panther514 said:

Well, you see things your way and I see things my way. Plain and simple. No need to get your panties in a bunch over it. Is it that serious for you? Is your day going to go bad because someone at the org disagrees with you? I hope not. Relax. Take it easy. Enjoy the opinions. Then move on. Just take in the breeze, my friend. You think JB is a prolific writer and musician and I disagree. I'm a musician and a writer, I have an opinion. You too have an opinion and it's based on whatever you choose to base it upon. It's all good.

Oh, and if you think JB STARTED Hip Hop...then maybe you should sit this topic out.

StoneCrib said:

Again...your argument is minus the facts...you should really read up on the subject before you reply....Aretha wrote/arranged and produced most of her hits and was/is one hell of a piano and organ player...a brilliant musician who just happened to have the gift of one of most beautiful voices ever heard...what she did at the Grammy's filling in for Pavorati at the last minute to sing an OPERA piece shows you about her genius as a musician...note for note..phrase for phrase..she nailed it.

panther514 said:

See, that's my exact point: Was she PROLIFIC at ALL OF THOSE THINGS COMBINED? No. I know TONS of artists that write and produce their own stuff, does that AUTOMATICALLY make them geniuses? No. Because they aren't PROLIFIC at doing it. Is she a PROLIFIC pianist/organist? No, she isn't, so cut the act. Aretha is a PROLIFIC VOCALIST and not a PROLIFIC MUSICIAN. Aretha Franklin is NOT a musical genius.

I forgot to add Quincy Jones to the list of living Musical Geniuses.

StoneCrib said:

Again..again...it isn't "french benefits"....i am also a musician, producer,writer,arranger...it bothers me when someone makes a statement that is not based on any factual information...and states it like it is law...what bothers me more now is the fact that you claim to be a musician/ writer...if in fact you are a musician and writer...you should really broaden your horizon..read and learn the history of music...I'll even suggest a few books to read if you'd like...so you can base your opinions with a little more insight on the topic at hand....right now...you're blind...and scroll up....I didn't say JB started hip-hop....his sampled music was the foundation of the majority of the hits from day one of rap....never stop learning...your homework is to study the genesis of hip hop,R&B, soul and funk music....once you're done with that ...try jazz...then get back at me...peace and respect.

Being an individualist,,,thats it.

StoneCrib said:

I can't believe you are a musician after reading this....does not compute..

panther514 said:

Thank God you're here. Cool, and thanks. I will report back to you the moment Osama re-surfaces.

panther514 said:

I see. So just because I don't think Aretha is a musical genius that makes you question my "musician status". Hmm? Yeah. Ok.

panther514 said:

No, it's not narrowmindedness, my dear fellow orger. To define a genius by his (or her) potential to stand the test of time requires the openmindedness to think ahead of your time and the joy or fun a certain piece of music brings to you in a certain moment and question yourself if this work really is up there with the best who managed to make it through the centuries.

That doesn't mean not to give someone the props they deserve. It just means to be careful with the term "genius" (there are tons of other words to give them the respect they deserve). Labelling someone "genius" whose music is just 10 or 20 years old means you put that person in one league with people like Bach or Mozart whose music is played all over the planet even after 200-300 years.

I'm the first to honour good music by living artists (simply to make a distinction to the uninspired crap surrounding us a lot, if it's only for that), but I simply don't get why we should print "genius" on someone's forehead just because that person has made some good songs and albums or can play certain instruments quite well. There are many people out there who can do that...

With all the bad music that's out there today, anyone remotely good, feels genius.

There are many incredible musicians/artists (many of my favs) that are not genius.
The genius has the ability to grasp and grow, in a particular area, at a faster than normal rate.

Prolific, alone, doesn't make genius.
Talent, alone, doesn't make genius.
The fact that one indirectly inspires a movement doesn't make one genius either. Genius is the one that had the foresight to see it coming when no one else did.

True genius is a combination of things. If this weren't the case, then every musical savant would be considered a genius.

We sometimes say "the way he writes is genius", "the way he thinks, plays etc..."
I say this too. But someone can do things "genius like" and not be an actual genius.

It's time for a new word. "Genius" has been used so much that it's become too broad. There should be a word for those much more talented than others but that are not quite genius.

I believe there are very few actual musical genius' out there.

anon said:

I completely agree 100 %!

EmancipationLover said:

I was typing the same thing to you.

EmancipationLover said:

Well, there are also a lot of songs that are out there for decades that weren't created by geniuses, so you really can't go on the "200-300 years" system of what a genius is. I'm sure Celine Dion will have her songs played for decades to come but that doesn't rank her a musical genius. It's also unfair because Bach's and Mozart's music have been around much longer and they were also alive in a different era of music.

Also, "Success" is a bit misleading when using it as a criterion for what constitutes a Musical Genius.

So, do you think Prince and Stevie are geniuses?

StoneCrib said:

I have no idea what I'm saying? I don't think so. I made my point loud and clear, I think you are a chauvinist. In other words, you think you are better than everyone else and your way is the right way.

Back on topic...

Some of you are making it out that one has to play 28 instruments to be a musical genius. The ability to play instruments has nothing to do with being a musical genius. Being able to play one or more instruments really well isn't genius, it's virtuosity. IMO, (as someone said on another forum) genius is creating the music not playing it. Instruments carry the way an artist wants music to be presented, from what they feel inside. The genius is the one who created the music not the one who played it. That's my opinion anyway.

StoneCrib said:

It doesn't necessarily have to be 200-300 years. You surely can't say "if people still listen to your stuff after x years, you're a genius" and define x as a specific number. My point just is: I recommend being careful to label people "genius" because of good or even brilliant music they created 10 years ago. It just happened to often that folks were seen as "genius" and their music sank without a trace after some decades, simply because it wasn't as brilliant as people thought (though still good).

Btw, I'm not talking about success when I say "the music is still listened to", at least not success in the sense of chart positions or something similar. Those people I cited as musical geniuses don't sell records to an extent MJ did. A new CD with classical music usually sells some thousand copies, and that's it (though if you add all Mozart recordings ever sold, you might get a number in the MJ league, I guess). The point is: the music is still appreciated. It has become part of the culture.

And to answer your question: Prince and Stevie are very gifted people. Geniuses? Honestly, I don't know. But I don't have to, because it doesn't increase or decrease my joy of their music if I stick that label onto them or not.

DarlingDiana said:

I think you're right with that, actually. Many singers and instrumentalists are brilliant, but I would never label them "genius".

But to address your initial point: I have high doubts that MJ will ever be seen as a "genius". Simple reason: he didn't create enough brilliant music. Three good records in the 80's (and those with heavy involvement of Quincy Jones), then a certain decline in the 90's, and nowadays he's reaching the release frequency of Peter Gabriel. If you have that small catalogue, your music has to be extremely good to stay. It's great for you that you think he's great, but genius? Hmmm...

EmancipationLover said:

Genius is in the thought. Can you see, hear, process and play music in such a way that makes you genius? Yes. Do you have to compose to be genius? No. We really can't draw the lines around where ones genius will lie. Genius is its own thing.

EmancipationLover said:

Actually, I'd like to discuss that because I doubt just how much involvement Quincy Jones had in Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad. Think about it. He's a jazz musician and producer and since Bad he hasn't done anything major in pop music. However, after Bad Michael Jackson still made reasonably good pop albums. I think Michael Jackson did the majority of the work on Bad and on Off The Wall and Thriller it was 50/50 between Quincy and Michael. If Michael didn't have Quincy for those 3 albums, I doubt they'd be much different.

anon said:

But if I heard a really great compostion played by a really great musician (who didn't compose the music he/she is playing), I'd consider the composer more of a genius than the musician. Perhaps the way the musician interpreted the music and played is genius, but someone had the compose what he/she is playing and IMO that's where the genius lies, the mind behind the music.

DarlingDiana said:

Off The Wall was far from 50/50....it was more 20 (MJ)/80 (Q/Rod Temperton).....Thriller was indeed 50/50....Bad was virtually all MJ; not one of my favorite MJ albums....

DarlingDiana said:

I was speaking of documented compositions (In response to earlier posts). They don't make the genius. They only serve as written proof when genius is there. Many of the improv guys don't have much to show in terms of composition...but this does not mean genius couldn't exist there. You have to think it before you play it...they simply composed on the fly. What you do with someones music, where you take it could very well be genius...even if that initial composer wasn't.

StoneCrib said:

It has nothing to do with Aretha...it's your whole logic and grading system in deciding who you believe is a genius.

The word prolific is used FAR too much in this discussion. I don't think that has to be a huge part of it. You can be prolific, and still produce a hell of a lot of crap.

DarlingDiana said:

Stevie Wonder...

panther514 said:

Which STILL doesn't make sense as to how you can question it because it is in fact MY opinion of how "I" determine what a Musical Genius is.

minneapolisgenius said:

I was using it in terms of those that create great music right off the top.

anon said:

A D'Angelo?



Everybody's a genius on their own .org.

I think if you're going to use the term in its pop definition sense, it would include many artists; if you were to look at the word in its literal sense, almost none of the people named in this entire thread barring Mozart & Beethoven qualify.