consensus? No? What is a sign of genius? Nobody has, as yet defined what constitutes a musical genius here. Can it even be defined in black and white terms?

In my opinion, huge sales/concerts have never been indicative of good music, not to mind genius. That doesn't equate to a critical consensus. The girl shouldn't have been attacked, she is perfectly entitled to laud her favourite music/musicians, its just that I don't see how an iota of genius can be seen in any of the stuff she mentioned. I'm not even claiming its bad music, its just not genius.

A genius is defined as a person of great intelligence, simple as that. Capacity for deep thinking, imagination, innovation, creativity and uniqueness are all part of the package. A musical genius is obviously more difficult to define, I don't think a black and white definition is possible, but my own definition a musical genius would be an individual who has created genuinely innovative, groundbreaking new music with great artistic integrity. Innovation, creativity and uniqueness would be prerequisites. Popular appeal or shrewd business abilities would not.

The collective genius thing is a bit more difficult, so lets look at Aphex Twin as an example. He created some of his greatest tracks from the age of 14, made his music with a collection of homemade instruments, pioneered the skill of algorithmic composition, attached an electronic sequencer to an acoustic player piano for the first time, was responsible for whole new subgenres of electronic music, has composed everything from ambient techno to breakbeat acid to minimalism to musique concrete to pretty little acoustic piano pieces, has inspired a generation of electronic musicians, and is considered a genius by people ranging from pill-popping partygoers to contemporary classical composers such as Philip Glass and Stockhausen.

In short, nothing will convince me that the man is merely "some good tunes"

Doctor J

Capacity for deep thinking, imagination, innovation, creativity and uniqueness are all part of the package.

It could be argued that Madonna ticks those boxes too

cornbb

Funny you should mention Madonna, Aphex Twin turned down the opportunity to remix her music because, according to this Guardian interview:

He found Madonna's interest in him almost vampiric. "Her whole career's been like, 'Oh, they're the trendy person of the moment, I'll work with them to make me younger.' They're using you."

I don't necessarilty agree with him, but I wouldn't call Madonna a genius either.

Is my Aphex Twin obsession apparent yet?

grumpytrousers

cornbb wrote: »

In my opinion, huge sales/concerts have never been indicative of good music, not to mind genius. That doesn't equate to a critical consensus.

But isn't that a bit of a double edged sword as well - the whole thing of 'critical acclaim'. I mean, let's be honest, we all know of albums that make the higher echelons of the critics lists of 'must have' albums but they really don't 'cut it'. Or if they do, they require such bloody hard work to get into them that you're left wondering was it all really worth it, before going back to listening to that Jive Bunny tape you have lying around.

Doctor J managed (again) to hit the nail on the head by asking the question back of the board - 'can one define a musical genius' and frankly one can't. And even if you could arrive at a definition that satisfied all the people, then you come to the criteria of whether an artist/band ticks the particular boxes required to make up the definition. And THAT'S where your level of subjectivity comes into play...and that's why the discussion herein is ultimately flawed in terms of arriving at a generic list of actual musical geniuses.

We *can* produce a list of
a) artists/bands who are influential
b) artists/bands who are commercially successful - they sell out massive venues and sell shedloads of records; it is almost axiomatic that they shall be pilloried here on boards
c) artists/bands who are critically successful - nobody but their immediate family, partners and a few people on boards.ie bought the last album but their showcase gig in the TBMC was better than the Sex Pistols at the 100 Club
d) and so on and so on and so on...

In other words, you can readily identify commerical success. Similarly Critical success. 'Influential' is a harder one, but The Beatles is an obvious example; even today you hear a tune with a piano intro in 4 or whatever and you go 'yeah - it's 'Beatley'.

Genius...all a matter of opinion; i like me serious-ish tunes m'self, but there's absolutely NOTHING more life-affirming every now and then, then a decent blast of idiot filled pop music. Don't completely diss the lass who suggested her artistes...just don't call 'em genius either!

Outer Bongolia

The collective genius thing is a bit more difficult, so lets look at Aphex Twin as an example. He created some of his greatest tracks from the age of 14, made his music with a collection of homemade instruments, pioneered the skill of algorithmic composition, attached an electronic sequencer to an acoustic player piano for the first time, was responsible for whole new subgenres of electronic music, has composed everything from ambient techno to breakbeat acid to minimalism to musique concrete to pretty little acoustic piano pieces, has inspired a generation of electronic musicians, and is considered a genius by people ranging from pill-popping partygoers to contemporary classical composers such as Philip Glass and Stockhausen.

In short, nothing will convince me that the man is merely "some good tunes"

you hit the nail on the head; he is such a genius, in terms of ingenuity and technological skills and the way he assembles layers of complex melodies and beats at varying speeds...

can't see how Madonna could be called a genius. What a dilution of the term.

I have nothing against her, but if you call Madonna a genius then you can basically call anyone with a half decent career in music a genius. So then genius means nothing

cornbb

grumpytrousers wrote: »

But isn't that a bit of a double edged sword as well - the whole thing of 'critical acclaim'. I mean, let's be honest, we all know of albums that make the higher echelons of the critics lists of 'must have' albums but they really don't 'cut it'. Or if they do, they require such bloody hard work to get into them that you're left wondering was it all really worth it, before going back to listening to that Jive Bunny tape you have lying around.

Maybe "critical acclaim" was the wrong phrase. By critic I didn't mean some idiot hack writing for the NME, thats the last person in the world that should be defining genius.

Doctor J managed (again) to hit the nail on the head by asking the question back of the board - 'can one define a musical genius' and frankly one can't. And even if you could arrive at a definition that satisfied all the people, then you come to the criteria of whether an artist/band ticks the particular boxes required to make up the definition. And THAT'S where your level of subjectivity comes into play...and that's why the discussion herein is ultimately flawed in terms of arriving at a generic list of actual musical geniuses.

Very good point. I guess no one will ever make a definitive list. I don't agree that genius is 100% subjective however. Musical genius is particularly difficult, we can agree on that, but I think it can be measured by people who know what they are talking about (maybe musicologists with degrees in psychology ). The best judge of all is hindsight. I think a real bone fide genius is much more likely to have his/her music around after 100 years than a merely brilliant artist. The vast majority of people who know classical music will agree that Mozart was a genius, for example, whereas in his day I'm sure there was no such consensus.

I guess genius isn't important, after all, its not important when it comes to defining how enjoyable is.

grumpytrousers

cornbb wrote: »

Maybe "critical acclaim" was the wrong phrase. By critic I didn't mean some idiot hack writing for the NME, thats the last person in the world that should be defining genius.

I don't think it is the wrong phrase. The only difference between an idiot hack writing for the NME and an idiot hack writing for The Word magazine and an idiot hack writing for Mojo is 'who signs the paycheck'!

Critics are only human as well - they just have a bit more opportunity to trumped the fact that, say, Trout Mask Replica by Captain Beefheart is every bit as good as the last Sugababes album, if not better!

The Swordsman

grumpytrousers wrote: »

Oooh...forgot about Warren...for those of the parish who are going 'WHO?'...and i suspect there's plenty, you could do worse than chuck a few bob at his best of. although he never made it 'big' himself, his albums were always noteworthy by the calibre of guest artists backing him up 'cos they all reckoned he had 'it'...without resorting to sleevenotes, i know there was definitely all of R.E.M. (with whom he did an album under the monicker Hindu Love Gods') Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Neil Young and (wait for it) David Letterman...

As his best of is called Genius i think he fits the bill!

Zevon's first album is an absolute classic - one of the greatest ever. He followed it up with 'Excitable Boy' which was almost as good. Unfortunately, after that, his problems with alcoholism/drug addiction really took hold and he never reached those heights again, though his final album was very good (he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and was on the wagon when he made it).

I'd also agree with Stevie Wonder, even though he hasn't made a decent record in 30 years (The last comeback album was awful), Bruce Springsteen who has started making great albums again after nearly 20 years, Prince and Marvin Gaye.

Others I would add is Donald Fagen and Sam Cooke, who made some fantastic music before he died at 33.

faceman

Heres my tupence, some of these artists i wouldnt be big listeners of but to not recognise their genius is criminal!

Bob Dylan - Took folk music to a new level and then shocked everyone by going electric. He managed to carry his style across into an electric world very successfully. Hasnt been mimicked

Springsteen - no explanation needed!

Thom Yorke - the guy has amazing musical insight, although if asked he would share the credit with his fellow band mates. its deffo not everyone's cup of tea but the guy is a beethoven!

Rory Gallagher - he made guitars talk

Cliff Burton - He made bass guitars talk

Leo Kottke - haunting unusual voice and animal guitarist. Could play classical guitar in his sleep and some of his albums have unusual classical pieces and influence laced all over. Love his lyrics too.