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

[Dunderhead]

Genius was not originally really a positive thing. The word a couple of centuries ago was something of a thinly veiled insult applied to talented but undeveloped amateurs.

What is genius though? Genius comes from a rigorous interpretation of art and life. The best works of art are the ones that show the greatest self understanding, the greatest understanding of the artist of his own personality, and the greatest understanding of the artist of his own particular style and its' development.

I think, at his peak, 1965, 1966, and trailing off with SMiLE until Friends in '67 and '68 Brian was a genius in this sense. He understood his art form, he had a superior sense of its possibility and the path which it needed to take. He understood the art of production, and what he needed to do within that art form to develop it. He understood his place among his contemporaries and he understood his own self in well enough a way to express himself in a very articulate way through his work.

That, to me, is genius.

[the captain]

Genius was not originally really a positive thing. The word a couple of centuries ago was something of a thinly veiled insult applied to talented but undeveloped amateurs.

That it was used as an insult doesn't mean that is what it originally meant. For what it's worth (and I don't even know), Etymology Online says:

genius
    late 14c., "tutelary god (classical or pagan)," from L. genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent;" also "prophetic skill," originally "generative power," from root of gignere "beget, produce" (see kin), from PIE root *gen- "produce." Sense of "characteristic disposition" is from 1580s. Meaning "person of natural intelligence or talent" and that of "natural ability" are first recorded 1640s.

So I don't think its origins are an insult.

That, to me, is genius.

And that, to me, is the problem with this kind of discussion. As long as we each are allowed our own definition, we can each consider ourselves correct even if we take contrary positions. It's cloudy out today if, to me, cloudy means I saw a cloud.

[Ron]

Einstein was a genius because he said, essentially, "Everything is relative to the observer".  

[lance]

I had a friend in junior high school who informed me he was a 'super-genius.' But we are still no closer to the elusive definition of genius. If the Smiley Smilers can't find it, who can?

[Dunderhead]

Genius was not originally really a positive thing. The word a couple of centuries ago was something of a thinly veiled insult applied to talented but undeveloped amateurs.

That it was used as an insult doesn't mean that is what it originally meant. For what it's worth (and I don't even know), Etymology Online says:

genius
    late 14c., "tutelary god (classical or pagan)," from L. genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent;" also "prophetic skill," originally "generative power," from root of gignere "beget, produce" (see kin), from PIE root *gen- "produce." Sense of "characteristic disposition" is from 1580s. Meaning "person of natural intelligence or talent" and that of "natural ability" are first recorded 1640s.

So I don't think its origins are an insult.

That, to me, is genius.

And that, to me, is the problem with this kind of discussion. As long as we each are allowed our own definition, we can each consider ourselves correct even if we take contrary positions. It's cloudy out today if, to me, cloudy means I saw a cloud.

The word was often used ironically, see Jean Paul's novel Titan for an example. Don't know about it's very early use, but I'm talking about the 17th/18th century usage. To say someone was a genius was an underhanded compliment.

I agree with you about the definition part, but don't agree with the part where you use the dictionary. I was more thinking along the lines of the definition that Nicholas Boyle uses in his exhaustive biography "Goethe: The Poet and The Age". Genius is a process. During Goethe's life there were a lot of contradictory trends in German thought and literature. Some wanted to use the French model of drama as the standard for German literature, some wanted to make use of the English sentimental novel. Some wanted to use classical subjects, some wanted to use Christian ones. Goethe's "genius" rests in the fact that he understood what was going on in his times, how he fit into that scheme, and how the disparate material of his times could be used to create something new and meaningful for his countrymen.

Like Goethe, Brian Wilson had an ambivalent relationship with his age. In some ways is there anyone who is more of a singular product of his times than Brian Wilson? Is there anyone else who so perfectly embodies his musical generation? I think he does so more than anyone else save perhaps Arthur Lee and one or two others. At the same time though Brian was sort of an uncertain outsider within the culture. He stood above his times, but also was an important part of them. He saw, and understood what was happening in music. He understood his own ability, and his own style well enough to create music that paved the way forward. He was grounded in what he thought was necessary, but free to push the boundaries.

Again, Genius is not an inherent quality. Genius is a process of self development and understanding, of historical insight and innovation. Brian Wilson created himself using his music, and his music was created of his personality. This perpetual process of development is what represents true genius.

Is Brian Wilson Mozart? No. Neither is he Beethoven, Handel, Brahms, Bach, or Wagner. But those men were geniuses for the same reason that Brian Wilson was. Mozart was a genius because he was Mozart, and Brian Wilson was a genius because he was Brian Wilson. That's the nature of genius. Talent, and art is only a tool, an organ by which genius is exercised. 

[Runaways]

ugh god, i knew this thread would spiral into posts like "detailing the etymology of genius".  i will bow out now before my eyes get too sore from rolling and my nose numbs from all the bullshit

[Dunderhead]

ugh god, i knew this thread would spiral into posts like "detailing the etymology of genius".  i will bow out now before my eyes get too sore from rolling and my nose numbs from all the bullsh*t

You're contributions will be sorely missed.

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

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.

Bravo and god-speed you gentle man

[Myk Luhv]

I can't find my sourcebook which includes excerpts but I nevertheless highly recommend -- based on the bits I do recall reading -- y'all (especially you, Fishmonk) check out Gender and Genius: Towards a Feminist Aesthetics (1989, Indiana University Press) by Christine Battersby, a feminist philosopher of aesthetics. She in part traces the concept of genius from antiquity to the Romantic period (I think probably via Kant), and it seems to me that our contemporary notion of genius is still stuck in the 18th and 19th century in many ways (e.g., "non-rational" artistic inspiration) even if we may be ostensibly better at dealing with female artists these days. (Though I suppose it's telling you still rarely see a female artist lauded as a genius...) If I can find my sourcebook and I remember, I will return here to provide some delightful quotes!

[Runaways]

ugh god, i knew this thread would spiral into posts like "detailing the etymology of genius".  i will bow out now before my eyes get too sore from rolling and my nose numbs from all the bullsh*t

You're contributions will be sorely missed.

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

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.

Bravo and god-speed you gentle man

Just because you read a book doesn't mean you know how the word "genius" was used 500 years ago.  Just because you can string sentences together and use words pleasantly doesn't make you better than anyone else, which is obviously what you're trying to say.  You think your contributions add more to the board than others right?  "Bravo and god-speed you gentle man".  Ugh, you're so desperate to sound educated that you sound like a fool.

I think this might be the first post on this board where I've actually seen someone infer that they're better than someone else, pretty sad.  But still, go ahead and do your thing, "brian wilson was a genius because he was brian wilson".  Oh lordy, those A+ in literature went to your head.  

[Runaways]

anyway, back on topic.  I think the easiest way to argue that Brian isn't a musical genius is just to look at the quality of his music since the 70's.  Nothing he's done of the past 25 years even approaches "genius" level, and some of it is quite awful.

[monicker]

ugh god, i knew this thread would spiral into posts like "detailing the etymology of genius".  i will bow out now before my eyes get too sore from rolling and my nose numbs from all the bullsh*t

You're contributions will be sorely missed.

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

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.

Bravo and god-speed you gentle man

I think this might be the first post on this board where I've actually seen someone infer that they're better than someone else 

Damn, have you been asleep at the wheel this whole time?

[Runaways]

ugh god, i knew this thread would spiral into posts like "detailing the etymology of genius".  i will bow out now before my eyes get too sore from rolling and my nose numbs from all the bullsh*t

You're contributions will be sorely missed.

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

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.

Bravo and god-speed you gentle man

I think this might be the first post on this board where I've actually seen someone infer that they're better than someone else 

Damn, have you been asleep at the wheel this whole time?

More or less 

[Dunderhead]

anyway, back on topic. I think the easiest way to argue that Brian isn't a musical genius is just to look at the quality of his music since the 70's.  Nothing he's done of the past 25 years even approaches "genius" level, and some of it is quite awful.

First I want to apologize. I was being snarky, you're right. I mostly meant to say you only made two threadbare posts in this thread so you didn't need to sh*t on discussion just because not everyone wants to joke around and make quips. In fact there is something equally arrogant in your stance, because you also assuming that you're better than us because you don't fall into the trap of taking a pop band too seriously. We're both guilty of making some unflattering assumptions, so lets just put that behind us.

Second, I don't believe my contributions are any better than those anyone else. Honest! I hate when accusations like that get thrown around against anyone here. If you post enough on this board, and people start being able to differentiate your particular posting voice, you're liable to get accused of trying to dominate discussion. I'm sorry to all my friends here if it ever seems that way. This board is a community, and it can't get by on just one style of posting. We balance eachother out and add different layers to the discussion. I just post things that interest me, I understand they don't interest everyone, I just want to entertain whoever wants to be entertained by it. The one thing I don't value though Runaways, is when people threadshit, which is what you were doing when you said "ugh god, i knew this thread would spiral into posts like "detailing the etymology of genius".  i will bow out now before my eyes get too sore from rolling and my nose numbs from all the bullsh*t". That's the one type of post that contributes absolutely nothing to the community.

Again I apologize, I don't mean to provoke you. It was bad etiquette on my part. But you should also recognize that you were acting out of turn as well.

[Dunderhead]

I can't find my sourcebook which includes excerpts but I nevertheless highly recommend -- based on the bits I do recall reading -- y'all (especially you, Fishmonk) check out Gender and Genius: Towards a Feminist Aesthetics (1989, Indiana University Press) by Christine Battersby, a feminist philosopher of aesthetics. She in part traces the concept of genius from antiquity to the Romantic period (I think probably via Kant), and it seems to me that our contemporary notion of genius is still stuck in the 18th and 19th century in many ways (e.g., "non-rational" artistic inspiration) even if we may be ostensibly better at dealing with female artists these days. (Though I suppose it's telling you still rarely see a female artist lauded as a genius...) If I can find my sourcebook and I remember, I will return here to provide some delightful quotes!

I will look for this, it sounds really interesting. I've only read a little about the topic, one essay I came across about Jean Paul was about that topic, which was where my understanding of the usage came from.

What do you study by the way Midnight Special, I've seen you mention a few of my own topics of interest before. I'm a Goethe fanatic and spend most of my time fantasizing about 1790's Jena. I'm probably a freak about it, but it's nice to see an apparently kindred spirit out there from time to time.


Also, to get the thread back on topic. I don't believe Brian Wilson was a genius of the caliber of Beethoven. I understand that Brian lost touch somewhere along the way and produced some real crap. I don't think TLOS is a work of Gotheian proportions. That's the point of my argument though. Genius isn't something you have, it's something you do. That's why Goethe was a genius of the highest caliber, because he understood that and continued that process of genius for his whole life. Brian Wilson never truly matured as an artist, he burned out quickly. It's tragic sure, but I think during the high water mark 1964/65 - 1966/67 Brian's creative process and the development of his art was an act of genius. He used his art as a means to forward his own personality, and this in turn allowed him to create more refined art (from the point of view of his own particular style and genre). That's genius, directing the forward progress of your art in a logical and meticulous way over a sustained period of creativity. His art was pop art, but he was a genius of pop art.

[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..........

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?

Can't give a specific citation unfortunately, but I'm sure you'll find it online somewhere, just maybe not using google search! I always took it as standard knowledge. If people don't believe me, that's fine. Not sure why you think I'd lie. I'm not saying it's the definition, but it's the only clear definition I've ever heard.

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?

Polyphony is separate lines of music, be they counterpoint or sustained notes. So for polyphony, read harmony if you want.

And there is loads of music with more than five lines of counterpoint running concurrently. Pet Sounds?

[Wirestone]

anyway, back on topic.  I think the easiest way to argue that Brian isn't a musical genius is just to look at the quality of his music since the 70's.  Nothing he's done of the past 25 years even approaches "genius" level, and some of it is quite awful.

Nonsense. If you seriously believe this, you have not been listening. And if you have not been listening, I do not know why you should be taken seriously.

[Dunderhead]

anyway, back on topic.  I think the easiest way to argue that Brian isn't a musical genius is just to look at the quality of his music since the 70's.  Nothing he's done of the past 25 years even approaches "genius" level, and some of it is quite awful.

Nonsense. If you seriously believe this, you have not been listening. And if you have not been listening, I do not know why you should be taken seriously.

Yeah I think pretty much every great genius has produced some lesser works. Just because you're a genius doesn't mean your perfect.

[monicker]

Fishmonk, you’ve been linking genius to personality and self. And you cited Bach as a genius. How do you justify that when you consider that Bach composed in an era when music was a craft no different than, say, making furniture, and composing wasn’t driven by any sort of self-expression? 

[monicker]

Polyphony is separate lines of music, be they counterpoint or sustained notes. So for polyphony, read harmony if you want.

Wait a second, what does the duration of the note have to do with it? It sounds like you're saying here that polyphony and harmony are interchangeable and one and the same.

And there is loads of music with more than five lines of counterpoint running concurrently. Pet Sounds?

More than 5 lines of counterpoint on Pet Sounds? Where? I've counted, i think it was four lines, in the Vega-Tables fade and one of the sections of H&V 2, but on Pet Sounds? Oh my God, where? I'm scared.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

I use polyphony as an all encompassing word that means two or more lines of music playing at once. I realise some people apply the term solely to counterpoint. Both uses are valid. And I didn't mean note duration, I just meant a sustained note, as in the notes of a chord, non melodic.

And in my Pet Sounds reference, again, maybe I use the term counterpoint more loosely than you. I count melodic bass lines, guitar lines, the horn parts as well as vocals. Not to mention the pads. When you hear the piano or organ part, whatever is playing the chords, it is always melodic. The chord inversions, as they progress, are often melodic. Listen to the chords to God Only Knows, or I Just Wasn't Made For These Times. Brian put melodies and counter melodies everywhere. Quite rare in pop, but not in Jazz or (I hate this term) Classical music.

For music to be contrapunctal, it doesn't have to be strict counterpoint. Maybe we understand the terms differently though.

[Dunderhead]

Fishmonk, you’ve been linking genius to personality and self. And you cited Bach as a genius. How do you justify that when you consider that Bach composed in an era when music was a craft no different than, say, making furniture, and composing wasn’t driven by any sort of self-expression? 

Funny you should bring this up, Goethe actually discusses the relationship between craft and art extensively in his fourth novel. I would say the most genius art has the logic and precision of a craft. The genius with a highly refined style will develop that style into a craft (though he might not always publicly expound on that). It is harder to do this in literature or music because the range of possibilities is so infinite. But I don't think that I would agree a traditional craft isn't a type of art. Playing the piano is an example of something that's both an art and a craft. A musical virtuoso is a genius don't you think? The best performers have a genius about their particular style. Though not all carpentry is art, it's not exactly uncommon for some craftsmen to possess genius with regards to their style. In fact I can remember more than one time when I've gone to a museum and seen works of craft displayed as art (The Art Institute of Chicago has or had a display on colonial furniture for a while and I can't imagine the people who made that stuff as being purely mechanical or unartistic in their approach). 

[Iron Horse-Apples]

I would say the most genius art has the logic and precision of a craft.

Well, I won't get the music / mathematics argument started again, but I totally agree. To me, the art of composition is about logic, precision and mathematics. It's how I experience music. Music was always considered more of a science than an art. It is only in the last 200 years or so that that has changed.

[Dunderhead]

I would say the most genius art has the logic and precision of a craft.

Well, I won't get the music / mathematics argument started again, but I totally agree. To me, the art of composition is about logic, precision and mathematics. It's how I experience music. Music was always considered more of a science than an art. It is only in the last 200 years or so that that has changed.

I don't see art and science as contradictory at all. In fact both most be present to truly create something of genius. Necessity and freedom must go hand in hand.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

I would say the most genius art has the logic and precision of a craft.

Well, I won't get the music / mathematics argument started again, but I totally agree. To me, the art of composition is about logic, precision and mathematics. It's how I experience music. Music was always considered more of a science than an art. It is only in the last 200 years or so that that has changed.

I don't see art and science as contradictory at all. In fact both most be present to truly create something of genius. Necessity and freedom must go hand in hand.

Absolutely. I'd go further to say that freedom is found within the rules, and conversely, having no rules stifles creativity. It is act of problem solving, within an often self imposed set of parameters, that leads to the uniqueness of a piece of great art.

[AndrewHickey]

Einstein was a genius because he said, essentially, "Everything is relative to the observer".  

No he didn't. In fact the whole point of relativity is that there is something -- the speed of light -- which is invariant and *isn't* relative to the observer.

I would say the most genius art has the logic and precision of a craft.

Well, I won't get the music / mathematics argument started again, but I totally agree. To me, the art of composition is about logic, precision and mathematics. It's how I experience music. Music was always considered more of a science than an art. It is only in the last 200 years or so that that has changed.

Well, no, you're wrong here, because the very concept of science as a separate branch of knowledge, with separate rules, only really came into being in the early-mid 19th century. Before that, nobody considered *anything* "more of a science than an art", because the distinction itself wasn't made.