The Smiley Smile Message Board

(Just for the record I consider BW a musical genius and the most talented composer to ever write pop music)


Speak to the idea that Brian Wilson is not a musical genius. For example

• 
  In the liner notes to Pet sounds sessions, it's described that most of the Wrecking crew didn't really care for BW's music and thought his instructions were sketchy and that he came in with just basic chord progressions, no notes.
  
  Brian has always said that he can't hear music in his head. He has to play the piano where as other great composers are known to compose symphonies in their head and then just put it on paper.
  
  

He may not be a genious  ::)

hater  :lol

Nope just a hard working fan

I've only heard of Mozart 'hearing it all in his head' and taking, as it were, dictation when composing. I think most composers have to try things out and experiment. I think the problem is the definition of genius. It's either overused, or not used enough. I definitey consider him one of the greats. But I think there are lots of greats.

Apart from all the other voices that he hears, there is plenty of confirmation that the harmony structures are formulated in his head. Which has been the constant through his career.

So many people who are merely talented are described as geniuses these days and I find it annoying. The word has been diluted.

Interestingly, Hal Blaine said he thought the word was overused and that he reserved it for people like Einstein. So I guess he wouldn't apply it to Brian, even though he obviously has high regard for him. There is a difference (in my opinion) between being astoundingly good at what you do and being a genius. I think if you're a genius, you can unlock something no one else has been able to unlock.

I haven't read the Pet Sounds booklet in a long time, but I thought the Wrecking Crew was skeptical of Brian's abilities early on but later came to admire his work. And they were all asked whether they thought Brian was a genius, and several of them said yes.

Getting back to "merely talented versus genius," I suppose you could argue that Brian is very talented, but if he were a genius he would not have put out any bad songs, or he would have been writing symphonies at age 20, for example. But I think he's a genius, for his ability to create this very complex music (without training) yet make it completely accessible to the general public... and do it again and again. Not sure I'd use that word for any other pop songwriter.

The word 'Genius' definately is overused.  It's earlier use was for Brilliant people everybody knew about, like Amy said.  So Einstein was a genius, and it was obvious to everyone that he had analytical abilities much higher than most people do. 

Now the word is almost exclusively used to describe people who have an intellect that not everybody understands.  So it goes:

 - Brian is known by the casual observer as a member of the "Beach Boys" a pop phenomenon that mainly ruled in the 60's

 - Average people would say he was pretty good if he wrote all those songs

 - People who know more about him because they've delved deeper into the band, introduce him as a 'Genius', to tell everyone that they should take a closer look at him and how much musical talent he has.


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.

If you were talking about the present tense then I think you would have to say that Brian isn`t a genius. You could look at his output from 1972 onwards and say that it isn`t the work of a genius.

anyone who can come up with the chord progression of Surf's Up in just a couple of minutes is by definition a  genius.  You can hear from the sessions that he had a very good idea of how he wanted it.

I'd say it depends who you ask. If you ask the morons on the blueboard, they'll insist up and down that music began and ended with him and therefore he is not merely "A" musical genius but "THE" musical genius.

Is he a musical genius? Sure, in his own way, much like Hildegard of Bingen, Mozart, Beethoven, Gershwin, Frank Sinatra were in their own way.

Well Beethoven was deaf so......

he wasn't fully deaf until the end of his career/life.

I had no idea! That makes a world of a difference. I'll have to convert to a new religion now.

Hal Blaine remarked in one of the DVD's that they (the session players) seldom knew what the finished product sounded like unless they heard it on the radio or listened to the record, which, apparently, was not all that often. They weren't around for the vocal tracks or final "assembly". So it was hard to grasp the full measure of it just with the various tracks they played or heard in the studio. But he also said they quickly realized this guy (Brian) was not just some kid, he was something different. I think he might have even used the word genius, not sure right now. Genius?  Maybe, maybe not, how do you measure it and why bother?  But one of the best composers of popular music in our lifetime who gained the respect of some of the best players in the business?  Yes.

Mozart was exceptionally unusual. From all accounts, he did indeed hear everything in place, and just "wrote it down."

Beethoven was different. He worked very, very hard. Beethoven wrote and rewrote and rewrote his pieces. You can still see the notebooks where he wrestled with his materials. Beethoven's genius was one grounded in diligent, unceasing effort. Does that make it less impressive than Mozart's ability? Or more so?

(http://www.oktavenaudio.com/Library%20images/Oktaven%20AudiO%20-%20Beethoven%20-%20Symphony%20No.%206.jpg)

Brian seems to generally not have fully arranged instrumental tracks in his head. He would have a part or three worked out (usually a bass line among them), which probably originated when he was writing the songs on a piano. At the height of his abilities, it seems like he probably had a bit more arranging aptitude, but he always leaned on the musicians to translate his ideas and offer suggestions.

But as people here note, Brian does have the ability to think in four or five part harmony. He can just do it -- think of the parts, hand them out, and have it done. And on virtually every album that he has a production credit on (and even a few that don't, like OCA), the one thing you can always be sure of is that Brian arranged all the vocals. Not because he wants to show off, and not because other people don't have ideas, but because it's his really singular gift, and it's still incredibly easy for him.

So there are several answers to your question. In the sense of sheer, Mozartian genius, Brian's abilities as a vocal arranger are deeply impressive. But he is also, perhaps, a genius of collaboration. He figured out how to use a half-dozen co-writers to express his deepest personal feelings. He arranged astonishing backing tracks on which he does not play. He produced records without any deep technical knowledge, but through friendships with a long line of sympathetic so-producers and engineers (starting with Chuck Britz). And even his vocal arrangements spring to life when sung by the multiple members of his band.

This kind of collaborative ability is underestimated. Think of all the times you've seen Brian praise his solo band as "better than the Beach Boys." Regardless of its truth, how do you think it makes his band feel? Awesome, I'd bet. And think about how he told Mike how great he sounded for 70 years old. Brian is a master encourager. Because this kind of praise -- coming from him -- makes people he works with feel great. And then they do great things for him.

I applaud you for your post. (even though you didn't play devil's advocate)


Just to defend myself...if Beethoven was deaf and continued to compose music......where was his music? Possibly it was in his head and he put it on paper right?

No need for that, but it does make a difference in the context of my post and your reply.

Well, he wrote at the piano. When his hearing got worse he stopped using the orchestra as a writing tool* and he would have to put his ear against the piano to hear what he was writing. In the very end, he must have learned how to imagine it in his head, but I don't think it ever flowed out of him like Mozart. He was less prolific and lived a lot longer.

*what I mean is he would sometimes have orchestras perform pieces for him and then rewrite them--I have heard recordings of 'alternate takes' that he had written)

Great composers are known to compose symphonies in their head?
John Williams?
Frank Sinatra?
Writing the Surf’s Up chord progression in just a couple of minutes is by definition genius?
Beethoven was deaf?

What else?

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.

Wagner, Copland, and especially Bernard Herrmann. John Williams is McComposing.

It's actually a fairly common thing. I know I've heard entire records in my head -- music, lyrics, arrangements, production, everything -- and I'm certainly no Mozart. Paul McCartney has had whole songs come to him in dreams -- most famously Yesterday, but also a couple of others.

Where experimentation comes in, for a lot of people, is adapting that music to what is possible with the tools at hand. The parts one hears in one's head may not be physically realisable -- a vocal melody may stretch across more notes than a singer can hit, a horn part may require more register changes than a player can comfortably accomodate, or the sound may not even be one that can be realised by any existing instrument. Or the composer may hear two short sections of music in her head that feel like they should be part of the same piece, and then have to compose linking material to bridge the two sections.

What does seem to be the case, though, is that while some composers hear music in their heads, that music is neither better or worse (as far as listeners can tell) than the music they sit down and consciously write one note after another, and there is little or no correlation between hearing music in your head and compositional ability.

I appreciate your post!
Just would like to mention that, appart from being an extraordinary talent, Mozart did work hard on his music, as the tens or hundreds of surviving sketches show.

If an aristic genius is a person that, with some consistency, tends to create masterpieces in his field, then perhaps the term can be applied to Brian. He created several songs/recordings that are masterpieces, appart from quite a few minor gems. He has a songsmith's craft that he keeps to this day, manages to dialogue with his tradition and time and place while introducing his own vision and originality. Has a natural -if developed- talent for vocal arranging, and a sixth sense for voicing and pacing. But I agree wholeheartedly with your remarks about Brian's abilities as a collaborator.

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

Like Billy Joel said.  Everyone's derivative. 

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

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).

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. 

!

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. 

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.

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?

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

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.

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 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".

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"

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?

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

Sheer poetry.

Where exactly is musical genius defined in that way?

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?

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?

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.

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."

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.


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.

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

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?

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. 

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

You're contributions will be sorely missed.



Bravo and god-speed you gentle man

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!

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.  

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.

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

More or less  ;D

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.

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.

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.


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?

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.

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? 

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.


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.

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. :)

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). 

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.

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.


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.

Sorry. Where would I be without you to point out my stupidity at any given moment?

I didn't say (and don't think) you were stupid. I said you were wrong, which you were, as a matter of simple fact.

I'm sorry, but "look it up" isn't going to work.  I don't believe you.  Nothing personal, I don't think you're lying, but you have to back up things like that with actual research and not just pull it out of the air.  It's fine if you want to posit it as an opinion but as for an "original understanding" you're going to have to be a little more convincing.  


What's the point of words having any meaning at all if you can assign any meaning you want to them?  What you describe is not really polyphony, and saying that music does not have to be counterpoint to be counterpoint is almost formally fallacious.

You cannot arbitrarily choose new definitions for words and expect people to follow along with you.  You can hope that your use catches on, but in this case, persisting in using some of these words the way you do is only going to lead to confusion because of your heterodox use.



I agree--200 years seems an arbitrary number to me.  And it's not as though music as a science isn't still an active tradition in some schools of thought.  But while it's true that science and art were united, it is also simply wrong to suggest that people in Bach's day did not appreciate art as something transcending logic, precision, and mathematics (though that was never far underneath.)  And of course, what we think of as science can transcend those things too.

To wit--

"If ever a composer showed polyphony in its greatest strength, it was
certainly our late lamented Bach. If ever a musician employed the most
hidden secrets of harmony with the most skilled artistry, it was
certainly our Bach. No one ever showed so many ingenious and
unusual ideas as he in elaborate pieces such as ordinarily seem dry
exercises in craftsmanship."

Italics mine, quote from a pupil of Bach, one J.F. Agricola.


But Bach considered himself a scientist:

"'To your Royal Highness I submit in deepest devotion the
present small work of that science which I have achieved in music"

--Bach in a letter to the Electoral Court in Dresden, 1733



See how much fun citing original sources can be?




(And again, let's not discount the work that went into the relative simplicity of Einstein's ideas.)

Ha! Except 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.

Yeah, I couldn't find the letter in German, so I'm not sure what the actual wording was.  But it does go to show the problems with which we'll have to deal, linguistically, before we can continue in this discussion.  We either have to settle on definitions, or the thread is an exercise is futility.

Deeper and deeper we wind, down the labyrythine tubes of the forgotten past and the History of Words. New questions are brought forth(What is a scientist, really? What means polyphony?) but the riddle at the heart of the quest remains unanswered, it's tightly-bound secrets unravelled. We are no closer to finding out what a genius really is than we were when we started.  ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? :hat

 

As I said, if people don't believe me, that's fine. I thought it was common knowledge, obviously it's not. Its's an 18th century definition I read in an 18th century treatise on music. I've read it in several places in fact, but I can't find it online anywhere. As we now seem to live in an age where inforamtion is considered suspect unless it's on Wikipedia, then I retract it to save further embarressment. Saying you don't believe me though is calling me a liar. Please don't.



Whoah there fella!! My use of those terms are completely valid, I didn't change their meaning. Polyphony is two or more lines of music. A chord is polyphonic, sorry.

And I was differentiating between counterpoint and strict counterpoint, a distinction I do understand, thank you very much! I'm British. I know there is some difference in terms used in other countries. Shall we put it down to that?

I'm fed up of getting shot down here all the time. I was enjoying a nice discussion about music, and now I feel my blood pressure going through the roof. I can't get involved in these conflabs for the sake of my health.

I'm probably being over sensitive, but that's geniuses for you.

Fishmonk. I really enjoyed your clever, insightful posts.

This is a great post. In my opinion.

I thought he was genius because he was brian wilson?  For me, I don't think genius is "forward progress of your art in a logical and meticulous way", because I don't think that defines what can set someone apart from anyone else.  To me a genius' mind works on a different level; it's not something that can be defined by an action everyone does.  Anytime a person trains/learns something, they are progressing in a "meticulous way".  If you're learning tennis and spending hours on a tennis court and getting better, that doesn't make you a genius.  I think the same thing applies for music, coldplay's music has progressed because they put a lot of meticulous work into it, but I wouldn't call them genius.

Also, i think the word "logical" misleads because don't the musicians around Brian think his musical choices are illogical?  It's only when things come together that people understand and see the point of what he was doing.  I think that's the sort of thing that really separates Brian and elevates him to "genius".  I forget which song, I think IJWMFTT, isn't this a song where the string arrangements were in a different key and the musicians didn't understand it?  It was only when they heard the full song that they got it. 

And for the sake of this thread, I could see some people saying that this is because Brian had no idea what he was doing.  He wasn't as learned as the wrecking crew, so what seemed illogical to them musically, was totally logical to Brian because he didn't know any better. 

The use of the word "genius" in an artistic context is so useless.  The enjoyment of specific creations is subjective, while that enjoyment is always rooted in some exploitation of our basic/common drives and needs.  Enjoying art is about reacting and conditioning.  The artists people call genius are the ones who please them, rendering the use of the word in that context anything but intelligent.  Few would articulately and carefully talk of the genius of an artist who doesn't please them.  The closest you'll get to that is someone saying, "I don't like their music, but I know they're a genius," meaning, essentially, "It's complicated and a lot of people I respect like it, so it must be good, right?  Except I don't like it, but I'm certainly not dumb, so I have to give it some praise even though I'll absolutely never listen to that."

"Genius" as a term is understandable when applied to people like Einstein, as someone pointed out pages ago.  You can measure and verify what he said.  Whether you get excited over Relativity or not, it can still be true.  "Don't Worry Baby" cannot be true or false.  Studying melodic patterns and explaining why some please us over others could be genius, but composing music based on those pre-existing patterns is not.

Well i think if I called Brian Wilson a genius, it means nothing.  I'm not musically learned enough to say that, but when real musicians call him that, then I think it's worth something.  I can say Einstein is a genius, I couldn't really say how though, I only know basic physics.  But the way my professor would talk of Einstein's ideas and to hear him say that Einstein was a genius, well then that has more worth.  So i don't think "genius" in an artistic context is useless.

I still wonder if Brian considers himself a genius.  I have my doubts still.

But for 'real musicians' it's just as subjective. Some 'real musicians' will say he is, other 'real musicians' will sneer at them and belittle them passive agressively. So that doesn't work.

Take the passive out of the sentence, and you've nailed it!

They still have more say than I do.  If we're gonna start thinking like that, then no opinion means anything and nothing matters

Why is your bloodpressure going through the roof?  In any serious debate--if that's what we want this to be, there's going to be disagreement.  Disagreement is resolved by presenting evidence pointing to an answer.  Evidence is then attacked so only the best evidence survives.  This is the scholarly process, yes?  I enjoy this type of debate, but I would like it to go somewhere and not simply be opinions.  I think it would be fun to come up with a definition of "musical genius we can all agree on.  Maybe it will take a few years.  The point is, in the give-and-take I'm going to attack your evidence and you should attack mine.  Citing sources is a good way to do this, and since you can't for that definition, I don't assume it as fact.  I don't assume it not as fact.  There is no implication that you're a liar, I'm simply unwilling to take it into consideration without some documented basis.  Blame it on me being an academic.


Here's a question:  Could Brian be a genius--but NOT a musical genius?

Because I find arguments and debates stressful. I'm no good at them. I've PM'd you with an interesting, and good natured idea though

yes, of birthday cakes. I don't think anyone here knows of anything else Brian excels at besides music do we?  The only thing I think we could do was interpret what his abilities are FROM his musical talents. 

Clearly, Brian is a birthday cake genius.  That's not even debatable.

But what I mean is, could Brian, or anybody for that matter, have "genius," some general thing, and that spills over into some pursuit, like music.  Shouldn't a musical genius have a better grasp of the formalities of Music than Brian does?  Shouldn't a musical genius have a better understanding of different genres, an encyclopedic knowledge of world music?  Should a musical genius be a superb performer?

Brian lacks most of these qualities--and yet he had an undeniable ability, possibly a genius, for creating meaningful pop music.

So was he a genius who worked in pop music, rather than a "musical genius"?

I'm greatly enjoying the verbal tennis match, but I have to say - you guys remind me of the blues aficionados at Seymour's party in 'Ghost World.'

In a good way.  :lol

Only there's no hot chicks around like Thora Birch. 

Don't mind me, just jumping in halfway on this thread!

I would argue that having an innate and inexplicable knack for creating up to six (unique) part vocal harmony despite having little or no musical training would be considered 'genius'. Even though Brian's brain has been put through the wringer, he can still do that almost instinctively and in a wholly unique fashion (The Linda Ronstadt story from the Was documentary springs to mind) unlike some of his other musical faculties pre-Landy (although he's still pretty nifty on the keys). Maybe asking a musical genius to be a jack of all trades is asking the wrong question, I'm not sure.

I'm not sure what general 'genius' would entail? A tendency to be obsessed with things? Drive to achieve higher states of knowledge/reward? Trying to divorce Brian's 'genius' from his music is hard. I certainly wouldn't call him an intellectual, for example (Fishmonk will no doubt disagree  ;)) although he has a exceedingly strong curiosity marred by a very short attention span. Just wondering what you lot would say  to that....

But I would argue that Brian did have training, and probably a lot of it.  Again, we don't have precise evidence of what his working methods were exactly, but I think sitting at the piano for 10 hours a day dissecting vocal harmonies is training.  In the same way that Lawyers used to teach themselves law, Brian taught himself music--this is formal training, I think.

Maybe he didn't have the ability to create complex vocal arrangements before he put in a few years of work?  Do we have any evidence?

I agree with you, and Runaways also hinted at it. I can't write a definition of genius and how it pertains to Brian Wilson and music. I just go by what I hear and how I feel. It's those moments when I'm listening to a BW song, say "Cabinessence" for example, and I sit there thinking, "How did he write something like that" or "Where did that come from", or, most importantly, "There are probably very few musicians around who could compose music like that".

Those moments of Brian's genius, in my opinion, dwindled as the 1970's progressed. I might go as far as Love You (late 1976/early 1977) where I find myself still shaking my head in awe. By the time Brian began his solo career in 1986, I no longer heard those qualities. If you assembled a compilation of the best of Brian solo recordings, you would get an impressive and enjoyable collection. However, BW88, Imagination, GIOMH, and TLOS is not the work of a musical genius - to me. I no longer say to myself, "Where did that come from." I know where it came from - mostly recycled ideas and arrangement.

Fishmonk wrote, "Yeah I think pretty much every great genius has produced some lesser works. Just because you're a genius doesn't mean you're perfect." I guess it depends on how you interpret "SOME lesser works". I see it as ten years of geniusing around followed by forty years of producing music that is, well, less than genius. I suppose as long as Brian's alive and composing there is still a chance for genius. But, I also wonder if Brian serves as an example of someone who was a genius, or had that gift - and lost it.

I should have been clearer - I think there's a difference between studying harmony in, I don't know, a class in college and teaching yourself via playing the same record bar by bar and hammering it out on your piano. The latter requires a different sort of dedication to, lets say, me getting piano lessons. And obviously to not only succeed, but also not go absolutely insane trying is fairly unusual I think - I mean, you've done that before right? I've tried, and I can't do it. I lack formal musical training, and it's really hard to to pick these things apart.

I'm not 100% sure of the timeline, but I think Brian, Carl and Dennis singing hymns in three-part harmony happened pre-Freshmen, and bear in mind we're talking in Brian's childhood and adolescence - Mozart aside, it's not normal to be able do this sort of thing by the age of 18!

If I were to define "Musical Genius" It would be someone who can take melody, rhythm, harmony, counterpoint and structure, and combine them so that one is no more important than another. They are all working together to create a whole. The whole is not merely the sum of it's parts, the parts are the whole and vice-versa. Fractal. Every note is important.

Of course this is coming solely from the European traditions of music, but really that's the only critical language I have to work with.

A tennis player can't be a genius? What about Bjorn Borg, or Roger Federer? I didn't contradict myself, I think you just misunderstood my point when I said Brian Wilson was a genius because he was Brian Wilson. Everyone can be genius. Everyone that is a genius is a genius in their own unique way. Someone could be a genius of tennis, or of chess, or of music, or wood carving or throwing cards into a hat. As many different ways to live life there are, there are that many ways to be a genius.

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. Again, genius is something that a person does. It's based entirely on hard work no matter what. When you stop working hard, like Brian did somewhere between 1968 and 1971, you're likely to stop being a genius.

Some people have a natural talent or propensity that make use of in this process. Brian had music. He had talent, he worked hard, he understood his times and his art. He pushed himself and pushed his work in the process. That's what genius is, it's not a statistic or an equation. It's an active process that requires continuous engagement.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

It would suffer. It would lose so much power.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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 :)

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.

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.

A quick follow up thought that I think is worth mentioning. Brian employs the same technique on each song. This is the "modular" approach that he was aiming for. Songs that were each mini-cycles. That's why it's so genius. It's truly self reflexive.

Also keep in mind how this principle comes organically, logically from his style. From the wall of sound style. The wall of sound is based around "combining" instruments into a single, unified, new instrument. Don't you think it's clever how he builds up from that? He starts off uniting separate instruments together, then separate sections of one song, then many songs into "movements" or parts of a cycle. Just like how cells in the body form tissues and those form organs and so on. He grows his sound, his style, out from the smallest part and forms an organic, intelligent stylistic whole.

You know, I don't care what anyone says. That's something special.

great posts Fishmonk

I think we are all right in different ways - maybe that's another indicator of (his) genius :)

I think there's another basic component no-one's mentioned yet:  your peers - if contemporaries who are themselves at the top of their game are in awe of you its another strong indicator that you are something very special

some fun indicators of genius:
1 - McCenroe - impossible slice
2 - Georgie Best - imposible dribble
3 - Brian Wilson - ultra-spook fade to Vega-tables - hey its art so has to be defined differently to sport :)