anon said:

...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.

BlaqueKnight said:

You're completely right.

And the term Pop Genius was born.[/b]

anon said:

I thought that term was born eons ago when The Beatles arrived on the scene.
[Edited 5/14/06 14:02pm]

minneapolisgenius said:

o.k...so we'll go with A D'angelo.

I think it was before that, actually. I meant a word/term relative to the org.

anon said:

I thought that term was born eons ago when The Beatles arrived on the scene.
[Edited 5/14/06 14:02pm]

anon said:

According to a lot of the posts around here, I'd say that a D'Angelo would be relative to the .org.

BlaqueKnight said:

Now we need an orgchart with 3 tiers of genius. I guess A D'angelo would be the barometer for class b genius.

A D'angelo is good by me. You got two more to come up with.

anon said:

Strictly for the org:

A Prince - actual Pop genius

A D'Angelo - better than most but not on Prince's level. This would include people like Beck, too.

Andre 3000 - genius of the moment. Anybody with a record out that is "different" but not really a genius or particularly significant beyond the moment. 3rd tier.
Gnarls Barkley, for instance.

anon said:

Strictly for the org:

A Prince - actual Pop genius

A D'Angelo - better than most but not on Prince's level. This would include people like Beck, too.

Andre 3000 - genius of the moment. Anybody with a record out that is "different" but not really a genius or particularly significant beyond the moment. 3rd tier.
Gnarls Barkley, for instance.



[Edited 5/14/06 14:40pm]

BlaqueKnight said:

O.k., so just to test the new system, where would you rank the following poeple?

- David Bowie

- Paul McCartney

- Sananda Maitreya

- Michael Jackson

EmancipationLover said:

That's for YOU to decide.

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...

StoneCrib said:

I was ready to co-sign until I read "Nor would I say James Brown is a musical genius". James Brown influenced Prince, MJ, Sly and Clinton (a lot of people credit Bootsy for making George's music truly funky) and Bootsy cut his teeth playing with James. All the funky things any of those guys are/were doing were based on a James Brown blueprint...especially live performances....everybody hittin' on the one,sticking guitar weaving through the song...bass and drums locked tight playing straight pocket...horns stabbing...JB created all of that...when you see Prince live...most of his show has JB all over it...hell, he's even got JB's sax player, Maceo!...James Brown was also the founder of hip hop...his sampled music was the foundation of almost every hit rap song. Another person not mentioned is Miles Davis...who infuenced almost every genre of music as well....you seriously need to broaden your horizons if you honestly think that there are only 2 musical geniuses alive.

minneapolisgenius said:

I think as Funkadelic once said "You Hit the Nail On The Head". Artistic genius isn't purely about technique or some quantifiable measurement of "versatility" or "prolificness", it's about expressing emotion and touching the listener and creating something profoundly unique and original. I think some people around here have an unusually selective/narrow definition of genius, and yes I know that the term is subjective. Prince and Stevie are great but there are many many many musicians out there who are at least as worthy of the title "genius" as they are. If we were having a debate about who was the most well-rounded multi-talented musician ever, those two would be among the prime candidates but they're hardly the only people worthy of being called genius. For one thing there are different facets in which one can be a genius: a person could be a genius at black jack but be completely incompetant at something else, likewise some musicians might be genius players, others genius songwriters, others genius producers etc., someone who's good at multiple things might be more of an all'round genius but there are many categories in which one can exhibit "genius". If I may defend a few of the people whose "genius" is being impugned here.

James Brown-C'mon people, this man is one of the primary colors of popular music of the last 50 years. All groove/rhythmically driven music owes something to him. Without him, no funk, disco, hip-hop, club, house etc. etc. He may not have been a multi-instrumental virtuoso but he invented or catalized multiple whole genres of music, I'd certainly say that qualifies.

Bob Dylan-The man nearly single-handedly made rock n roll serious music. He made it possible and acceptable for lyrics in popular music to be poetic, introspective, open to interpretation and cover just about any topic. He gave birth to folk-rock, the "singer/songwriter", and started the whole trend of growth and artistically redefining oneself. He also completely redefined what it took to be a "great singer", making singing as much about inflection and delivery as it is about notes and vocal range. And in terms of the actual "muscial" content of his songs: sure it may not be quite as "genius" as his lyrics but he did pioneer many hybrid genres of rock including folkd-rock, roots rock, and country rock and the range of styles he's covered over his career is pretty impressive.

Billie Holiday-again, maybe not an allround genius in the way that prince, stevie or whoever may be, but as a vocalist she's unquestionably a genius. I forget who said it, but it was once said "billie can sing notes most people can't even hear". The gradations, subtlety and pure uncut emotion in her voice is unequaled anywhere, and yeah she may have only written a handful of songs but Strange Fruit alone is a work of genius: hell it's practically the birth of the protest song.

Michael Jackson-Yes, he's been far more concerned with sales than art since Thriller, yes he's insane, yes he's had a lot of help in the creation of his music (when compared to one-man-everything types like prince and stevie) but the man is certainly a genius performer (especially in regards to dancing, and anyone who questions his ability just hasn't seen enough footage) and when he wants to, he's written songs that are so utterly melodically and rhythmically perfect that I have no trouble considering him a genius songwriter (even if a majorly underachieving genius songwriter).
[Edited 5/12/06 23:51pm]
[Edited 5/12/06 23:52pm]

Tony M

A lot of this has me thinking that maybe there's no such thing as an "Artistic Genius" seeing as how art and music are such arbitrary things.

Anyone agree?

Any musician who has the ability to make my heart race fast, make me wanna make music, who makez use of musical momentum and is intune with it...who can even make me teary, has to be a musical genius in my eyes!! Timelessness in their creationz is another attribute which i believe is 'musical genius' material. Absolutely musicians like Prince, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, James Brown, Ray Charles, Elton John, Jimmy Hendrix, Bob Marley to name only a number of them, as i know there are more but to sit here and think of them all will just take too much time

minneapolisgenius said:

You're right. Just looked it up. Didn't know that was the origin.
Have heard it used regards pre-Beatles acts. Good to know.

jacktheimprovident said:

I agree that you have to look at the context of the time of artist existed in, but still, I dont' think any of these people you mentioned qualify as geniuses. I like all the artists mentioned here but...

James Brown-Great artist, and as you said, most groove driven music owes him a debt of gratitude, but like StoneCrib said before, he's more of a trailblazer. If he were a genius, he'd still be putting out quality music, no?

Bob Dylan-Again a trailblazer. A great artist for sure, but the Beatles did more for the whole "artistic growth" thing than Dylan ever did. Maybe the term singer songwriter was invented for and/or after him, but singer songwriters have existed for hundreds maybe thousands of years. What about RObert Johnson? Leadbelly? John Dowland (rennaissance Lutenist, singer, composer)? Dylan comes more out of a tradition, and yes, he took that tradition in another direction, but he is hardly the first.

Billie Holliday- I agree that Strange Fruit is a great song, but Billie had no hand in writing it. I dont' think singing emotionally qualifies one as a genius. If it did, then every pissed of punk singer would be one too. As for that comment about her "singing notes most people can't even hear"....that's just dumb. That's like saying "B.B. King says more with one note than most people say with a million." It's one of those compliments that doesn't really mean anything.

Michael Jackson-Definitely above average as a performer and singer, but his career wouldn't be anywhere near where it is if not for folks like Quincy Jones and Rod Templeton (sp?) Without all the glitz, marketing hype, strange behavior, and money, Michael is an above average pop/R&B singer.

what about BRIAN WILSON!!!.....some of the music he was producing around 66, 67 had definate signs of genius....before he had his mental breakdown.....i would include prince, john lennon, paul mccartney,stevie wonder, miles davis and maybe frank zappa in the musicial genius club with david bowie and bob dylan not far away.
[Edited 5/15/06 4:51am]

A lot of this has me thinking that maybe there's no such thing as an "Artistic Genius" seeing as how art and music are such arbitrary things.

Anyone agree?

anon said:

I didn't even know it was something that you could officially look up. I've just read a lot about The Beatles and how they were perceived when they first came out and evolved the way they did, so that's immediately what came to mind. I'm sure it could have been used on others as well, but I've only heard it in regards to them in particular.

jacktheimprovident said:

I agree that you have to look at the context of the time of artist existed in, but still, I dont' think any of these people you mentioned qualify as geniuses. I like all the artists mentioned here but...

James Brown-Great artist, and as you said, most groove driven music owes him a debt of gratitude, but like StoneCrib said before, he's more of a trailblazer. If he were a genius, he'd still be putting out quality music, no?

Bob Dylan-Again a trailblazer. A great artist for sure, but the Beatles did more for the whole "artistic growth" thing than Dylan ever did. Maybe the term singer songwriter was invented for and/or after him, but singer songwriters have existed for hundreds maybe thousands of years. What about RObert Johnson? Leadbelly? John Dowland (rennaissance Lutenist, singer, composer)? Dylan comes more out of a tradition, and yes, he took that tradition in another direction, but he is hardly the first.

Billie Holliday- I agree that Strange Fruit is a great song, but Billie had no hand in writing it. I dont' think singing emotionally qualifies one as a genius. If it did, then every pissed of punk singer would be one too. As for that comment about her "singing notes most people can't even hear"....that's just dumb. That's like saying "B.B. King says more with one note than most people say with a million." It's one of those compliments that doesn't really mean anything.

Michael Jackson-Definitely above average as a performer and singer, but his career wouldn't be anywhere near where it is if not for folks like Quincy Jones and Rod Templeton (sp?) Without all the glitz, marketing hype, strange behavior, and money, Michael is an above average pop/R&B singer.

guitarslinger44 said:

Quincy Jones and Rod Temperton did fuck all for Michael Jackson. He wrote and produced awesome material before Quincy Jones and Rod Temperton and wrote and produced awesome material after Quincy Jones and Rod Temperton. Listen to all the songs Michael Jackson either wrote 100% by himself or produced 100% by himself or both. You'll find that that's his best material. Michael Jackson is the mind behind all the music he's created. People like Quincy Jones, Teddy Riley and Rodney Jerkins have just been there to pretty up his material and tell him what material to put on the album. Strip off all the sound effects and extra voices and you'll get what Michael Jackson created. All you have to do is listen to his demos and you'll find that after his producers got their hands on the songs, they didn't change much. It's about time people started giving Michael Jackson credit for what he's done. The brother has created some wonderful music. He's the backbone behind every song he's ever done. He just has people around him, helping him, to pick the right songs and get it out on time, because if Michael was to do a whole album by himself, he'd jam pack it with 3 discs of material and it'd take him 7 years to do it. Michael Jackson can make great music, but he can't discipline himself to let songs go and record and mix the album in good time without taking a life time to do it.
[Edited 5/15/06 4:48am]