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

[Iron Horse-Apples]

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.

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

[AndrewHickey]

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.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.)

[AndrewHickey]

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?

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.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

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.

[lance]

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.  

[Iron Horse-Apples]

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 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.

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.

[lance]

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.

This is a great post. In my opinion.

[Runaways]

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 Demon]

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.

[Runaways]

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.

[lance]

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.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

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!

[Runaways]

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.

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

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

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.

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?

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Why is your bloodpressure going through the roof? 

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

[Runaways]

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

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. 

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

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

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"?

[Doo Dah]

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. 

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

[hypehat]

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

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?

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....

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

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'.

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?

[Sheriff John Stone]

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.

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.

[hypehat]

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'.

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 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!

[Iron Horse-Apples]

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.

[Dunderhead]

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.  

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.