[funkboy]

Originally Posted by parallax

Using the term "contemporary" very loosely, I would nominate Miles Davis and John Coltrane.

I would agree on both counts, Miles especially.

The first name that came to mind, however (which is odd, because I am an absolute Miles fanatic), is Prince. I guess Miles has already progressed to non-contemporary in my mind, that he's already a genius, no question about it. Prince seems much more contemporary.

I don't have the depth of knowledge about Prince that the original poster had about Billy Joel, but looking at his body of music shows an absolute breadth of musical talent and artistic integrity. Disagree with some of his later decisions if you must (change name to a symbol, really milk the whole one-letter abbreviations, etc), but he has done some really amazing things in what I would call contemporary music.

He has tackled a variety of issues with his own variety of fairly unique and raunchy lyrics, but even moreso he has been a musical renegade. He plays every instrument on a number of his albums, and he pretty much set the style for the 1980s. His music keeps being rediscovered (Little Nicky most recently by the Foo Fighters). He qualifies as genius in my book.

--
Here's a possibly controversial idea: Michael Jackson?

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by funkboy

I don't have the depth of knowledge about Prince

A small example: "When Doves Cry" has no bass.

Here's a possibly controversial idea: Michael Jackson?

As a huge fan of MJ, no. He was the best child singer I've ever heard, but he's only a competent singer now. At his best, he's a good songwriter who has written a few excellent songs. IMO, he's supremely underqualified for the title of musical genius. He's more similar to Lionel Richie than Prince WRT musicianship.

[mojo2]

DP
123

[Taloston Man]

I'm going to have to cast in a vote for Brian Eno...

...the only "musician" I've come across whose thoughts on the matter get my heart beating faster than the output itself. Not to say that his music isn't quite-something, aesthetically and contextually I think it's really important work, but his very artistically and intellectually challenging approaches to the ideas of music, art, and culture are unsurpassed in the contemporary "popular" [ahem, I'm treading lightly here] scene, I think.

The terrific career arc he's made [and is making] stands out as something rather interestingly unique as well.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

"Musical Genius" implies the complete package to me, not just excellence in one area or the other. So John Williams gets my vote. He's written some of the most memorable themes for a variety of media, not just the movies. You want an three example? How about 253? Take a look at that list, and see how many things you recognize. You have to be a musical genius to write so much music, expecially orchestral music with all those parts.

Billy Joel is a great songwriter. He knows how to use lyrics and music to set a scene or evoke an emotion better han any other recent pop music artist. And in his prime, he was a great piano player. But I don't think he's the best overall musician, and certainly no genius.

edit: Yeah, that Brubeck guy is pretty darn good, too.

Great post. I'm enjoying all the responses so far and am looking at making several iTunes purchases!

Not necessarily denying Williams, (though some works do seem derivative) but if you laud his variety of compositions and the number of songs I would say in defense of Joel, that not only has he been prolific but he's shown the talent of not only songwriting and piano playing (as you noted) but singing. And if all THAT weren't enough, he was also a boxer!

His high level of performance in 4 areas; lyrics AND music composition, playing and singing, the variety of styles, his volume of work and the length of his career...hmmm.

You are making me re-think. I may have to hear your and other's definitions of genius to procede further.

[Nodnarb]

Bob Dylan

Jim Morisson

All four of the beatles. (Yes, all four.)

Jimi Hendrix

Eric Clapton

Bob Marley

Neil Young

Don Henley (And most of the other Eagles.)

Bradley Nowell (of Sublime.)

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Yeah. Some genres probably just don't allow the expression of true genius - jazz certainly does. And I think you'd have to add Charlie Parker if you're going to include those two. But it's hard to think of someone who's alive that would fit that description.

We're accepting those who lived during our lifetimes.

[budster101]

The Doors.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by budster101

Mozart also was controversial with his compositions as those other composers of the time were very staunchy and rigid. His work flowed and as they say, "Had too many notes."

He was a "Rock Star" of his time and quite rebellious for the conventions of his time.

I appreciated Oisin's nomination of Bjork.

Björk
One of the few really innovative music artist from the past 20 or so years. She's pretty much created a whole genre of music by herself, taking little inspiration from other music, and claiming that with each album, she gets closer to being able to “put the sounds in her head into actual music that others can hear too”.

It comes close to being the way I understand Mozart came by his compositions. They were wholly formed and magnificent from their inception. Genius and inspired. One and the same? Not sure. At this I pretend no advantage in knowledge or opinion. As far as music is concerned I am a rapt fan and am apt to consider most any point of view in search of enlightenment and enjoyment.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Nodnarb

Bob Dylan

Jim Morisson

All four of the beatles. (Yes, all four.)

Jimi Hendrix

Eric Clapton

Bob Marley

Neil Young

Don Henley (And most of the other Eagles.)

Bradley Nowell (of Sublime.)

All four of the beatles. (Yes, all four.)


Bold choice. Why don't you make a case for Ringo, if you would? I think he was a fine drummer and a great guy and was part of the Fab Four (Deity!) but genius? This I'm excited to hear.

[zigzag]

Any thread about musical geniuses that starts by naming Billy Joel has been derailed at its inception. Sorry.

Also, let's not confuse cleverness and talent with genius. Frank Zappa was clever, but not a genius. Ditto Brubeck, Clapton, Vaughan, etc.

Miles, Dylan, Tony Orlando - they are true geniuses. Individually, in terms of influence and achievement, they tower over everyone else.

[budster101]

The Who.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by chris v

He played ALL the instruments (absent a few guests here and there) on both Talking Book and Innervisions. He might have lost his edge, but in the early-mid seventies, he wrote some of the most enduring songs of the era. Too High, Maybe Your Baby, Living For the City, Golden Lady, Higher Ground, Superstition, Big Brother, Don't You Worry 'Bout a Thing, Blame it on the Sun, He's Misstra Know it All, to name just a few off those two albums.

He definitely deserves his props, as does Zappa.

John Williams can get knotted.

Thanks for jogging my memory of some of my favorite SW songs! iTunes is gonna make a lot of $$ from me as a result of this thread.

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by lavar78

"I Just Called to Say I Love You" is the first thing you think of when you hear the name Stevie Wonder? You don't own Talking Book, Innervisions, Fulfillingness' First Finale, and Songs in the Key of Life? Your CD collection needs an upgrade.

That and "Ebony and Ivory."

*shudders*

Those songs traumatized me.

However, based on the high praise of Stevie Wonder in this thread, I will check out some of his older songs.

[anthonyvthc]

Wow, this thread actually turned into something interesting while I was away today. Weird.
First let me defend my dismissal of John Williams. He IS a pop composer. His movie themes are nothing more than ABA pop tunes. He does nothing in the way of devloping or transforming them; they are simply restated in their original form. To the poster that made the comment to the effect of "writing for so many instruments must be difficult," I hate to tell you that what Williams does is not difficult. He merely exposes a theme and then restates it verbatim in another timbre. This is essentially cut and paste composition.
That said, I feel that if you are looking for an example of contemporary musical genius, listen to "Drumming" by Steve Reich. What this man does with such a small amount of musical material will blow your mind. Also, George Crumbs' "Lux Balarnae" is equally amazing (I may be butchering the title; it translates to 'Voice of the Whale').
My vote for 'pop' musical genius: Brian Wilson

[analogika]

Originally Posted by funkboy

Here's a possibly controversial idea: Michael Jackson?

Note that I mentioned Quincy Jones above, who is responsible for everything that made Off the Wall, Thriller, and Bad exceptional.

He also has a huge breadth of truly excellent output spanning several decades and genres.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Spliff

However, based on the high praise of Stevie Wonder in this thread, I will check out some of his older songs.

Do so.

almost anything prior to his 80s "phase" is worth listening to.

Get the Musiquarium compilation if you want to limit yourself to a Greatest Hits thing.

Else, I highly recommend "Songs in the Key of Life". Some amazingly heavy funk in there. Because he plays most everything himself, he has a weird way of threading grooves that shouldn't work but is extremely funky. (Check out the multiple Clavinets versus the hi-hat on Superstition off the Talking Book album for a prime example of that. )

[Captain Obvious]

elvis costello

[OreoCookie]

Cosmic Baby aka Harald Blüchel
Brian Eno
Kraftwerk

[skalie]

Some wit once remarked "Ringo isn't the best drummer in the world, he's not even the best drummer in the Beatles".

*Throws in a vote for Hank Williams* (snr)

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by analogika

Do so.

almost anything prior to his 80s "phase" is worth listening to.

Get the Musiquarium compilation if you want to limit yourself to a Greatest Hits thing.

Else, I highly recommend "Songs in the Key of Life".

I'd strongly urge him to skip a Greatest Hits CD. Like the Beatles and Marvin Gaye (in the 70s), Stevie is an album artist. I'd suggest this order: Songs in the Key of Life, Innervisions, Talking Book, Fulfillingness' First Finale, Hotter Than July, then anything else (maybe a compilation to capture the great 60s songs like "Signed, Sealed, Delivered I'm Yours," "My Cherie Amour," "Uptight (Everything's Alright)," and "For Once in My Life"). If cost is an issue, sign up for www.yourmusic.com and each CD is only $5.99 ($11.98 for Songs).

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by anthonyvthc

Quantity does not equal quality. Most of Williams themes are recycled and predictable. He is basically a pop artist posing as a classical composer. It's a shame that so many people have gotten hooked on him.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Do I write in Chinese or something ?

Classical music and popular music
The relationship (particularly, the relative value) of classical music and popular music is a controversial question. Some partisans of classical music may claim that classical music constitutes art and popular music only light entertainment. However, many popular works show a high level of artistry and musical innovation and many classical works are unabashedly crowd-pleasing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_classical_music

I'm saying that mozart wrote crowd pleasers for his time, therefore he's a pop artist.

Yeah and Beethoven was also extremely popular : must have been another of them pop stars..... No you do not write Chinese, but I wish you were so I would not be able to read your crap.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Randman

What's the definition of contemporary? If our lifetime? Meaning in the less 30+ years?

And to call some of these people geniuses is stretching it a bit. I'd say a genius would be people whose music will be playing 100+ years from now and still sounding good.

Paul McCartney.
John Williams.

Those two off the top of my head. There's another handful or three that I enjoy who have had moments of genius throughout their careers, some more than others.

I am ready to bet with you that nobody will remember John Williams in a 100 years (although I'll probably be dead by then'. And a musical genius is somebody whose music will still be played in 100+ years and will be recognized/known as having brought innovation in music, having composed scores and pieces that nobody else before had done.

And once again John Williams does not compose 'classical music'. It's just pop in the disguise of classical music. You might as well put Ennio Morricone right up there with John Williams (he's probably better in the real of catchy easy-to-remember soundtracks).

[von Wrangell]

1. Miles: Been explained well enough.
2. Quincy Jones: Producer of some of the greatest songs made.
3. The odd one out: Sigur Ros. These are some of the most talented musicians I have ever seen. It's been a long time since "true" music was made. You can find some samples on their site: http://www.sigur-ros.co.uk/media/index.html

[ghporter]

I mentioned Enya, but it was a hard choice between her and Brian Eno. Ever hear "Music for Airports?" It's breathtakingly serene while at the same time open and airy. Eno did that with ANALOG equipment, using vocal samples (ON TAPE!) as notes in some of the tracks. Tremendous work!

[analogika]

Eno: fine.

Enya: Please, let's purge this thread of Enya references. She has absolutely no business in here.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by analogika

Eno: fine.

Enya: Please, let's purge this thread of Enya references. She has absolutely no business in here.

That's your opinion, but I don't have to share it. While Brian Eno is incredible, he didn't create a whole new genre of recorded music, which is what I believe Enya did after she struck out on her own.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Any thread about musical geniuses that starts by naming Billy Joel has been derailed at its inception. Sorry.

Also, let's not confuse cleverness and talent with genius. Frank Zappa was clever, but not a genius. Ditto Brubeck, Clapton, Vaughan, etc.

Miles, Dylan, Tony Orlando - they are true geniuses. Individually, in terms of influence and achievement, they tower over everyone else.

I guess it depends of what we mean by "genius".

Frank Zappa was prolific, risked a lot creatively and yet stayed consistent with himself.

I agree Miles Davis deserve to be put in the Pantheon of geniuses though, and is more a genius than Zappa for sure, as other great jazz and blues people. But Zappa, as ghporter mentionned, was "out there" and had his own originality, maybe closer to a "troubadour".

I agree about the Billy Joel thing; he did great pop stuff, but he is far from genius status in my humble opinion.

[dav]

in my lifetime, i'd go with miles davis
all time, my choice would be bach

[meelk]

The brothers behind E.S. Posthumus most definitely. Almost every song on their debut cd has been used in various TV shows and movies, including cold case, and spiderman the movie.
http://www.esposthumus.com/

Their next cd is due in 2006.

[funkboy]

Originally Posted by lavar78

A small example: "When Doves Cry" has no bass.

Actually, many of Prince's songs have no bass. I believe I read that Prince told someone, "if you ever hear a bass line in one of my songs, I'm doing something wrong."

As a huge fan of MJ, no. He was the best child singer I've ever heard, but he's only a competent singer now. At his best, he's a good songwriter who has written a few excellent songs. IMO, he's supremely underqualified for the title of musical genius. He's more similar to Lionel Richie than Prince WRT musicianship.

I agree. Prince can still jam with the best of them, can't he? He recently did his farewell tour (which I would've loved to catch)... what did he sound like? I heard only good things about the concert, plus he gave away his new CD at it... that's pretty darn classy.

MJ has tapered off since about 1993 (after Black and White, that whole album and such), and really was only a singer. Did he write most of his songs?

And to those talking about Stevie Wonder: I highly agree.

[doucy2]

Radiohead
one of the better bands

[funkboy]

Originally Posted by lavar78

I'd strongly urge him to skip a Greatest Hits CD. Like the Beatles and Marvin Gaye (in the 70s)

Aha! Marvin Gaye, how could I forget. Because of his musical creations in album format, would he qualify? He tackled serious matters and presented them in with unmatched musical talent and production; Gaye didn't play as many instruments as Prince or Stevie Wonder, but his holistic approach to his music has to at least be admired. He usually got other people to play on his albums, and would sometimes sort of sneak their tracks on records without much compensation.

According to our deeloping definition, Gaye would not qualify as musical genius, but probably be closer to a Zappa. Troubador? He wasn't really strange or out there, though - Gaye was a self-proclaimed pop act, he always thought he would be good as a pop star.

[turtle777]

I think most of you guys don't understand the difference in concept of a contemporary musical genius versus your favorite band / artist. *sigh*


-t

[Coach]

Jeff Tweedy

Mike Patton

[Nai no Kami]

Originally Posted by turtle777

I think most of you guys don't understand the difference in concept of a contemporary musical genius versus your favorite band / artist. *sigh*


-t

as well as being a genius and being widely known, or being prolific, or being successful, or being a hard work achiever... I might add.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by anthonyvthc

Also, George Crumbs' "Lux Balarnae" is equally amazing (I may be butchering the title; it translates to 'Voice of the Whale').

It's Vox Balaenae. I think you got it mixed up with Lux Aeterna there.

[ihatesuvs68]

Beck.

[Naplander]

This is becoming more of a "Who is your favourite musician" thread by the minute.

So I'd have to say:

The Aphex Twin

[residentEvil]

Johnny Cash

[mojo2]

Ok, yeah, I agree this is just a list of fav groups and individual performers. It's easy to list any number of favorite performers and the thread would have no meaning at all. Maybe someone would like to start one of THESE threads:

Who do you predict for future R&R Hall of Fame induction?
Which musical performers do you feel deserve more airplay?
Which group(s) are destined for stardom?
What's your favorite one hit wonder?

And etc....

If you like the performers you've listed so much why not tell us why we should give them a listen or a re-listen. OK?

Otherwise your posts are just, well, lame.

[mojo2]

And, in defense of pop music I ran across this...

When most people think of pop music, they think of the fluffy, mostly mindless detritus that litters the Top 40 charts. But remember, the "pop" genre gave us such legendary performers and producers as Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, The Beatles, The Kinks, The Beach Boys, The Byrds, Phil Spector, Burt Bacharach, Carole King, Diana Ross and the Supremes, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, Jackson 5, and a thousand others. And for every modern-day multiplatinum action figure or Barbie doll, there are also a dozen individuals or groups who tap the genre to create progressive, intelligent music which also happens to be pretty darn catchy. Whether they record lo-fi on a bedroom four-track or hi-fi in a fully equipped studio, regardless of their influences or geographical locations, a focus on memorable melodies and the classic appeal of the verse-chorus-verse song structure is key with these artists.

http://www.epitonic.com/genres/pop.html

[mojo2]

Question for all:

Can't someone be a genius as a singer and that's all?

If a composer can be considered a genius...

If a musician can be considered a genius...

Why can't the CHOICES a singer makes be considered genius?

The sound of the voice is god given and honed and as such doesn't really qualify as genius. I think of the voice as a tool to be crafted. But the genius part of singing comes with the when and how they use that tool.

What do you think?

[Randman]

Originally Posted by Naplander

This is becoming more of a "Who is your favourite musician" thread by the minute.

Becoming?

[skalie]

Guess there have been lots of "moments of genius".

*goes back to listening "White Man in Hammersmith Palais"*

[Y3a]

Frank Zappa
Stan Kenton
Louis Jordan
Rick Wakeman
Barry Manilow
Van Morrison
Prince
Stevie Wonder
Beethovan
Mozart
J. S. Bach
John Coltraine
Harry Nilsson

All the rest are idiot savants

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

3. The odd one out: Sigur Ros. These are some of the most talented musicians I have ever seen. It's been a long time since "true" music was made. You can find some samples on their site: http://www.sigur-ros.co.uk/media/index.html

Thought about mentioning them here, but decided against it. They're innovative, very much so, and I adore their music (seeing them live on the 16th in Copenhagen), but they're not musical geniuses. Pure talent doesn't make a genius.

It's very hard to explain why you'd consider one artist as a genius, and another as a not-genius, though you might actually like the not-genius more than the genius..

[skalie]

Barry Manilow?

Jesus wept

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ghporter

That's your opinion, but I don't have to share it. While Brian Eno is incredible, he didn't create a whole new genre of recorded music, which is what I believe Enya did after she struck out on her own.

No.

Eno created, and was *tremendously* influential. Much of Bowie -


oh yeah, speaking of true musical genius:

BOWIE BOWIE BOWIE BOWIE BOWIE BOWIE BOWIE BOWIE BOWIE BOWIE BOWIE


- wouldn't have have happened without him, and what made U2's Joshua Tree album was Eno.

Enya didn't "create" anything; she merely popularized New Age to the point of nausea. There is nothing in her music that hadn't been done - and better - by, say, Vollenweider, or Kraftwerk, or a combination of the two.

Don't confuse *liking* something with it being *genius*.

I like Billy Joel a lot, and I think he's a hell of a songwriter, and Billy the Kid has some amazing piano work on it, but I don't consider him a genius.

-s*