What makes someone a "musical genius"

[brwnhawaiin]

I hear the term used more often then I think it should. I was watching a Brand New video on youtube, and someone was going on and on about how Jesse Lacey is a musical genius. Yes, Brand New is my favorite band, and Jesse Lacey has creative lyrics, and the band makes good music, but I wouldn't say that he is a musical genius. Creative and good at writing lyrics. Unless he was playing teaching himself how to play tons of instruments at a really young age and I just don't know about it. I would say that Prince is, and Frank Zappa, Beethoven, Jimi Hendrix and maybe more recently Omar Rodriguez, but Im not sure if I would say that he is. So what do you guys think?

[x togepi x]

why would you say Jesse Lacey could be a musical genius if he taught himself how to play tons of instruments, yet you won't say Omar is even though, he taught himself how to play tons of instruments?

not that i think he is, i'm just saying.

[SickOfStars]

If you wanted to get really technical, it'd be someone who knows a vast amount of music theory and can manipulate it in a way that makes the best sounds ever.

More or less, there is no way to objectively call someone a "musical genius" in the way it's thrown around all the time, at least I think. It's a great compliment, and if you think it of your favorite artist, then I think it should be free to be thrown around. Of course I'm going to be hypocritical and say that the term should also be used with some thought. If your favorite artist plays three power chords and fails to sing and write lyrics well... well, c'mon then.

I think you can safely put Omar on the genius list. He is a guru... he's just sadly a bit of a wank from time to time.

[SSLYBY]

He said Jesse Lacey wasn't and Omar was.

[thespearkid]

I don't think you necessarily have to be a master of several different instruments to be a musical genius, although I agree that everyone in your post is a musical genius, with the exception of Lacey. I would say if someone creates original, innovative music with influence and appeal that transcends age groups, cultures, etc. an argument could be made in favor of them being a musical genius.

[brwnhawaiin]

good point, I was just kinda rambling. I was just trying to justify how jesse lacey could MAYBE be considered a musical genius. And I said i "wasnt sure" about omar, not that he wasn't one.

[mmmmmpoetry]

I would say that Mr. Lopez is a musical genius.

[Snork]

I don't know if Omar is a musical genius anymore. He produces way too much mediocrity way too much for me to call him that. I used to think so, but his solo material is pretty not that great, and there's a ton of it.
I'd nominate Casey Crescenzo of The Dear Hunter. It pretty much blows my mind on a regular basis that the dude can't even read music and comes up with the arrangements, harmonies and chord changes that he does. He's more fluent in six genres of music than most famous bands are in one.

[oddwithoutend]

"Musical genius" is a relative term, and is used when an artist exceeds your artistic standards as a music critic. Musical geniuses create better art than what the average artist is capable of. If a song can give you an epiphony relating to art, it was created by a musical genius. The term is relative because there is no IQ test pertaining to art.

[Chromefox]

Creative integrity, ingenuity, and the ability to still craft a melody with both of those, I think. Also, being a multi-instrumentalist is cool too.

[ThisIsNotDan]

I don't think you necessarily have to be a master of several different instruments to be a musical genius, although I agree that everyone in your post is a musical genius, with the exception of Lacey. I would say if someone creates original, innovative music with influence and appeal that transcends age groups, cultures, etc. an argument could be made in favor of them being a musical genius.

If you wanted to get really technical, it'd be someone who knows a vast amount of music theory and can manipulate it in a way that makes the best sounds ever.

More or less, there is no way to objectively call someone a "musical genius" in the way it's thrown around all the time, at least I think. It's a great compliment, and if you think it of your favorite artist, then I think it should be free to be thrown around. Of course I'm going to be hypocritical and say that the term should also be used with some thought. If your favorite artist plays three power chords and fails to sing and write lyrics well... well, c'mon then.

I think you can safely put Omar on the genius list. He is a guru... he's just sadly a bit of a wank from time to time.

I think both of these are great responses. I feel the same

[oddwithoutend]

And yeah, Jesse Lacey is by no means a musical genius. Currently, Phil Elverum, Omar Rodriguez, Devendra Banhart, and whoever is doing the majority of the songwriting for Battles are a few examples of musical geniuses that I listen to.

[pblest]

i think songwriting capability and technical skill are the main things that qualifies someone as a musical genius.

[SanePsychotic]

If you wanted to get really technical, it'd be someone who knows a vast amount of music theory and can manipulate it in a way that makes the best sounds ever.

More or less, there is no way to objectively call someone a "musical genius" in the way it's thrown around all the time, at least I think. It's a great compliment, and if you think it of your favorite artist, then I think it should be free to be thrown around. Of course I'm going to be hypocritical and say that the term should also be used with some thought. If your favorite artist plays three power chords and fails to sing and write lyrics well... well, c'mon then.

I think you can safely put Omar on the genius list. He is a guru... he's just sadly a bit of a wank from time to time.

My post would look a lot like this post.

[chipdip18]

Yeah, it's really been covered. Someone who knows theory front and back and can write fairly literally, anything.

[oddwithoutend]

I definitely do not think the ability to play a lot of instruments well qualifies someone as a musical genius. There is not artistic merit in playing instruments well. It is a compliment reserved for songwriters only.

[fadedmemories]

A cool hairstyle is all you really need.

[Snork]

knowing tons of music theory does not make you a musical genius
nor does it make you a good songwriter or composer

it makes you a good analyst
and can help make your writing better

but that's still all dependent on you having some spark in the first place
being really good at grammar and syntax doesn't make you a writer

[oddwithoutend]

knowing tons of music theory does not make you a musical genius
nor does it make you a good songwriter or composer

it makes you a good analyst
and can help make your writing better

but that's still all dependent on you having some spark in the first place
being really good at grammar and syntax doesn't make you a writer

Yep.

[Snork]

I definitely do not think the ability to play a lot of instruments well qualifies someone as a musical genius. There is not artistic merit in playing instruments well. It is a compliment reserved for songwriters only.
so you don't think there's any inherent art in performance

[DejaNew]

I definitely do not think the ability to play a lot of instruments well qualifies someone as a musical genius. There is not artistic merit in playing instruments well. It is a compliment reserved for songwriters only.
I's have to disagree with this. Look at a band like Sigur Ros. Their music paints a picture. I would consider these guys musical geniuses. First off, they created their own language, and extraordinary music. Bands with unique instrumentals that can actually paint a picture for you would be considered artistic, imo.

[x togepi x]

i don't believe in genius.

[batmannj]

I think Sufjan Stevens is pretty damn good.

[oddwithoutend]

so you don't think there's any inherent art in performance

Technically, no. I suppose timbre, tempo, and dynamics are partly left to the performer, though. Not enough to be considered a genius.

I's have to disagree with this. Look at a band like Sigur Ros. Their music paints a picture. I would consider these guys musical geniuses. First off, they created their own language, and extraordinary music. Bands with unique instrumentals that can actually paint a picture for you would be considered artistic, imo.

By songwriting I'm referring to both the musical and lyrical writing. I also consider Sigur Ros musical geniuses for implementing a language for the sole reason of enhancing the listening experience. But, it is not in their actual performance that makes them musical geniuses, it is their creative successes. For example, if I gained the ability to speak the language Sigur Ros created, I would not be a musical genius (because I didn't invent it).

[oddwithoutend]

i don't believe in genius.

Haha I don't believe in post-modernity.

[shit stroll]

I think Sufjan Stevens is pretty damn good.
:hitself:

[batmannj]

:hitself:

lol I'm assuming you're not a fan.

[x togepi x]

Haha I don't believe in post-modernity.

it's not my fault your way of thinking leads to genocide.

[oddwithoutend]

it's not my fault your way of thinking leads to genocide.

You really know how to take the humor out of things.

[x togepi x]

You really know how to take the humor out of things.

I don't think things I hear everyday in class are all that humorous.

[shit stroll]

lol I'm assuming you're not a fan.
never really listened but i doubt he qualifies as a "musical genius"

[oddwithoutend]

I don't think things I hear everyday in class are all that humorous.

Fair enough. My comment wasn't at all serious, as I'm sure you could tell.

[Stephen Chamberlain]

I think people who are skeptical of genius either misunderstand the way the term is often used or are contradictorily using the term to mean something which they presuppose is impossible, a fallacy. Genius to me in music, just like in any realm of art, does not mean divine or closer to the divine than the average person; a genius does not receive his or her miraculous powers from God like some sort of vessel or lightning rod. Rather, a genius is someone whose approach to creating his or her seems to defy the logic of both his or her medium and other practicioners of said medium. And in the same spirit, the finished work somehow seems wrong or off. But it is in that wrongness or peculiarity that the work makes a sort of more important and lasting sense and achieves its vast power. Ian Williams is good example of this type of genius.

[batmannj]

never really listened but i doubt he qualifies as a "musical genius"

ah I see. I never said he was a "musical genius" but he does play a lot of instruments and I really enjoy his stuff. I don't really believe in total music genius.

[Snork]

Technically, no. I suppose timbre, tempo, and dynamics are partly left to the performer, though. Not enough to be considered a genius.



By songwriting I'm referring to both the musical and lyrical writing. I also consider Sigur Ros musical geniuses for implementing a language for the sole reason of enhancing the listening experience. But, it is not in their actual performance that makes them musical geniuses, it is their creative successes. For example, if I gained the ability to speak the language Sigur Ros created, I would not be a musical genius (because I didn't invent it).
okay this post betrays two ignorances
so you think there is no art in performance? you don't consider itzhak perlman or yo-yo ma artists? or by that standard, any actor? they are also not artists? you didn't leave any room to quantify the art of interpretation, which is a pretty fucking huge aspect of any art, especially music. i invite you at any time to try to play a song someone else wrote on any instrument and try to make it interesting or different in any way.
even american fucking idol, the epitome of the absence of artistic quality, asks its performers to 'make [the songs] their own'
if you think this is just the sum of the parts of timbre, tempo and dynamics being 'partly' left to the performer, then you are the exact opposite of a musical genius

also, sigur ros did not invent their own language. vonlenska is nonsense syllables, the icelandic equivalent of 'doot doot yeah yeah woooh', and thusly you could never learn it, as there is no vocabulary, structure or grammar to speak of. Are Sigr Ros no longer musical geniuses?

[Until The Bombs]

Haha at this thread.

[Snork]

trying to literally quantify what defines musical genius is a pretty sisyphean task in its futility, i have to agree
it is also an ultimately worthless definition as music and all art is necessarily 100% subjective

[11:11]

To me, a musical genius mystifies people. Like that one Beatles song, where people couldn't figure out the beginning note for decades.

[salad fingers]

Ah well all art is subjective....so I am unsure.

[Snork]

i just was dumbfounded by the assertion that performance is artless

[brwnhawaiin]

what if they taught themselves how to play tons of instruments, it just came naturally. Is that a musical genius?

[Hey Kevin]

improvisation and innovation
i could boldly call Bruce Haack a musical genius

[oddwithoutend]

Performance is not artless, but a musical genius does not need to ever perform to be labelled as such. I 100% stand by my claim that there is no genius in performance. There are levels of honesty, emotion, intensity, but no level of genius. Snork: post me a youtube link of a so-called "genius" performance that you're speaking of, where the songwriting itself is not something you consider genius. That would be something I have never seen before.

Edit: Didn't know that about Sigur Ros. However, I still standby the label I give them due to their innovation.

[kianacarly]

We had to discuss this in psychology a week or two ago. From what my class said, an example of a musical genius would be Flo Rida, haha.

[oddwithoutend]

Also, this is the whole basis of your argument against me saying performance is artless:

Technically, no. I suppose timbre, tempo, and dynamics are partly left to the performer, though. Not enough to be considered a genius.

The argument for performance being artless depends on whether or not the songwriter incorporated timbre, tempo, and dynamics in his creation. If he did, any performance of his art can be considered artless, as there is nothing left for the performer to decide for himself. If he left things open to the performer (i.e. as contestants in American Idol alter those qualities from the original versions of the songs they perform), then performance contains art. However, as I said earlier, I am yet to see a contestant on American idol give a "musically genius" performance.

[AndrewIcex]

Calm down fellas, can't we have a friendly argument? With no fighting?


And a genius seems rather difficult to justify, I mean there can be musical innovators, and musical leaders, and even musical prodigies... but a genius just seems really hard to prove without faults in art, especially with music, cause not everyone may agree. And usually genius's are agreed on by everyone if they were declared genius... that's how I see it.

[oddwithoutend]

i just was dumbfounded by the assertion that performance is artless

You obviously do not have much of a background in musical knowledge then. Composers used to incorporate dynamics, tempo, and timbre into their actual compositions so the performers are left with no choices. If those performers were artistic geniuses, then so is the fastest typer in the world. Physical successes are not relevant to the term "genius".

Edit: I promise to stop posting and editing, but Snork is looking for the term "virtuosic".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virtuosic

[vylan]

Kanye West is the only musical genius...just ask him

[thespearkid]

knowing tons of music theory does not make you a musical genius
nor does it make you a good songwriter or composer

it makes you a good analyst
and can help make your writing better

but that's still all dependent on you having some spark in the first place
being really good at grammar and syntax doesn't make you a writer
Do you actually know what the purpose of music theory is? Have you ever taken a music theory class?

[Snork]

Performance is not artless, but a musical genius does not need to ever perform to be labelled as such. I 100% stand by my claim that there is no genius in performance. There are levels of honesty, emotion, intensity, but no level of genius. Snork: post me a youtube link of a so-called "genius" performance that you're speaking of, where the songwriting itself is not something you consider genius. That would be something I have never seen before.

Edit: Didn't know that about Sigur Ros. However, I still standby the label I give them due to their innovation.
well first of all what i asked is if you consider performance to be without art, not without genius
a very separate question
however i still think you're wrong
HVJXSDTFfGY&feature=related
or
X8QhjwVy7Ng&feature=related
john williams has learned entire pieces of music in the back seat of the car on the way to the venue and then performed them beautifully and flawlessly less than an hour later

and that second piece consists entirely of two chords
that's it
virtually 0 songwriting
everything else there is pure performance and musicianship

[Snork]

Do you actually know what the purpose of music theory is? Have you ever taken a music theory class?
i've taken over five semesters of it

so yes i know exactly what the purpose of music theory is
it is seeking to understand and apply reasoning and guidelines to the hows and whys of the way music functions
it is an analytical discipline that is secondary to musical creation by very definition
it is not a how to manual on how to make music
it is in fact the exact opposite of that

[oddwithoutend]

john williams has learned entire pieces of music in the back seat of the car on the way to the venue and then performed them beautifully and flawlessly less than an hour later

and that second piece consists entirely of two chords
that's it
virtually 0 songwriting
everything else there is pure performance and musicianship

John Williams has a very good memory and is virtuosic.

[mattmatumbo]

i think songwriting capability and technical skill are the main things that qualifies someone as a musical genius.

I think this is true, but you have to have both, not one or the other. Take for example John Gourley of Portugal. The Man, he can write any type of song, any length, any genre. But he has little technical skill. Then take for example Tom Erak of The Fall of Troy, tons of technical talent and skill, but he cant write a song to save his life.

[Hey Kevin]

3uex05lXPVU

[pblest]

3uex05lXPVU


this is like mad scientist acid trip music. i love it.

[Snork]

You obviously do not have much of a background in musical knowledge then. Composers used to incorporate dynamics, tempo, and timbre into their actual compositions so the performers are left with no choices. If those performers were artistic geniuses, then so is the fastest typer in the world. Physical successes are not relevant to the term "genius".

Edit: I promise to stop posting and editing, but Snork is looking for the term "virtuosic".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virtuosic
You obviously do not have much of a background in common sense if you think that the person playing the instrument is left with no choice. Just because dynamics are marked into the music does not mean you have to follow them, and even furthermore, 'forte' is such a nonspecific marking it's fucking ridiculous. That could mean literally anything. There is no 100% accurate way to quantify emotional expression into text. Vivace means vivacious or lively, but that could be interpreted any of 100 ways, slightly tweaked by the performer in any way they want. The whole of performance is equal to more than just the sum of the parts of timbre, tempo dynamics and all of that. That's why it's called fucking performance art.
Equating playing music to typing has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read.
When you're typing your choices are binary. You either hit the key or you don't. There is no way to control the volume of the letter that shows up on the computer screen, it has no timbre, no tone, no sonority. It's literally just there or it isn't. To compare this act to playing a single note on any musical instrument tells me that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and that you have never played an instrument with any kind of meaning whatsoever.

Also, you ignored the Miles Davis video.

[thespearkid]

i've taken over five semesters of it

so yes i know exactly what the purpose of music theory is
it is seeking to understand and apply reasoning and guidelines to the hows and whys of the way music functions
it is an analytical discipline that is secondary to musical creation by very definition
it is not a how to manual on how to make music
it is in fact the exact opposite of that
Then you should know that mentioning music theory in this thread is pretty pointless. Whether an artist knows the terms or not, everyone uses musical theory so by saying that "knowing a lot of music theory doesn't make you a musical genius" you're basically saying, "knowing how to write songs doesn't make you a musical genius."

[Hey Kevin]

this is like mad scientist acid trip music. i love it.

the best part is the sheet music
i really wish they would come back to town, its been 3 years i think

[mattmatumbo]

this is like mad scientist acid trip music. i love it.

God dude, timing for them is so simple.

[Snork]

Then you should know that mentioning music theory in this thread is pretty pointless. Whether an artist knows the terms or not, everyone uses musical theory so by saying that "knowing a lot of music theory doesn't make you a musical genius" you're basically saying, "knowing how to write songs doesn't make you a musical genius."
i was responding to someone else's post
i didn't bring up theory

[Hey Kevin]

4f_bQkWMYK4

pop music geniuses

[circatbs]

Make mellow indie-pop with heartfelt lyrics and you will be accepted as a "musical genius" by 50% of this site.