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

[Ron]

Meanwhile, people like John Williams who have been making incredible music for decades, and everybody respects how great their music is, don't usually get called a genius, even though it's obvious to everyone that he has an extreme musical talent.   The music Williams makes takes much more effort to write and create than Brian's.

So I don't know, it's strange.  I do think Brian is a genius, however.

Williams' music may take more effort, in the sense that what he's doing requires writing parts for a larger set of musicians and so on, but in terms of creativity or imagination there's not much there -- it's all warmed-over Wagner. It's effectively-done warmed-over Wagner, admittedly, but it's the kind of thing that anyone who did a degree in music could do. That's not to disparage his work -- he's done it and others haven't, after all -- but there's nothing in there that's on the same level *imaginatively* as Brian's best work.

Oh come on.  If you call Williams warmed over Wagner you can call Brian warmed over Gershwin. 

Like Billy Joel said.  Everyone's derivative. 

[Ron]

It's actually a fairly common thing. I know I've heard entire records in my head --

Disregard my previous posts trying to argue with you... I didn't realize you were one of.... 'them'.....

[Wirestone]

I would also say there is a fundamental difference between hearing a pop song, or a melody -- something that's a couple of minutes long at most -- in your heard, and hearing an hour-plus symphony. I don't think it's necessarily super-difficult to do the first (and it's good fun sometime to try to re-create listening to a record just through your imagination -- I can't be the only person to try this). The second, on the other hand, is far rarer (and may actually be impossible -- Mozart's adeptness, for instance, may have simply been that he could write it down and work it out so quickly that it seemed like he was taking dictation from his head).

[Ron]

Lets throw Bach into the mix.  So you have

- Mozart, effortlessly wrote masterpieces from like the age of 5

- Beethoven, wrote with a fury and passion that only his eraser knows the full story about

- Bach - Wrote so much sh*t that a few pieces stuck to the wall and were really incredible. 

!

[Runaways]

john williams is a stud.  love his scores, even if they get similar, they're so great.  and he can do so many styles, i don't have a problem saying he's a genius too. 

[Wirestone]

Lets throw Bach into the mix.  So you have

- Mozart, effortlessly wrote masterpieces from like the age of 5

- Beethoven, wrote with a fury and passion that only his eraser knows the full story about

- Bach - Wrote so much sh*t that a few pieces stuck to the wall and were really incredible. 

!

Vivaldi is a lot like Bach. Well, not as good -- but definitely as prolific as f***. But it was easier for composers in the baroque, I think -- there was less demand for music to be "expressive," or particularly personal, in the way that became common starting in the 1800s.

[Ron]

Did Bach write a lot of his pieces, as instructional tools for his students?  I understand he had lots of understudies, maybe that was the way he taught, he just wrote all the time.  Mozart or Beethoven didnt' really ever teach as a job did they?

[Aegir]

I think the fact that we have to compare Brian to classical composers and not other pop composers says it all.

[the captain]

But we don't have to, we just do because of some quotes in documentaries and books by other pop composers (and the occasional music professor). And it helps people to legitimize their belief in him (as if classical music were inherently better, or on some higher plane). Most of the "challenging" aspects of Brian's music, such as frequent shifts in tonal center or extended harmonies, were the norm in Tin Pan Alley pop music, for example. The difference is that he was putting them in a context where it wasn't normally heard.

All that said, Brian Wilson was obviously a genius at making great pop records. If the word genius should mean something else, ok, use something else. But I feel comfortable in saying that his best music in the pop genre is as good as anyone else's best music in that same genre. And comparing it to classical music just doesn't make any sense, because it's not that.

[AndrewHickey]

I would also say there is a fundamental difference between hearing a pop song, or a melody -- something that's a couple of minutes long at most -- in your heard, and hearing an hour-plus symphony. I don't think it's necessarily super-difficult to do the first (and it's good fun sometime to try to re-create listening to a record just through your imagination -- I can't be the only person to try this). The second, on the other hand, is far rarer (and may actually be impossible -- Mozart's adeptness, for instance, may have simply been that he could write it down and work it out so quickly that it seemed like he was taking dictation from his head).

This is true, but remember as well that pieces ran *much* shorter in Mozart's time -- Most of Mozart's symphonies are around twenty minutes, not much longer than one of the movements of Smile. Given what a prodigious talent Mozart was, and the relative simplicity of his orchestration, I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that he could have held the whole thing in his head. Something huge like Beethoven's Ninth, of course, would not be possible.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

A musical genius, as understood originally, is simply someone who can hear 5 or more voices of polyphony in their head. Brian can apparently only hear four, so historically speaking, no, he isn't.

Obviously though, words and terms can change their meanings over time. But when a term goes from having a clear historical definition, to no clear definition at all, then I'd rather stick to the clear definition.

It just seems to me that, a lot of the time, when someone uses the term "so and so is a musical genius", this translates to "I like this artist / performer".

[Iron Horse-Apples]

I would also say there is a fundamental difference between hearing a pop song, or a melody -- something that's a couple of minutes long at most -- in your heard, and hearing an hour-plus symphony. I don't think it's necessarily super-difficult to do the first (and it's good fun sometime to try to re-create listening to a record just through your imagination -- I can't be the only person to try this). The second, on the other hand, is far rarer (and may actually be impossible -- Mozart's adeptness, for instance, may have simply been that he could write it down and work it out so quickly that it seemed like he was taking dictation from his head).

This is true, but remember as well that pieces ran *much* shorter in Mozart's time -- Most of Mozart's symphonies are around twenty minutes, not much longer than one of the movements of Smile. Given what a prodigious talent Mozart was, and the relative simplicity of his orchestration, I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that he could have held the whole thing in his head. Something huge like Beethoven's Ninth, of course, would not be possible.

A lot of the stories about Mozart are mythical. A lot of his scores show signs of correction, and whilst he could transcribe the much of a piece straight to manuscript from his head, he would have to go to the piano to work out the more difficult passages of counterpoint.

If you're interested in reading about the complex individual that was Mozart, and his working methods, then seek out the Maynard Solomon book of about 20 years ago. "Mozart, A Life"

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Even true, genuine geniuses are usually given too much credit.  Just about any freakishly talented famous person is bound to have stories floating around that are either embellished or false.  To me, genius needn't be reserved for a very rare species.  It can simply be a rough synonym for talent.

But then, if Geniuses are a dime a dozen, what's really impressive is a talented person--a genius--who nevertheless works very hard.  Those are the people that change the world.  I mean, I'm a genius, but I sit around googling photos of sleeping baby cats all day, you know?

[Runaways]

Night time is delight time
It's starlight time
And it's the right time for me

[lance]

Sheer poetry.

[the captain]

A musical genius, as understood originally, is simply someone who can hear 5 or more voices of polyphony in their head.

Where exactly is musical genius defined in that way?

[lance]

Why are other pop artists not compared with people like Mozart? Who started doing that with Brian? I mean, nobody does that with Prince, who is just as good. or do they and I just don't know about it? Do people on the Ted Nugent board compare him to Wagner or something?

[adamghost]

I think there's a really interesting premise here that goes to Brian's statement of "I'm not a genius, I'm just a hard working guy."  Because you could almost define genius in terms of natural ability, and thus lack of effort.  In the sense that perhaps a genius can certainly think up stuff on the fly because he/she has a gift, but a less talented person might have to work two or three times harder to come up with something nearly as good.  So which is more impressive?  The genius might come up with something better because they're just tapped into a source of inspiration and have an ability that comes naturally to them, but a lesser talent might just really put their nose to the grindstone.

I just got done doing an Elton John tribute, and I realized that guy has to be a prodigy.  The reason I say that is that he has nearly always written his songs in an incredibly short period of time, and some of his chord progressions are dazzlingly brilliant.  So here's a guy that has so much raw talent and yet is so easily bored that he just craps out a song like "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" or "Someone Saved My Life Tonight" in less than an hour.  Now, it's possible that his music suffers in other ways because there's effort that was not put in to polish an idea or a thought, etc.  So the final output might not be as good as someone who has less raw talent but more instinct for polishing, say.  But I'd argue that someone who can write music that complex and logical that fast has to be a genius by definition....which doesn't necessarily mean the music is better (though I am a fan).

So it's an interesting question: is Brian a genius, a hard working guy, or a bit of both?  I'd say that it's both in the sense that around the time of PET SOUNDS the guy was clearly really trying, just as it's clear he was coasting in later years or just didn't have the motivation he did as a younger guy.  So the genius may have always been present, but the desire and work ethic left him.  So maybe it's a false choice between the two?

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Why are other pop artists not compared with people like Mozart? Who started doing that with Brian? I mean, nobody does that with Prince, who is just as good. or do they and I just don't know about it? Do people on the Ted Nugent board compare him to Wagner or something?

Brian's not the only pop musicians to get compared with classical composers.  And speaking of Wagner, don't forget that, for some reason, Daryl Dragon thinks Dennis and Wagner have something in common.

Adam, I agree that by and large most genius is manifested by very hard work.  The best art is probably that created by somebody with genius talent who is also a workaholic.  But the geniuses can sit back and still be better than just about everybody else without even trying.  Of course, sometimes, the REAL geniuses are those who make it seem like they aren't even trying because they've already put in the work.

Looking at Brian, it's obvious he's got an ear for music.  But think about his "Happy Birthday Four Freshmen" bit.  I would not call that a superb arrangement.  At that point, he was probably spending 15 hours a day at the piano picking out harmonies.  To my knowledge, nobody has really ever investigated Brian's learning process.  There's the story about Brian going into Capitol and singing all four parts through of a Four Freshmen arrangement.  But we don't know how many hours he spent picking out the parts.  By the time he arranged the Lord's Prayer, Auld Lang Syne, and even And Your Dream Comes True, Brian had mastered the art of tight vocal harmony.  But I don't think, using the Happy Birthday Arrangement (which is not bad, just not quite up to later arrangements) as evidence, that that ability was just suddenly there, Minerva-out-of-Jove-like.  I think the guys spent a butt-load of time in front of the piano and payed his dues in that sense.  That's the hard work he's talking about.  And it just so happened that he's a person with extraordinary abilities to synthesize that work into a meaningful creation of his own.

[Amy B.]

Right, well, Brian said that every day after school he would go home and pick out Four Freshman parts obsessively, thereby training his ear to create those types of arrangements. But could just anyone have done that? No, or all of Brian's admirers would have tried it and been hailed as geniuses by now.

I think you're right-- Brian has always been a genius, but he was only a hardworking guy in the 60s. There have been lots of hardworking guys (and women) in music, but few reached his level. But his talent has yielded stories of how he didn't work all that hard sometimes and came up with something few could have. Like the arrangements on other people's songs that are seemingly done on the fly, where he asks if someone wants "4 parts or 5 parts," as if they're ordering a pizza, and then delivers. Or those "5-minute songs" that Bruce marveled about, where Bruce said they were songs he wishes he could have come up with, but they were throwaways to Brian. Maybe that wasn't Brian's best work, but it didn't seem to take much effort.

"Genius is 90 percent perspiration, 10 percent inspiration."

[the captain]

But could just anyone have done that? No, or all of Brian's admirers would have tried it and been hailed as geniuses by now.

Definitely not "just anyone," but probably far more people than who did, with the reason being hard work. Recognizing those great results, envying those great results, even having a spark of the same ability and influences, that is the easy part. I'd suggest that maybe the main reason more people don't achieve better results isn't the lack of what we're calling genius, but rather the lack of consistently hard work.

Even just in my work environment, I can't even begin to say how many people can really say all the right things about work ethic ... but when the time comes to produce, they're gone. Many--even most?--people simply lack motivation and consistent effort.

One other thing I think is important to the discussion. I think coming to a conclusion requires agreeing on the definition of the question. So what's a genius? The previous poster said that a musical genius was understood to be able to hear five parts in his head. While I doubt that the term was ever understood to mean that, at least that would make it something identifiable. But if everyone comes into the conversation with his or her own definition, then the whole thing is irrelevant. According to Merriam-Webster, it means things like "strong leaning or inclination: penchant," "peculiar, distinctive, or identifying character or spirit," "single, strongly marked capacity or aptitude," "extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity." and "person endowed with transcendent mental superiority."

It seems safe to say that Brian Wilson has (or had) a genius (the "penchant" definition) for writing pop songs...even for writing pop songs that achieved tremendous success despite using unconventional instrumentation, arrangements, etc. (the extraordinary intellectual ... creative activity" definition). But whether the genius he had was such that he would fit the definition of a person who is a genius--"transcendent mental superiority," for example?--I think that's probably a tougher argument.

So there you have it. Several paragraphs that can resolve the argument once and for all as yes, unless no, or possibly maybe, depending on how you look at it.

You're welcome.

[I. Spaceman]

You're really hittin' it on this thread, Luther.  I agree with everything you've said.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

A musical genius, as understood originally, is simply someone who can hear 5 or more voices of polyphony in their head.

Where exactly is musical genius defined in that way?

Well, we used to have these things called books..........

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

A musical genius, as understood originally, is simply someone who can hear 5 or more voices of polyphony in their head.

Where exactly is musical genius defined in that way?

Well, we used to have these things called books..........

Citation, please.

Were there no genii before 5-part polyphony was "invented"?  What about people who can only hear 9-part homophony?  What about a person who can hear 4 part polyphony but just can't quite get that fifth part?

[monicker]

How much 5-part polyphonic music really exists even? Even 4 part is not that common outside of Baroque era fugues, no? And a lot of that is just rounds of the same melodic figure. Or just inverted, backwards, whatever. I'm familiar with Ockeghem, who excelled in polyphony for many voices, but, to my knowledge, he was an exception. I haven't heard it myself, but i've been told about some 8, 9 part madrigals he composed. Are you sure that "definition" isn't someone who can hear 5 or more voices of harmony in their head?