[mojo2]

Within our lifetimes there have lived some musical geniuses. I want to know who you consider to be a musical GENIUS and make a strong case for them. If your genius is nominated on the basis of just one song, the case should be really persuasive.

But, a long and popular career isn't enough, in and of itself, to qualify for genius status.

The word "genius" is overused these days. What's wrong with someone being "good," "great," "masterful" or "among the very best?"

There are undoubtedly many geniuses in music and here's an opportunity to extol the genius of your favorite writer, composer or performer, in any genre, to the discerning MacNN community.

Oh, and if someone doesn't do a nominee justice with their nomination (i.e. if it's weak) and you want to second the nomination and make it stronger, feel free. Give three examples of any works.

Ok. I'll start with one of my favorites.

IMHO, Billy Joel is a musical genius.

Though his melodies are wonderfully memorable and easy to sing, I'm nominating Billy Joel on the quality of his lyrics.

1. New York State of Mind
2. Honesty
3. Allentown

This is an easy nomination. So many of his songs are so inspired that many of them could be listed as proof of genius in the category of lyrics OR melody.

"New York State of Mind," makes me want to visit New York, makes me feel it. And I got a chill when he sang this song on the nationally televised special right after the 9/11 attack.

How many times have you thought or said to your lady, something like, "I love you just the way you are?" Then try to think of another song that expresses this same warm, loving and universal sentiment before or since this Joel classic. Yeah, me neither.

Unless a man is blessed with the hunger for honesty sooner in life rather than later, as a man gets older, artifice, vanity, immediate comfort and gratification becomes less important than substance and the desire for honesty. Of all the people I've known the ones who can be honest with me are the ones I value the most. How much more valuable would that be to me if I were a successful singer/songwriting legend? "Honesty" is a terrific song.

Long before John Gray described man's need to repair to his proverbial cave to think or unwind and for women to let him come out only when he's ready, Billy Joel wrote this:

When I'm deep inside of me
Don't be too concerned
I won't ask for nothin' while I'm gone
But when I want sincerity
Tell me where else can I turn
Because you're the one that I depend upon

Once again, a universal sentiment voiced poignantly well.

Honesty is such a lonely word
Everyone is so untrue
Honesty is hardly ever heard
And mostly what I need from you

"The loveliness of Paris," "If you're going to San Francisco," "New York, New York," "Chicago," "L.A. is my Lady"...all those songs are classic love songs to cities and if you've never felt that way about the town you live in, well, I'm sorry for you. But Joel's "Allentown" is a different type of love song for a different kind of town.

It's a kind of town upon which this country was built. Where the "company" line was fed to young and old alike, who swallowed the line and did their part and now awake to find they have been lied to but there's no one around to blame. Billy Joel doesn't offer any tears or even any solutions. But in this song he conveys the strength and goodness of the people, and you can hear the machinery at work and even smell the smoke from the smokestacks now dormant. No, Billy Joel has nothing for the good people of Allentown but to tell their story. And tell their story is exactly what he does here. And he tells it damn well. Have you ever tapped your feet to the beat of a song that made a tear well up in your eye? It happened to me with this song.

My nominee for musical genius status is Billy Joel.

[chris v]

Andy Partridge of XTC. Nobody matches music to the lyrical content the way he does.

Brian Wilson. Smile is the Great American Symphony of the 20th century.

[Ω]

My nominees would be:

Thom Yorke from Radiohead. OK Computer to me is one of the most brilliant pieces of work to come from the 90's.

Maynard Keenan of Tool. A decade of masterful discontent.

However would I say both are "geni"? Who knows, as they are backed by bands.

Sheer talent for what they do, then I would go Hendrix and Malmsteen, lyrically maybe Yusuf Islam.

[wdlove]

I would add Leonard Bernstein and John Williams.

[lavar78]

Stevie Wonder and Prince. Their immense talent speaks for itself.

[zizban]

Originally Posted by lavar78

Stevie Wonder and Prince. Their immense talent speaks for itself.

[parallax]

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

While I love classic rock and listen to a lot of it, I don't think that any of it qualifies as "genius." A lot of it is superb, but I tend to think of genius as being innovative and immensely talented simultaneously. Often modern-day bands have one or the other, but not both.

[Oisín]

Tori Amos
Apart from writing incredible melodies and incomprehensible, quirky lyrics (which all somehow seem to make sense anyway), she also has an amazing talent for playing the piano. At age four, she was already composing her own pieces, and she became the youngest student ever to attend the Peabody Institute (at John Hopkins University in Baltimore) when she was just six.

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”.

Yma Sumac
Not so much a musical genius as a person equipped with a unique and genius voice, and a knack for using it. (Also not really contemporary, since she's about a hundred today, and made most of her music in the 60's and 70's)

[budster101]

Dave Brubeck:
Then:
Now:

Born on 6 December 1920 in Concord, California, jazz legend Dave Brubeck is equally distinguished as composer and pianist. Studies at the College of the Pacific and with Milhaud at Mills College led to the founding, with fellow students, of the experimental Jazz Workshop Ensemble which recorded in 1949 as the Dave Brubeck Octet. Later, in 1958, the combination of Brubeck with drummer Joe Morello, double bassist Eugene Wright, and alto saxophonist Paul Desmond quickly achieved an overwhelming popular success as the Dave Brubeck Quartet. The Quartet's experimentation with time signatures unusual to jazz produced works like Blue Rondo a la Turk and Take Five, introducing millions of enthusiastic young listeners to unexplored regions of jazz. The group recorded and performed together continuously through 1967.
As composer, Brubeck has written and, in some cases, recorded several large-scale works including two ballets, a musical, an oratorio, four cantatas, a mass, works for jazz combo and orchestra, and many solo piano pieces. In the last 20 years, he has organized several new quartets and continued to appear at the Newport, Monterey, Concord, and Kool Jazz Festivals. Brubeck performed at the White House in 1964 and 1981 and at the 1988 Moscow summit honoring the Gorbachevs. He is the recipient of four honorary degrees, the BMI Jazz Pioneer Award, and the 1988 American Eagle Award presented by the National Music Council.

http://www.schirmer.com/composers/brubeck_bio.html

He still tours with his sons.

[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.

[anthonyvthc]

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.

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.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by anthonyvthc

He is basically a pop artist posing as a classical composer.

Many of the "great" composers were pop artists. Look at mozart or any of the other wig wearing people from the past. The tunes they wrote were pure pop at the time.

[Spliff]

David Hassellhoff.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by parallax

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

While I love classic rock and listen to a lot of it, I don't think that any of it qualifies as "genius." A lot of it is superb, but I tend to think of genius as being innovative and immensely talented simultaneously. Often modern-day bands have one or the other, but not both.

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.

[jokell82]

Bob Dylan. No question.

[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.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Many of the "great" composers were pop artists. Look at mozart or any of the other wig wearing people from the past. The tunes they wrote were pure pop at the time.

Uh, what?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Uh, what?

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.

[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.

[ort888]

What about Linkin Park? Those guys rawk.

[parallax]

Calling Mozart's dissonance quartet "pure pop" would be so wrong. Just because Mozart managed to write excellent accessible music does not label him as a "pop artist."

You can't just equate "famous" with "rock star" and "accessible" with "poppy", conclude that Mozart was a "pop musician" and be done with it. These terms have connotations attached to them, unlike their generic counterparts. If you're going to say Mozart was popular, this is fine. If you're going to say Mozart was a "pop musician", you had better substantiate that with more!

Anyway, I agree with Anthony that John Williams sucks.

[budster101]

Compared to the rest of the musicians writing that long-haired stuff, he was a pop star, but became a driving force behind the music of his time.

He was the Michael Angelo / Leonardo Davinci of the time. He was considered an upstart, much like other pop stars of our time that have such beginnings, yet suprise us all by defining a genre all by themselves.

Madonna = pop star. Her beginnings skyrocketed her with great controversy, which she fed off of, to perpetuate her success even further. Sure she is talented, but she also railed against many taboos.

I'm not comparing the two. You can't. Mozart deserves much more than that, but I'm drawing a parallel here. His music was not accepted at first. They all turned their noses up at it, and he could't get a job.

He was a rock star of his time. To say different is not credible. He lived like one and died like one...

Mozart's life was fraught with financial difficulty and illness. Often, he received no payment for his work, and what sums he did receive were quickly consumed by his extravagant lifestyle.

---

"Many important composers since Mozart's time have worshipped or at least been in awe of Mozart. Rossini averred, "He is the only musician who had as much knowledge as genius, and as much genius as knowledge." Beethoven told his pupil Ries that he (Beethoven) would never be able to think of a melody as great as a certain one in the first movement of Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 24. Beethoven also paid homage to Mozart by writing sets of variations on several of his themes: for example, the two sets of variations for cello and piano on themes from Mozart's Magic Flute, and cadenzas to several of Mozart's piano concertos, most notably the Piano Concerto No. 20, K. 466 (see below for this system and an explanation). After the only meeting between the two composers, Mozart noted that Beethoven would "give the world something to talk about." As well, Tchaikovsky wrote his Mozartiana in praise of him; and Mahler died with the word "Mozart" on his lips. The variations theme of the opening movement of the A major piano sonata (K. 331) was used by Max Reger for his Variations and Fugue on a Theme of Mozart, written in 1914 and among his best-known works in turn."

More source materials and many links here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...Amadeus-Mozart

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ort888

What about Linkin Park? Those guys rawk.

your anus.

Oh, and nothing against John Williams; he's written some brilliant scores, but a genius, he is not.

Heck, if you're gonna go with score-writers, he's FAR surpassed by Mancini and Schifrin, IMO, but frankly, I'm a little bit at a loss as to what constitutes a musical "genius".

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by ort888

What about Linkin Park? Those guys rawk.

http://youhavebadtasteinmusic.com/

Check the Linkin Park video.

[JazzCatDRP]

John Coltrane...the chordal structure of his pieces, and his own improvisational ideas are cutting edge, even still today.

Also, Dizzy Gillespie's harmonic ideas can be described as nothing else but genius.

Also, Chuck Mangione...just kidding.

[SimpleLife]

[ghporter]

Classical: Elmer Bernstein. Just look at the breadth and scope of his work, including 14 Oscar nominations (won for "Thoroughly Modern Millie" soundtrack) and an Emmy, plus several Golden Globe nominations. And that's ALL TV and movie music! Matching music to a dramatic story is either great for the story or it hurts the story; Elmer was ALWAYS great.

Contemporary: Enya. She writes such ethereal and haunting music, sings as if she learned from angels, and has consistently produced wonderful, thoughtful, and beautiful music for a long, long time.

Pop: John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Yes, they were POP when they worked together, and they paved the way for lesser people, while introducing innovative musical concepts that other greats have built on.

R&B: Stevie Wonder-'Nuf said?

"Out There": Frank Zappa. No doubt about either his status or his genius.

[nonhuman]

[edit]Nevermind, that was too big.[/edit]

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Contemporary: Enya. She writes such ethereal and haunting music, sings as if she learned from angels, and has consistently produced wonderful, thoughtful, and beautiful music for a long, long time.

While she did pretty much invent the particular genre of music she makes to the world, I don't think I'd call her a musical genius. There's just not enough innovation. 'Her' genre is really just a mix of classical music and Donegal folk music. Granted, she was the first to make this particular mix, but still...

Plus, she doesn't make her music alone. For someone to be categorised as a musical genius in my book, I think they should be able to create their music all by themselves, at least in their heads, so to speak. Enya's music all comes about as the product of a co-operation between three people: Eithne herself, her lyricist Roma, and the producer, Nicky. Only the very first part of the creation is her own: the initial creation of the basic melody.

She's a very accomplished and talented artist, but I don't think she's a genius.

[budster101]

I guess Whitesnake is out of the question too?

Dave Brubeck. He changed Jazz man!

-

What about individual categories?

Genre -
|
Instrument

?

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by lavar78

Stevie Wonder.

WTF? The same man responsible for "I Just Called to Say (I Love You)"? That song is a crime against humanity.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Oisín

She's a very accomplished and talented artist, but I don't think she's a genius.

I'll just agree with the first part and disagree with the second part. Innovation is part inspiration and part marketing; someone with a fabulous idea that never gets heard isn't innovative because they aren't noticed. I give Enya a huge portion of the credit for making Celtic music big in the overhyped "big music" market, and bringing her mix of stylings and blend of genres into play had a lot to do with it.

[budster101]

ELVIS.
ELVIS.
ELVIS.
ELVIS.

Come one people.

http://www.elvis.com/
(Turn your audio down... startled me.)



What a business. (No derails here)

-----

Give Elvis his props!

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Spliff

WTF? The same man responsible for "I Just Called to Say (I Love You)"? That song is a crime against humanity.

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.

[BRussell]

I have to respectfully dissent on Dave Brubeck. He's a nice pianist, and a nice guy, and his group used different time signatures, but he's not up there with the geniuses.

[Superchicken]

I don't think we really have many musical geniuses these days.

That said if I were to think of the most exceptional musicians I can think of... I'd have to go with TobyMac (The other day I was listening to the song Diverse City off the same titled album and it hit me how much time he must have spent in the studio on it since there was sooo much going on that I didn't even notice before.)

Other honourable mentions would be the guys from Switchfoot not so much for their most recent album which got huge, but for their previous two, New Way to be Human, and Learning to Breathe.

Also I would include Adrienne Camp of the Benjamin Gate... simply cause her voice is probably my favourite female artist's voice ever.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Contemporary: Enya. She writes such ethereal and haunting music, sings as if she learned from angels, and has consistently produced wonderful, thoughtful, and beautiful music for a long, long time.

good god, man - no.

Enya is trite, pathetic, blubber.

Matters of taste aside:
I have an album of hers because it's rather impressive and effective mood music, but there is NOTHING even remotely approaching "genius" in the music, neither in composition, nor in performance, nor in the extensive use of digital workstation factory preset sounds.

Sorry.

But, no.

[budster101]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I have to respectfully dissent on Dave Brubeck. He's a nice pianist, and a nice guy, and his group used different time signatures, but he's not up there with the geniuses.

He received a Lifetime Acheivement Award.
To diminish his accomplishments by saying he changed a few signatures.... and was a nice pianist is like saying Eric Clapton is an ok guitarist and all but.

[analogika]

Stevie Wonder: (Talking book, Songs in the Key of Life, and a couple of others are indeed written, produced, arranged, and performed almost entirely by Stevie. Utterly amazing stuff.)

Quincy Jones might qualify.

Prince has re-invented himself enough times over the past thirty years to possibly qualify.

[budster101]

Stevie Ray Vaughan deserves an honorable mention.

Taught himself to play.
Magic with a guitar.

[CharlesS]

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.

Apparently you didn't read the rest of that Wikipedia article you quoted... you know, the bits about complexity, instrumentation, etc. The one classical genre that could begin to compare to modern popular music in terms of popularity was opera. And, you know, writing an opera, especially one that we'll still be listening to a few centuries later, requires a little more work than writing a pop tune. That's not to say that a pop tune can't have artistry, but it just can't be equated to something like an opera in scope.

Classical music (a.k.a. Western art music) and popular music are two different genres. The words "classical" and "popular" have different meanings in different contexts, which is why these two genres are unfortunately named. However, if a classical piece is popular, that does not make it popular music, just as if a pop tune can be thought of as a classic, that does not make it classical music. Of course, there are crossover genres, and then there are genres such as jazz which, over time, have evolved to become sufficiently complex that they could be considered as a form of classical music, but it is beyond ridiculous to make the assertion that you are making.

The closest equivalent to the modern notion of popular music around Mozart's time would be folk song. This is what your Wikipedia has to say about it:

The term "popular music" is used in broader and narrower senses. At its broadest it refers to all music other than classical music, also known as art music. In the early 19th century, the traditional songs of the common people were referred to as "popular song". By the late 19th century these songs were referred to as "folk song" and a distinction was made between folk music and the more recently developed urban popular music. Now popular music is distributed via mass media such as recordings and radio (as classical music is now also). Popular music forms part of popular culture. For varieties of popular music, see the list of genres below.
See the separate article on pop music for the narrower genre of very commercial, light, catchy, melodic music.

Hmm, let's have a look at that "pop music" definition that the Wikipedia article mentioned.

In general, pop music features simple, memorable melodies with catchy, sing-along choruses. Pop songs often have a hook, one or more musical ideas repeated to "hook" a listener's interest. A hook can be any part of the song, musical, rhythmic, vocal, or as is most often the case, a mixture of all of them. Pop music is usually instantly accessible to anyone who is culturally inclined to take part, even the musical novice.
Successful pop music, which is often measured in terms of its commercial success, is usually performed by charismatic performers who look attractive, are fashionable, and usually are able to dance well. Songwriting and arranging may be done by professional songwriters rather than the performers and the record producer often chooses the songs and shapes the sound of the music.

...

The image of pop performers is often regarded as being as important as their actual music. Consequently, pop performers and their managers make elaborate efforts to project the desired image through their clothing, music video clips, manipulation of the popular press, and similar tactics.An example can be made by bands like Green Day who try to hold up a punk image and yet they can be found appearing on Nickelodeon and other kid networks. Indeed, many pop acts are formulated around achieving the desired image. Boy bands and girl groups are particularly carefully organised in this manner, with members often chosen and groomed to fulfill certain roles and to appeal to different fan personalities.

Clearly, "pop music" is a much more modern concept that has very little to do with any of the classical composers. Popular music has, of course, always existed, and was indeed often quoted by certain composers, but the work of a composer such as Mozart does not and has never constituted popular music. Saying that "this music was once popular, therefore it was pop music" is about as accurate as saying "This Mac has windows in its interface, therefore it's running Windows."

Mozart also was controversial with his compositions as those other composers of the time were very staunchy and rigid.

Mozart was actually pretty conservative. He obviously had great talent and wrote compositions of very high quality, but he didn't really push the envelope much in terms of harmony or form. Haydn was a far more innovative composer IMO. Incidentally, Haydn's music was far more popular than Mozart's in his day.

Incidentally, PacHead, I am wondering what you think of classical composers whose music had little popularity during their lifetime. What of composers like J.S. Bach (mostly known as an organist, not as a composer), Franz Schubert (great melodist, virtually unknown in his time), Robert Schumann (they thought he was nuts), or Hector Berlioz (very innovative, not that well known)? Is their music somehow different enough from the composers that had popularity that they belong in a completely different genre? How about composers like Arnold Schönberg or Anton Webern, pretty much the epitome of a great composer with very little popularity at all? Or how about someone like Igor Stravinsky? He did have a very good reputation in his day, but would you consider something like the Rite of Spring to be "pure pop"? Hell, Wagner was maybe the biggest superstar opera composer there ever was. Would you consider the extremely long Ring Cycle to be "pure pop"?!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by budster101

He received a Lifetime Acheivement Award.
To diminish his accomplishments by saying he changed a few signatures.... and was a nice pianist is like saying Eric Clapton is an ok guitarist and all but.

Heh, the comparison to Clapton is pretty apt, actually.

I'm diminishing him only in comparison to the geniuses we're supposed to be talking about. I just don't think you'd find many jazz experts who'd say that Brubeck, though popular, is one of the great geniuses.

At the least, you'd have to get through a LOT of others first - those mentioned (Coltrane, Davis, Parker), plus Monk and Mingus and Armstrong and Ellington and many many others. Even on piano, most would put Evans and Powell and Tatum and Tyner above Brubeck.

Of course, there's no objective way of "proving" any of this.

[budster101]

The thing was, he was not popular at all when he started his work. He was actually shunned, like Mozart.

I'm not going to press the issue. I'm not married to the idea of giving the Jazz honor to Brubeck. I just like him a lot. Seen him a few times interviewed and discuss his life and beginnings. Amazing story.

[BRussell]

He's a great man. I've read that he did a lot for gaining acceptance for black musicians among white audiences, when it wasn't easy for him to do so. I saw him play with a symphony in Madison a few years ago.

[budster101]

That's right. He did do a lot for gaining acceptance for black musicians. He actually threatened to walk! if so-and-so didn't play the venue. I think he did walk...

[Nai no Kami]

I disagree with many of the posters above. I believe genius is not about "grandeur"; it is about giving a subject that "copernican spin". I would propose:

Egberto Gismonti
Astor Piazzolla (yes, I know he is dead)
Brad Mehldau (in my opinion, he has a genial sensitivity and creativity to be a jazz interpreter)
Tan Dun

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Nai no Kami

I disagree with many of the posters above. I believe genius is not about "grandeur"; it is about giving a subject that "copernican spin".

I agree.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Spliff

WTF? The same man responsible for "I Just Called to Say (I Love You)"? That song is a crime against humanity.

"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.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by parallax

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

While I love classic rock and listen to a lot of it, I don't think that any of it qualifies as "genius." A lot of it is superb, but I tend to think of genius as being innovative and immensely talented simultaneously. Often modern-day bands have one or the other, but not both.

FWIW, I concur with your use of the term 'contemporary' as they lived within your and my lifetimes, and I also agree they were both geniuses.

[budster101]

Bing Crosby?


http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/mus.htm

Bob Dylan. Wow.

http://rateyourmusic.com/view_albums/artist_id_is_22