Billy is a genius

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by vixnix

It's kind of a privilege of adulthood that we can explain ourselves. You should try it.

i did you just won't accept it because it doesn't coincide with what you think is definitively correct

[vixnix]

I'm open minded enough to take on new information. You didn't make a very convincing case for musical genius being an arbitrary concept. I actually agree with that. In a confusing turn of events you then named Siamese Dream as a work of musical genius by an idiot savant.

Whereas I think my point stands; if we are going to talk about musical genius, there are far stronger candidates for that title than Billy Corgan or any of his work. I happened to pick Bach and Beethoven because I'm classically trained; my friend who went to jazz school would probably pick Miles Davis and Theolonius Monk or something. All I'm saying is that there are very good reasons why people who listen to a wide variety of music still consider people like the ones I've just mentioned as good examples of musical genius. You don't want to accept that for some reason.

If you have the opinion of Bach and Beethoven that you do I really can only infer that you haven't listened much to them, and I couldn't encourage you strongly enough to give them a go. They really were breakthrough artists in their time and they lived long lives and were incredibly prolific.

I actually directed that comment at Grox though, for his stunning one sentence addition to this thread.

[Trotskilicious]

i dunno where you get the idea that i didn't compulsively listen to Beethoven and Tchaikovsky when i was studying the romantics in college

i think that's why i don't feel the need to explain myself to you since you make assumptions constantly

[Trotskilicious]

jazz is another frequent target of the who could care less list

i also own kind of blue on vinyl, is this hard to understand

[vixnix]

Maybe I get the idea that you didn't listen to them constantly in college because you think their work doesn't matter and that Siamese Dream is a work of genius.

Good for you, for owning the number one selling jazz record of all time pretty much like anyone who only owns one jazz record. And for then still believing that it's Siamese Dream that's a work of genius.

Seriously, nice going.

[Trotskilicious]

basically it's this: old stuff is great but it's only THE BEST because it has a pile of academic notes to say it is, whereas something new and relevant to your life that fits into your experience of modern lifestyle is somehow lesser because it doesn't have academic instruction centered around it

a lot of people think charles dickens is a genius, and that's because of generations of english teachers and professors cramming it down your throat. Or how Shakespeare continues to enthrall college freshmen year after year even though there are modern playwrights nobody will pay attention to because "nothing can be better than Hamlet" or whatever. It's fucking tiresome, live in your now.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by vixnix

Maybe I get the idea that you didn't listen to them constantly in college because you think their work doesn't matter and that Siamese Dream is a work of genius.

Good for you, for owning the number one selling jazz record of all time pretty much like anyone who only owns one jazz record. And for then still believing that it's Siamese Dream that's a work of genius.

Seriously, nice going.

see this is what i mean i explain it to you and then you put me down because i don't accept your version of reality as the correct one

if anyone's being juvenile it's you, seems this is more a personal argument because of your training that i don't care about and not an intellectual one

[vixnix]

I'm not putting you down. You are offering up your listening experience as proof that you know what you're talking about; I am saying that's not great proof, tbh.

And again, nobody is saying that about Beethoven or Bach. Shostakovich and Scriabin have had a great reception in the last 100 years. My own composition lecturer often had works played by the local sinfonia that reflected current happenings. His father was also a composer and my school choir sang a setting of poems alongside Thomas Luis du Victoria because they were beautiful. That doesn't stop anybody today from quite rightly recognizing that Beethoven and Bach are musical geniuses from times past. It doesn't devalue everybody's work to say that. But, in my opinion, it does kind of devalue Billy's. I think a good test is time. Even Mozart in his day presented things nobody liked. But people still perform his work centuries later. Why? Because people tell us to? No...for the same reason that the foo fighters play. Because people want to hear the music and are willing to pay for the privilege. Because it touches people. Because they go somewhere sublime when they listen. They music that people keep alive through the centuries because they love it so much, is kind of telling. If you have one person who composed a lot if stuff and most of it still gets played, I think that's a good indication that they were a cut above the rest. There were a lot of composers in Bach's and Beethoven's time. But we play more of their stuff. There is a reason for that, other than that they are old and we like to glorify the past. I think that's quite an unsupportable notion.

[Trotskilicious]

i'm not reading that if you're going to go ahead and discount anything i offer up as not being proof since i didn't go to school for music which is obviously what you're getting at, which actually basically proves my point. you know that academics are stuffy self-involved dipshits that face backwards instead of looking forwards.

[stumpycat]

I don't think these sort of things can truly be judged except in retrospective. What complicates it is that music has branched off into so many forms that everyone has their little pet genres that they favor regardless of the objective "genius" of it (yes, I do think one could objectively score genius because I do believe it would be possible to construct a general, agreed upon set of criteria which identify a certain set of characteristics relevant to producing original creative works of art, science, and invention.) I'm an unabashed fan of rock music who can respect things like classical music even though my heart is not into that genre, nor really any other genre that's not rock music or some variant thereof. What I realize is that the barriers to entry to making rock music are far lower than that of writing symphonic pieces or some such, and nearly anyone can do it albeit with highly varying degrees of quality. It lends itself well to innate musical talents in the absence of formal schooling. Classical music lends itself well to being studied, theorized about, etc. and requires far more formal training to decipher, compose and play even rather "standard" pieces. Rock music can achieve this degree of sophistication, and does at times, but it's most average output does not and rarely needs to do so to achieve its aims. Some rock bands are clearly a cut above the rest in terms of sophistication of their playing ability, technical prowess, orchestration, stylistic range, and pioneering originality, and may be remembered amongst the "greats" of music along with Beethoven, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, etc. but it is really too soon to say which bands will have that staying power. (Although I think there is already indication a band like the Beatles will be well remembered.) What we now call "classic music" was in some sense the "popular" music of the day even though now it tends to smack of elitism rather than the more widely popular styles which are enjoyed by the masses currently. (Then of course, anyone other than the relatively "well to do" probably didn't end up in the opera houses back then, either.) Also, too, "genius" and "cultural importance" are two distinct concepts which can certainly be related (and often are) but can also be confounded with one another which I think may be happening to some degree here.

[aztec litany service]

Originally Posted by vixnix

I'm open minded enough to take on new information. You didn't make a very convincing case for musical genius being an arbitrary concept. I actually agree with that. In a confusing turn of events you then named Siamese Dream as a work of musical genius by an idiot savant.

Originally Posted by wiki

A genius (plural geniuses[1][2]) is someone embodying exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of unprecedented insight.

There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and indeed the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate. The term is used in various ways: to refer to a particular aspect of an individual, or the individual in their entirety; to a scholar in many subjects (e.g. Isaac Newton or Leonardo da Vinci) [3] or a scholar in a single subject (e.g. Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking). Research into what causes genius and mastery is still in its early stages, but psychology already offers relevant insights.

it's just a word like any other word, ppl throw it around, it means what it means to them. knowledge and prolificity [m-w says it's a word, ff disagrees lol] would seem to be common criteria. the classical masters were generally prolific as fuck and knew shit about what they did. that doesn't mean they're "better" than modern musicians, as "better" is entirely subjective. the argument gets stupid b/c you have ppl arguing on the cerebral/scientific/academic vs the emotional/cultural/whatever.

like food or whatever, takin a buncha vitamins and eating healty stuff that tastes bad vs guzzlin a 6pack and scarfing some badass pizza. not the greatest analogy but you know what i mean