Musical genius
Discussion
Tiger Tim said:
Just watching a Hendrix documentary and it got me thinking. We don't have or haven't had real genius for a long long time.
Will we see something similar in our lifetimes? There's a lot of good musicians out there but truly mould breaking? I don't think so.
Your forgetting the Beibermeister,Katie Melua,Susan Boyle...There's dozens of them man,dozens!!!Will we see something similar in our lifetimes? There's a lot of good musicians out there but truly mould breaking? I don't think so.
Noel Gallagher gave a good interview in Q magazine last year and touched on this subject. His opinion, backed by those I know in the music industry, is that there is little if any room for true musical innovation any more. Record companies have to judge how long it will take to get an act to the point of filling arenas night after night. Nurturing the new and original is a high risk strategy which is why many acts simply pander to public demand.
Shame but it is what it is.
Shame but it is what it is.
What about people who moved music on, or into a new direction, Electronic music of the 80s, Gary Numan for example (John Lennon spoke of how the music of the future would be on 'new' instruments) and the pioneering work with synthesisers, Or Rap or hip that has become such a dominant part of our musical culture, or Heavey metal of the 80s.
Of course you may not see some musicians as geniuses due to personal tastes, but there have been many that have moved modern music on quite dramatically or, speaking as a guitarist (seen as you mention Hendrix), changed the way we approached playing.
In which case people who have pioneered neoclassicism like Ritchie Blackmore, or players who have given use more interesting subject matter and tones, Tony Iommi, or popularised styles or techniques, EVH, Malmsteen can be seen, and very much are seen, as geniuses.
Music tends to look revolutionary when you look back, but Hendrix could very much be seen as a heavy blues player, which wasn't so revolutionary. Yet subtle changes to the play he wrote and played were important as they led to a progression of musical styles, or an evolution in styles rather than a revolution.
I think partly the appearance of music not having any 'revolutionary' moments is due to modern music accelerating at a rate music wasn't able to before, with jazz, blues, rock n roll, rock, metal etc, thanks to the modern world with the invention of transport- train, motor car, more ways of music getting out there so TV, radio, home music players, and now the internet. Plus the ease of recording at home, or with very little professional equipment, means that people can progress music in a smaller space of time and get it to millions with ease.
The time taken for a change of styles from the 'classical' periods was far far great due to way music was transported in the western world.
Yet to movement from hard rock of the 70s into Thrash metal in the 80s seems rather less dramatic, than the movement from classical to Romanticism in music.
Of course you may not see some musicians as geniuses due to personal tastes, but there have been many that have moved modern music on quite dramatically or, speaking as a guitarist (seen as you mention Hendrix), changed the way we approached playing.
In which case people who have pioneered neoclassicism like Ritchie Blackmore, or players who have given use more interesting subject matter and tones, Tony Iommi, or popularised styles or techniques, EVH, Malmsteen can be seen, and very much are seen, as geniuses.
Music tends to look revolutionary when you look back, but Hendrix could very much be seen as a heavy blues player, which wasn't so revolutionary. Yet subtle changes to the play he wrote and played were important as they led to a progression of musical styles, or an evolution in styles rather than a revolution.
I think partly the appearance of music not having any 'revolutionary' moments is due to modern music accelerating at a rate music wasn't able to before, with jazz, blues, rock n roll, rock, metal etc, thanks to the modern world with the invention of transport- train, motor car, more ways of music getting out there so TV, radio, home music players, and now the internet. Plus the ease of recording at home, or with very little professional equipment, means that people can progress music in a smaller space of time and get it to millions with ease.
The time taken for a change of styles from the 'classical' periods was far far great due to way music was transported in the western world.
Yet to movement from hard rock of the 70s into Thrash metal in the 80s seems rather less dramatic, than the movement from classical to Romanticism in music.
Edited by Fantuzzi on Wednesday 11th September 22:18
StevieBee said:
Noel Gallagher gave a good interview in Q magazine last year and touched on this subject. His opinion, backed by those I know in the music industry, is that there is little if any room for true musical innovation any more. Record companies have to judge how long it will take to get an act to the point of filling arenas night after night. Nurturing the new and original is a high risk strategy which is why many acts simply pander to public demand.
Shame but it is what it is.
Zappa (a true musical genius) said much the same 20 or 30 years ago. No company officials left who are willing to take chances.Shame but it is what it is.
ratbane said:
StevieBee said:
Noel Gallagher gave a good interview in Q magazine last year and touched on this subject. His opinion, backed by those I know in the music industry, is that there is little if any room for true musical innovation any more. Record companies have to judge how long it will take to get an act to the point of filling arenas night after night. Nurturing the new and original is a high risk strategy which is why many acts simply pander to public demand.
Shame but it is what it is.
Zappa (a true musical genius) said much the same 20 or 30 years ago. No company officials left who are willing to take chances.Shame but it is what it is.
h now more than any other time.Good question. I think Jimi Hendrix did truly innovative things with the electric guitar and changed the way that people thought it could be played but no more than that - his songs were crap and you wouldn't sing along to it. I personally think that very few people now put on his music to listen to for pleasure but, as a guitarist, - yes, he was a one-off.
Elsewhere I think whoever was the first to rap can be considered as equal to Hendrix. Otherwise I can't think of much that merits the description genius. But if you are talking about people who can constantly innovate rather than repeat what has gone before (like Oasis) then I offer the following:
The Beatles
Cream (arguable)
Frank Zappa
Captain Beefheart
Kraftwerk
Gary Numan
David Bowie
Prince
Eno
Robert Fripp
Massive Attack (arguable)
and out of that lot I would promote Eno, Bowie and Prince. Not much from the last 20 years though.
Elsewhere I think whoever was the first to rap can be considered as equal to Hendrix. Otherwise I can't think of much that merits the description genius. But if you are talking about people who can constantly innovate rather than repeat what has gone before (like Oasis) then I offer the following:
The Beatles
Cream (arguable)
Frank Zappa
Captain Beefheart
Kraftwerk
Gary Numan
David Bowie
Prince
Eno
Robert Fripp
Massive Attack (arguable)
and out of that lot I would promote Eno, Bowie and Prince. Not much from the last 20 years though.
StevieBee said:
Noel Gallagher gave a good interview in Q magazine last year and touched on this subject. His opinion, backed by those I know in the music industry, is that there is little if any room for true musical innovation any more. Record companies have to judge how long it will take to get an act to the point of filling arenas night after night. Nurturing the new and original is a high risk strategy which is why many acts simply pander to public demand.
Shame but it is what it is.
He should know, he never had an original musical thought in his life. Shame but it is what it is.
Lockhart Flawse has identified many innovators who could be described as genius.
Having seen Nigel Kennedy on Last Night of the Proms the other night, I would suggest that achieving a standard almost of another world could almost count, he made a violin sound like I had never heard one before, genius! I know as a personality he divides opinion, but that performance was simply extraordinary.
I would also offer up latter day Talk Talk and their de-construction of song form, credited with inventing "post-rock" (what a trite label) Trevor Horn with various artists, The Cocteau Twins and the This Mortal Coil collective as genius/innovators.
Having seen Nigel Kennedy on Last Night of the Proms the other night, I would suggest that achieving a standard almost of another world could almost count, he made a violin sound like I had never heard one before, genius! I know as a personality he divides opinion, but that performance was simply extraordinary.
I would also offer up latter day Talk Talk and their de-construction of song form, credited with inventing "post-rock" (what a trite label) Trevor Horn with various artists, The Cocteau Twins and the This Mortal Coil collective as genius/innovators.
lockhart flawse said:
Good question. I think Jimi Hendrix did truly innovative things with the electric guitar and changed the way that people thought it could be played but no more than that - his songs were crap and you wouldn't sing along to it. I personally think that very few people now put on his music to listen to for pleasure but, as a guitarist, - yes, he was a one-off.
Agree. I don't listen to Hendrix but if I did, it would be to see if I could learn anything from him, rather than for pleasure.Mecury music prize nominations yesterday, Bowie made the list I'll admit but there with him is a plethora of real musical genius, laura marling (read pj harvey if you like) foals, arctic monkeys, jon hopkins, rudimental etc.. there is people making new music all over the place...
Captain beefheart! Ffs!
Captain beefheart! Ffs!
You'd have to define genius, but it's true to say Hendrix pushed on what was being done on the electric guitar at the time. He regularly wins polls to this day in guitar magazines for the greatest player of all time, so I guess it's the prevalent sentiment among players. Certainly the licks he came up with are heard all over records to this day.
Todd Rundgren - mad multi instrumental genius
David Bowie - pop genius
Prince - rates alongside Todd Rundgren
Kraftwerk & Jean Michel Jarre - Kraftwerk get all the critical plaudits, but JMJ pushed analogue synths way beyond anything Kraftwerk were doing and between them changed how music is made.
David Bowie - pop genius
Prince - rates alongside Todd Rundgren
Kraftwerk & Jean Michel Jarre - Kraftwerk get all the critical plaudits, but JMJ pushed analogue synths way beyond anything Kraftwerk were doing and between them changed how music is made.
I would question Todd Rungren's musical legacy in the scheme of things. Something interesting about Kraftwerk - they took years to write songs but when you analyse the musical structure of nearly all of them, it's usually basic musical progression 101 stuff. Still, they were in the vanguard of it so their place in history is assured.
Marvindodgers said:
Kraftwerk & Jean Michel Jarre - Kraftwerk get all the critical plaudits, but JMJ pushed analogue synths way beyond anything Kraftwerk were doing and between them changed how music is made.
Absolutely true. Great though Kraftwerk undeniably are, there's a lot of plain old tracking of instruments going going on. There are sequenced elements for sure, but there's a lot of stuff just played over it. Jarre really moved it forward though I don't like his music so much.
You also had people like JJ Cale and John Martyn using drum machines - and multitracking with them - in the mid 70's without making a fuss about it.
As far as I know, the impetus for building up sequenced drum tracks runs parallel to the need - in big U.S. and U.K. studios in the mid to late 70's to have usuable drum tracks for the band to record to - pre-drums. For the techs to test sounds and work with. Developed from a click track (like the one in 'Blackbird') - just by using the same machine to multitrack a snare - then a kick - etc.etc. - then you, for reasons of time saving, end up synching the drum machine to the click) When studio time costs that much and bands cost so much to move around having a basic Snare/High-Hat/Kick pattern ready saves time. It also means that the drums can go down whenever - meaning the tyranny of the drums bass first lunancy is avoided. Listen to 'Darkness at the Edge of town' or 'Exodus' if you get a sec. It's all patterned out first. It would be really cool if programming were invented by super cool Germans or in Detroit - but it was standard practice in high end recording studios for years before. Commercial imperative.
The problem with music now is that we are essentially 'post-culture' - we have reached a point where even combining prior ideas in an original way is impossible. Let alone creating new forms. The Miley Cyrus thing a the VMA's is a case in point. Even the combinations are third hand.
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff