Scientists prove that most modern pop music is garbage

[chris harris]

I think this turned into a great thread. But, I can't be sure. I'll let you know in 40 years or so.
_________________
Studio - http://www.hookechosound.com
Label - http://www.wearenicepeople.com
Band - http://www.depthandcurrent.com
Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/HoodEchoSound

[ubertar]

[losthighway]

**Please note that use of the dictionary is not meant to be droll, glib, or douchey... just as a clarifier and supporter of discussion that has been plagued by semanitcs***

gen·ius
   [jeen-yuhs] Show IPA
noun, plural gen·ius·es for 2, 3, 8, gen·i·i  [jee-nee-ahy] Show IPA for 6, 7, 9, 10.
1.
an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius of Mozart. Synonyms: intelligence, ingenuity, wit; brains.
2.
a person having such capacity.
3.
a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a psychological test, as an IQ above 140. Synonyms: mental giant, master, expert; whiz, brain, brainiac. Antonyms: idiot, imbecile, half-wit, dope, moron; fool, simpleton, dunce, dullard, dolt; numskull, blockhead, nitwit, ninny.
4.
natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius for leadership. Synonyms: gift, talent, aptitude, faculty, endowment, predilection; penchant, knack, bent, flair, wizardry.
5.
distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or language.

Some of the artists I have referenced I think have natural capacity, something exceptional. I can also use the definition to say how someone such as..... myself is not a genius. I have produced a lot of my own music. I might be so bold as to suggest that some of it is kind of good, but none of it can be called genius because it is neither singular nor exceptional.

Based on this definition I would say that Lady Gaga (at least musically) is not a genius. Nor is Britney Spears. But Guns and Roses kind of are. Maybe in a way Justin Timberlake is kind of a genius, but Michael Jackson unequivocally was.

And call me Warhol, but I'm talking about people who are geniuses at making pop music, which is not at all like being a genius in astrophysics.
_________________
Mo' mics mo' problems.

http://www.myspace.com/furnaceroomstudio

[ubertar]

I think we're stuck in a semantic trap no dictionary can get us out of. If a genius is defined as someone with exceptional natural capacity of intellect, the question then becomes: how exceptional does someone have to be to qualify as a genius? How do we define exceptional? And it goes on and on...

So the whole problem of how high to raise the bar still stands. We've only changed the words we're using to describe the same thing.

I've got work to do...
_________________
my new record:
http://spectropolrecords.bandcamp.com/album/solo-trios
“In this field, the number two is important. We count one, two, infinity.” Jill Tarter

[fossiltooth]

[dfuruta]

The question isn't about natural capacity at all. It's what musicians create. "Great" musicians are not necessarily people who happened to be born talented ("geniuses"), and vice versa–some of the "greats" were naturally talented, eg Mozart, and some of them got there through stubborn hard work, eg Coltrane.

I think it's totally fine if the "great" musicians of our time aren't widely popular, or even widely known. Ultimately, this is necessarily subjective. Mozart was hugely influential, sure, but, personally, I think his music is wretched. Very few people have heard of Wrnlrd, but I think his music is truly great. Someone thinks Hendrix is great, I think his music's boring. That's ok. These aren't objectively verifiable categories and they don't need to be.

[ubertar]

[losthighway]

[ubertar]

[Gregg Juke]

So, to put a smiley-face-curved friendship bow on the whole thing: Has anybody learned any average, interesting, good, great, or genius-level recording or production techniques from any of the crappy, average, good, great, or genius-level music recordings of say, the past 100 years?

GJ

[honkyjonk]

Not that starting a movement is the only qualifier for someone truly "great" but I don't see anybody starting any movements the way Dylan did or the way the Beatles did.
But then, I think that is exactly why good and great music is suppressed. Public opinion is no thing to be taking chances with, if you can control it, right? . . .

Those people above started a revolution of the mind. To call it music only would be a disservice. They're more than music.

So, are there enormous talents on the order of the already mentioned greats of the past, lurking in obscurity? Who knows. It doesn't hurt to dig.
_________________
Stilgar, we've got wormsign the likes of which God has never seen!

[Gregg Juke]

Hey HJ,

At the risk of actually extending this thread, which I think was worn-out from about post #3, could you be more specific about Dylan and the Beatles "starting a movement?"

They were certainly part of a tumultuous time, historically, and they were eventually thrust into the "spokesmen for a generation" position, and in Dylan's case, I'd say he was definitely part of/adjunct to a movement of sorts, but I don't think either the Beatles or Dylan could accurately be described as "starting" a movment. In the Beatles case, I'm pretty sure that they just set out to be the best rock & roll band out there, and to hopefully make a lot of money. The politics, social activism, and religion all came after their success, and they certainly aligned themsleves in a general way with the Left, but again, I'm pretty sure that wasn't their goal or purpose from the outset. They're actually almost a perfect microcosmic, time-compressed example of the Eric William's Thesis in action.

GJ