Play devils advocate. Is Brian Wilson NOT a musical genius?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I think the word genius has done much more harm than good to Brian and The Beach Boys!

[Iron Horse-Apples]

I think the word genius has done much more harm than good to Brian and The Beach Boys!

It was certainly a double edged sword.

[Amy B.]

Not sure I'd agree that Brian lost his genius when he stopped working hard. I think talent is like a muscle that gets stronger through hard work, but it's always there if you're born with it. And maybe genius is the same. Maybe Brian would have had stronger/less refutable genius had he had formal training, or more durable genius  had he not developed depression that stopped his hard work. But I think his genius is always there. But the muscle maybe isn't strong enough that he can create WORKS of genius anymore. He has flashes of genius in his work, like that chord in Midnight's Another Day. Maybe if he had the wherewithal to work really hard again, he could still create a work of genius. 

If Brian had died at age 24, would we all be saying without question that he was a genius?

[monicker]

Polyphony is two or more lines of music. A chord is polyphonic, sorry.

Pardon? Polyphony = 2 or more lines of music. A chord (i.e. not a "line of music") is polyphonic?
So then what is the difference between polyphony and homophony? There must be a difference. How do you differentiate between them?

[monicker]

The musical style that Brian develops between All Summer Long and Pet Sounds/SMiLE shows a genius. He's always taking the next logical step of his style.

Logical? What is logical about the progression from Pet Sounds to Smile? What is the basis of this logic? What if Time To Get Alone had directly followed Pet Sounds? Would that have been more logical or less logical? Or just as logical? What if Brian had only briefly delved into Smile, decided that it wasn't a direction in which he wanted to go, or it didn't make sense to him, you had never heard what little he had worked on, and he had instead followed Pet Sounds with Friends? Would you say that step was logical or no? I don't understand how you're forming the basis of this, that he was always taking the next logical step of his style. We're talking about musical styles here.

[Mr. Cohen]

Pardon? Polyphony = 2 or more lines of music. A chord (i.e. not a "line of music") is polyphonic?
So then what is the difference between polyphony homophony? There must be a difference. How do you differentiate between them?

Homophony is when only one note is being played. A piece can be homophonic even if there are multiple instruments, so long as the instruments are playing the exact same notes. Once you have two or more notes played simultaneously, you get polyphony! Crazy, right?

[monicker]

Pardon? Polyphony = 2 or more lines of music. A chord (i.e. not a "line of music") is polyphonic?
So then what is the difference between polyphony homophony? There must be a difference. How do you differentiate between them?

Homophony is when only one note is being played. A piece can be homophonic even if there are multiple instruments, so long as the instruments are playing the exact same notes. Once you have two or more notes played simultaneously, you get polyphony! Crazy, right?

No. Rather:

Monophony is when only one note is being played. A piece can be monophonic even if there are multiple instruments, so long as the instruments are playing the exact same notes. Once you have two or more notes played simultaneously, you get homophony! Crazy, right?

Though, technically, two notes played simultaneously is an interval, not a chord.

[Ron]

What is it, and exactly how much of a genius is Chuck Berry when he plays two leads on two strings in his songs? 

[Dunderhead]

The musical style that Brian develops between All Summer Long and Pet Sounds/SMiLE shows a genius. He's always taking the next logical step of his style.

Logical? What is logical about the progression from Pet Sounds to Smile? What is the basis of this logic? What if Time To Get Alone had directly followed Pet Sounds? Would that have been more logical or less logical? Or just as logical? What if Brian had only briefly delved into Smile, decided that it wasn't a direction in which he wanted to go, or it didn't make sense to him, you had never heard what little he had worked on, and he had instead followed Pet Sounds with Friends? Would you say that step was logical or no? I don't understand how you're forming the basis of this, that he was always taking the next logical step of his style. We're talking about musical styles here.

I mean logical as in natural. Brian did one thing then apprehended the next logical thing he could do in terms of his own personal style. I have made a few posts about this recently in other topics, so I won't go into my whole spiel again, but there is a clear path, or thread that leads through Brian's work up until (arguably) Love You. One thing naturally follows the other. Doesn't Today set the stage for Pet Sounds? Isn't the design of Good Vibrations taken further on Heroes and Villains?

During SMiLE I see Brian changing too quickly for his own good. Smiley Smile seems like the natural and logical point at which his style was progressing, but the complications, the drama, the psychological issues all precipitated a clumsy transition. There is a clear development of style *within* SMiLE. He seems to head for minimalism naturally. SMiLE really feels like 2 or 3 albums, but the recording sessions were so protracted that Brian was getting ahead of himself.

It's funny that the LP became the dominant force in pop music. Why not the EP? We sort of take it for granted now that it turned out that way, but sometimes I feel like Brian would have been better suited by the EP format during the late period of 1966 as his style was developing so quickly.

[monicker]

I see what you’re saying. I had singled out the step from Pet Sounds to Smile because it seems like a very big jump, much bigger than any progression between past Beach Boys albums. So, if you followed a pattern that is made by their albums chronologically, if you could somehow quantify the degree of progress from one to the next, i think (my perception of it; i’m not arguing that there is anything objective about this) Pet Sounds to Smile breaks the pattern or logic that had been set. And even taking GV as the bridge between the two, Pet Sounds to GV i think was still a radical step compared to any prior steps between projects. I totally agree with you on the development of style *within* Smile and that it feels like two or three albums. The EP idea is really interesting! I’ve never considered that. It seems that Brian in 1966/67 really would have benefited from that format. That’s fascinating. 

[Dunderhead]

I see what you’re saying. I had singled out the step from Pet Sounds to Smile because it seems like a very big jump, much bigger than any progression between past Beach Boys albums. So, if you followed a pattern that is made by their albums chronologically, if you could somehow quantify the degree of progress from one to the next, i think (my perception of it; i’m not arguing that there is anything objective about this) Pet Sounds to Smile breaks the pattern or logic that had been set. And even taking GV as the bridge between the two, Pet Sounds to GV i think was still a radical step compared to any prior steps between projects. I totally agree with you on the development of style *within* Smile and that it feels like two or three albums. The EP idea is really interesting! I’ve never considered that. It seems that Brian in 1966/67 really would have benefited from that format. That’s fascinating. 

Yeah it could have very well gone

Good Vibrations, Wonderful, Wind Chimes, and Child on one EP
Heroes and Villains, maybe a two sided version? But also might have included Cabin Essence, Worms and Surf's Up. Maybe also Fire. That's the second EP.
On the third one he would have used Vega-Tables, but that's where his work on the project starts to go off track.

It's really too bad he didn't do that. That way an LP wouldn't have been as big of a commitment, he could have tried out his first slate of SMiLE tracks along with Good Vibrations and gaged the reaction. It also naturally goes along with the BWPS movements.

I think that's what the "movements" are all about. Brian's music was developing. The three BWPS movements really represent three unique and definite artistic periods that Brian went through in the SMiLE period. That's why the three movements tend to sound so different and the songs from each seem to naturally go so well with one another.

Sorry I'm just sort of speculating all this for the first time as I write this, and already dreaming up a new smile mix to make based on all that.

[mike s]

to backtrack a bit regarding genius:  isn't one of the main criteria originality - ie the ability to see something no-one else can..?

John McCenroe made some shots from angles that no-one realised were possible - I'd say his creativity on the court was genius

Good Vibrations is a work of Genius I think - melody, arrangement, harmony, expression - all functioning at peak possibility while welded together in a way which had no precedent that I know of - Bach like verses with techno-spook choruses..?  it still shocks even now 45 years later

Surf's up is a masterclass song but not quite at the same emergency level of creativity - there have been other composers who could write something so beautiful, but only one mind in history which could come up with GV

that's not to denigrate Surf's Up at all, its an astonishing tune

[Iron Horse-Apples]

to backtrack a bit regarding genius:  isn't one of the main criteria originality - ie the ability to see something no-one else can..?

John McCenroe made some shots from angles that no-one realised were possible - I'd say his creativity on the court was genius

Good Vibrations is a work of Genius I think - melody, arrangement, harmony, expression - all functioning at peak possibility while welded together in a way which had no precedent that I know of - Bach like verses with techno-spook choruses..?  it still shocks even now 45 years later

Surf's up is a masterclass song but not quite at the same emergency level of creativity - there have been other composers who could write something so beautiful, but only one mind in history which could come up with GV

that's not to denigrate Surf's Up at all, its an astonishing tune

Hi Mike, welcome.

I think that's a good way of putting it. Taking your chosen field into a completely new direction. I'd certainly agree that is one way of defining genius

[cablegeddon]

to backtrack a bit regarding genius:  isn't one of the main criteria originality - ie the ability to see something no-one else can..?

John McCenroe made some shots from angles that no-one realised were possible - I'd say his creativity on the court was genius

Good Vibrations is a work of Genius I think - melody, arrangement, harmony, expression - all functioning at peak possibility while welded together in a way which had no precedent that I know of - Bach like verses with techno-spook choruses..?  it still shocks even now 45 years later

Surf's up is a masterclass song but not quite at the same emergency level of creativity - there have been other composers who could write something so beautiful, but only one mind in history which could come up with GV

that's not to denigrate Surf's Up at all, its an astonishing tune

You're getting into fishy territory there IMO because without Mike Love's contributions, Good vibrations would not have the same immediacy and hit potential.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Ah yes, but I think genius always involves pragmatism. Brian took the best ideas from around him, if it fit, it was in, like VDP's cello idea, and wrecking crew suggestions. Ultimately though, it was his vision.

[mike s]

yeah - ML came up with the vocal groove for the chorus but it was taken straight from the bassline

the word 'vibrations' came from Brian along with the concepts

also you could completely remove the lead in that section and the track would hardly suffer - think about it:  the cellos and BVs are enough to power it along on their own

its the melding of moods/feels that is all BW and thats what is so startling about it

<< update >> yes VDP suggested the cellos, a big contribution

(ps thanks - lapsed member, used to post here lot)

[cablegeddon]

also you could completely remove the lead in that section and the track would hardly suffer -

It would suffer. It would lose so much power.

[mike s]

don't agree - the theremin cellos and BVs are doing a heck of a lot of the work

also you could completely remove the lead in that section and the track would hardly suffer -

It would suffer. It would lose so much power.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

...of course the use of the word "science" (or whatever the German cognate at the time was) does not imply "scientist" (a term not coined until 1834) -- science, back then, was used as a synonym for 'knowledge', and so there was 'the science of painting', 'the science of literature' and so on.

Though I'm sure you knew that.

As an aside, or perhaps as a substantive contribution to the discussion--

Of interest is the very man who, in 1834, coined the term "Scientist"--William Whewell.  I became acquainted with him through his edition and translation of Grotius.  For those of you not familiar with Grotius, by all means, seek him out.  In any case, that work, De Iure Belli ac Pacis, is a legal treatise on International Law.  But in addition to Whewell's fine Latinity and understanding of legal issues, he also an oceanographer, physicist, economist, published poet, and mathematician.  He wrote on theology, morality, and architecture.  He was an able administrator of schools.  And he was also, apparently, an Anglican priest.

He was not really a dabbler--he was well published in all of the above fields.  To me, this is a clear example of genius--both the inborn capacity for knowledge and the necessary drive to always be working.

So playing devil's advocate--If Whewell is a genius, Brian Wilson can't be.  All Brian Wilson did was write pop songs.

[mike s]

en garde:)

being well published doesn't make you a genius

Brian Wilson creatively went toe to toe with The Beatles - in the field of pop a select few can make that claim

he created a soundscape and a world along with gorgeous melodies

the 'Smile' fade to 'Vegetables' - the bicycle rider variation - is the work of a genius

...of course the use of the word "science" (or whatever the German cognate at the time was) does not imply "scientist" (a term not coined until 1834) -- science, back then, was used as a synonym for 'knowledge', and so there was 'the science of painting', 'the science of literature' and so on.

Though I'm sure you knew that.

As an aside, or perhaps as a substantive contribution to the discussion--

Of interest is the very man who, in 1834, coined the term "Scientist"--William Whewell.  I became acquainted with him through his edition and translation of Grotius.  For those of you not familiar with Grotius, by all means, seek him out.  In any case, that work, De Iure Belli ac Pacis, is a legal treatise on International Law.  But in addition to Whewell's fine Latinity and understanding of legal issues, he also an oceanographer, physicist, economist, published poet, and mathematician.  He wrote on theology, morality, and architecture.  He was an able administrator of schools.  And he was also, apparently, an Anglican priest.

He was not really a dabbler--he was well published in all of the above fields.  To me, this is a clear example of genius--both the inborn capacity for knowledge and the necessary drive to always be working.

So playing devil's advocate--If Whewell is a genius, Brian Wilson can't be.  All Brian Wilson did was write pop songs.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

being well published doesn't make you a genius

It's not that he was well-published, it's that what he published not only advanced human knowledge in multiple fields, but also is evidence of Whewell's intellect—that it was able to grasp and advance ideas in many disciplines.

We're still looking for a baseline definition.  Your "Smile fade to Vegetables" is the work of a genius why?  Because you like it? 

Does genius simply mean an ability to affect large swaths of people?

Going toe to toe with the Beatles?  That presupposes that the Beatles are important--which of course, they are--but why?

Somebody like Whewell, or any number of polymathic minds, have demonstrably advanced human knowledge.  What has Brian really done at the end of the day?  Can we define Genius by accomplishment?

[mike s]

all fair points

It's not that he was well-published, it's that what he published not only advanced human knowledge in multiple fields, but also is evidence of Whewell's intellect—that it was able to grasp and advance ideas in many disciplines - ok if he advanced ideas then he was a polymath and maybe a genius but not in quite the same way a Mozart or Einstein was ie he didn't blaze an obvious trail in one discipline - plymaths are a bit different - haven't quite figured out why though:)
 
We're still looking for a baseline definition.  Your "Smile fade to Vegetables" is the work of a genius why?  Because you like it? - no its because it creates a mood and atmosphere I've never heard/felt before - its 'pure' expression using sound to paint in a unique way and IMO could only have been conceived by a genius - sonically its unearthly/beautiful/creepy...

Does genius simply mean an ability to affect large swaths of people? - not at all but that happpens to be one of the aspects of Brian's music

Going toe to toe with the Beatles?  That presupposes that the Beatles are important--which of course, they are--but why? - its a given with them, one of the few examples of mass popularity colliding with extreme talent/expression

Somebody like Whewell, or any number of polymathic minds, have demonstrably advanced human knowledge.  What has Brian really done at the end of the day?  Can we define Genius by accomplishment? - yes - its intellect/creativity/intuition/sweat all exploding - as an aside I bet that  BW has a very high IQ

[mike s]

We're still looking for a baseline definition.

yes agree - is it an instinctive realisation..?  watch Georgie Best or McCenroe and there's no doubt that you are witnessing something very few people will ever attain, the natural ability is flowing unrestrained but it had to be there in the first place
 
lol ok put it this way - a genius is somebody who is turned up to 11

[Myk Luhv]

I can't find my sourcebook so y'all get no quotes at the moment (though I plan to read that book I mentioned soon). As for the question you asked me, Fishmonk, I study philosophy and history.

[Dunderhead]

being well published doesn't make you a genius

It's not that he was well-published, it's that what he published not only advanced human knowledge in multiple fields, but also is evidence of Whewell's intellect—that it was able to grasp and advance ideas in many disciplines.

We're still looking for a baseline definition.  Your "Smile fade to Vegetables" is the work of a genius why?  Because you like it?  

Does genius simply mean an ability to affect large swaths of people?

Going toe to toe with the Beatles?  That presupposes that the Beatles are important--which of course, they are--but why?

Somebody like Whewell, or any number of polymathic minds, have demonstrably advanced human knowledge.  What has Brian really done at the end of the day?  Can we define Genius by accomplishment?

If you guys really want a case study for genius, I have to recommend, again, Goethe. Goethe is by far the best example of genius we can study as he documented himself so well. He basically explained why he was a genius over and over again in books. Goethe's science (so called Goethean science) was a science of genius. That is, his works on botany and colors and other scientific topics contain as their basis a science which he developed. This approach, though originally applied primarily in the natural sciences, was later generalized by Goethe and applied to ideas and thoughts as well.

Goethe came to understand his genius in a different way than you're putting it. For Goethe being a genius did not allow him to be a polymath. Instead he explained that being a polymath allowed him to be a genius. Genius is a process, an action. Goethe's method involved objective, and meticulous observation. He advocated a life in which man simultaneously develops both his scientific as well as artistic knowledge of something. Goethean science is a qualitative science rather than a qualitative one. Where man studies ideas with the precision of logic.

By applying this science to many different things Goethe was able to improve himself. Because the purpose of his science was to connect things together and bring each idea studied into relation with the bigger picture of the universe.

I feel that this is what a genius or a polymath usually does instinctively. Goethe was just the one to try and systematize it.

Brian's genius is in what he created, more than it was in him inherently. A philosopher once said, "art is spirit objectified". What he means by this is that ideas and thoughts are fluid. Someone's personality isn't a fixed thing, rather it's like a lake. Sometimes it evaporates and shrinks, sometimes it rains and the lake swells. Water from other lakes, and wells, and oceans is added by the clouds. This is what consciousness or personality is like. It's full of many drops, many ideas, thoughts, experiences, and feelings. Art "objectifies" a personality, an idea etc. It creates a plan, a picture of some complex, fluid system. An object that represents the complexity frozen in time.

Genius is a process in which ideas, or personalities, or "spirits", are studied in a objective and scientific way from many different angles. That's the Goethean science. A work of art for Goethe is a sort of lens, or instrument, or better yet, experiment by which an idea is studied. As an experiment in science studies an object like a star or a plant, an experiment in art studies an idea.

The Goethean scientific approach was applied to his literature as it was applied to his botanical work. Goethe saw the novel as a sort of program or portfolio of experiments. Whereas today we define the novel by word count usually, the Goethean definition of the novel was "one *containing* novellas". It was a folder of literary experiments used to study an idea in a methodical, logical way. He used this method more in his mature work, especially in his fourth, and last, novel The Wanderjahre (which I would consider still, going on 200 years since it was published, the most progressive and forward thinking novel yet written). Different literary genres were used as different sorts of experiments in a way to study a different aspect or side of an idea. It's a holistic approach to literature, wherein the parts furnish the whole with meaning and the whole furnishes the parts with significance.

It's necessary here to note that the novel genre became, for Goethe's generation, the dominant literary form. The German Romantics, and Goethe did a lot of the most serious theorizing on the novel genre yet. The novel was the primary means by which the German "Goethezeit" expounded upon its developments in philosophy and aesthetics. In music the novel has a counterpart, one that served a similar function for German Romantic thought in that branch of art. I mean of course the song cycle. As the novel "contains" novellas, so the song cycle "contains" songs.

Now this is where there will likely be contention, as I mean to say that the album format of the 1960s was a development of the song cycle idea. Now there is not a lot of real written theorizing on the LP genre, so it's not like I can really easily show this idea. But I think you should be able to intuitively get what I'm talking about. The idea isn't too far fetched considering that some pop artists have themselves expressed it. Van Dyke Parks comes to mind immediately with his first album bearing exactly that title, "Song Cycle".

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that pop musicians are all out there consciously working on the model of Die schöne Müllerin. I also don't mean to say that I think any pop album is as sophisticated or important as Winterreise. I just mean that the song cycle idea, the ambition of it, was out there. The best albums, the ones that really aspire to greatness, sort of pick up on this. There's a "unity", a "wholeness" to the best LPs. Isn't that how people usually describe the very best albums naturally? I hear those words tossed around all the time in album reviews and I don't think it's a coincidence. The pure theoretical idea, which of course the majority of artists today probably either don't know or don't care about, is that of Goethean science. Examining an idea in myriad unique experiments, and then ordering those experiments in a way that creates a holistic sense of unity.

What is SMiLE then? Isn't SMiLE exactly that? Different songs all examining different aspects of humor, of laughter, and of smiling? Brian works in different sonic genres. He covers his idea from a lot of different angles. What types of things make us smile? The excitement of the wild west. The innocence of childhood. The comforting familiarity of an old song (My Only Sunshine).

Now, before you rush to dismiss me or laugh me off, know that I don't think SMiLE is a truly successful work of art in this manner. I don't want you to think that I believe Brian consciously understood all this complex philosophy and history. He more than likely did not. But my point all along has been that Goethe developed this method, this approach, and he did it as a way to meaningfully systematize genius. This is what genius does instinctively. His system was a way to logically describe his own working process, and explain it to everyone else. What makes Brian a genius was that he was using this process, and seemed to intuitively understand it so well. But that's not to say his genius allowed him to use this format. Rather it's the opposite, his genius arises out of the fact that he used this process. As I said at the very beginning, Genius is a process, an action. It's something you're actively engaged in.

Art is objectified spirit. SMiLE takes a wonderfully complex moment in time and objectifies it. Unfortunately he never completed it so it's hard to really judge SMiLE discretely. SMiLE is the complexity of the 60s, of the peace, love, and understanding movement. It's a picture of an artist ranging over the whole scope of his times. Emotionally, musically, psychologically, historically. In it's lyrics, it's themes, and it's music the SMiLE project objectifies itself. All these complex drops of thought mirror eachother and we can for a moment, in our imaginations see the ecosystem of 60s optimism.

It's an album that meant to objectively display this grand, larger than life idea in all of it's splendor and expansiveness. In all its multifaceted intricacy.

That to me is genius. No question about it.