Was John Lennon a genius? [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

stlukesguild

06-30-2011, 01:22 AM

I don't think of "classical music" as a style. It is made up of an endless array of styles. This is "classical music":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ql5V_Osp2Y&feature=related

but so is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvTiWPV2da0

and this is classical music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u0M4CMq7uI&feature=relmfu

and so is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnuAaKiX1sg

and this is classical music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVJD3dL4diY

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go-yfV8qpSw&feature=fvsr

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yztoaNakKok

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXhsl4rhmQo&feature=related

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OZkSU77G3U

Classical music is not a genre, but is made up of an endless array of genre: opera, motets, madrigals, chants, lieder, chanson, masses, symphonies, quartets, quintets, tone poems, ballets, etc... Neither is classical music a style, but rather it is made up of an endless array of styles: Gregorian chants, Byzantine chant, Baroque, Classicism, Romanticism, Jazz, Minimalism, etc... What defines "classical" music is that like "classic literature" it is the music that has survived. Until the advent of electronic recording, the vast majority of what survived was the music of the elite... the aristocracy and the church. This was the music created by educated composers who could read and write music thus ensuring that if it was of merit, it might survive. Undoubtedly, over the course of the last 1000 years (the oldest music that we have accurate scores to dates from around 1000) there were talented musicians and composers whose music has been lost to time because it was not given a tangible form that might be passed on. Little of what we might call "folk music" or the popular music of the time has survived. The same is also true of more improvisational work. The Baroque composers were well-known for improvising... in a manner not unlike that of jazz. This is something that jazz composers such as Keith Jarrett have picked up on, combining elements of jazz and the Baroque in improvisational works.

Sound recording changed everything. Surprisingly, it is around the time of sound recording that we first find the term, "classical music" being employed (outside of the reference to the "classical era" of Mozart, Haydn, etc...). It became obvious that the term was intended to convey a superiority: this is "classical music" while that is merely jazz of show tunes or something lesser. It is absolutely impossible to define "classical music" in the twentieth century. At the same time, popular musical forms such as jazz, blues, rock, folk music, bluegrass, electronic music, etc... have been absorbed within the realm of "classical music". By this point in time the divisions between musical genre have become so blurred that many have begun to use the terms "serious music" or "art music" to define what we are speaking of.

Ultimately... as the definition of "classical music" becomes ever more blurred, the term will eventually be recognized as simply defining that music which has been deemed over time as among the finest in whatever genre/style it may be... that music which has survived. A song such as Gershwin's Summertime has been called a "standard":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIDOEsQL7lA

I can't see any difference between it and a classic song by Schubert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9TlAOKCmaQ

or Debussy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zgJRVLIE4o

or Massenet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9X3H6mZcDY&feature=fvsr

or Lennon-McCartney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySg0HWBj6KY

Philip Glass spoke on the notion of "art music" and suggested that yes, he did see a separation... but only in that he saw that there were some musical artists or composers who essentially invent a musical language, and others who build upon that language. He went so far as to suggest that some who build upon the foundations of others actually achieve something of far greater aesthetic merit. One might think of the "invention" of "musique concrete" which was basically music constructed of everyday sounds and noises run forward and backwards through the tape-player.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iodxryYaZLc&feature=related

How much more interesting do we find what the Beatles achieved with such an idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_cwWP5Qf1k

I agree that making comparisons of the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Miles Davis, Johnny Cash, and Muddy Waters to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart is difficult... but so is a comparison of Cormac McCarthy, Philip Roth, Charles Simic, Gore Vidal, J.L. Borges, and Gunter Grass to Shakespeare, Dante, and Goethe or a comparison of Andy Warhol, Mark Rothko, Anselm Kiefer, R. Crumb, Sean Scully, and Christian Boltansky to Michelangelo, Titian, Rembrandt, and Rubens. Ultimately, it is the reason that the usual comparisons of this to that are useless and boring after a while. You cannot make a direct comparison of Miles Davis or the Beatles to Mozart or Bach for the simple reason that different music has different standards and goals. Just comparing Wagner or Debussy to Bach would prove incredibly problematic. Miles Davis is even further removed. There is also the difficulty, as there is in judging modern and contemporary art and literature, in discerning real, lasting merit in an art work that we are too close to.

John Lennon was talented, but some of his fame was due to being controversial.

Wagner was controversial. Picasso was controversial. Michelangelo was controversial. Walt Whitman was controversial. Rimbaud was controversial. William Blake is still controversial. How does the manner in which an individual artist attain his or her initial fame affect his or her lasting reputation (if indeed it does last)?

jajdude

06-30-2011, 02:34 AM

"Kylie Minogue wants a good kicking."

She's cute though.

LitNetIsGreat

06-30-2011, 06:17 AM

Stluke's spot on the money again.
............................

"Kylie Minogue wants a good kicking."

She's cute though.

I was a little harsh there. It is just that Kylie seems to have made it because she is small and has a bum. Pop at this level is all marketing of course so there was no need for me to pick on her in particular. Indeed, by having those qualities it does place her far above many others who have neither of those assets.

None of it matters in the end though, the marketing business I mean - you just have to let it slide that some of these people can make millions just for wearing a particular hat. But that's the world we live in, so there's no use in worrying about it really, even if sometimes it gets under the armour.

breathtest

06-30-2011, 07:57 AM

I think Lennon was very good, but I think the word genius is used too much. Genius is probably a rarer thing than people tend to think

Drkshadow03

06-30-2011, 08:35 AM

I was being a bit glib with some of the terms I was using. By classical, I meant Medieval, Baroque, Classical Period, Romantic, Modern period, etc. You also have a good point about the popular forms of the times (such as the use of folk dance pieces) being incorporated into that umbrella term of classical music.

Nevertheless, I'm not entirely convinced that two hundred years from now someone will write a book about the top 500 Classical Composers and we'll see The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Miles Davis, Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan, and Jimi Hendrix listed beside Beethoven and Bach. You could be right. It's possible that 200 years from now there will simply be The List of Worthy Musicians Of the Glorious Tradition, but I think it's equally possible that we'll have separate traditions entirely that live side-by-side and different sense of who is worthy in those traditions. You note the seminal place sound recording technology had in developing this idea of separate genres. But what you don't seem to consider is that these technologies (sound recording, IPODs, digital music, etc.) might have created a complete paradigm shift beyond just how we market and classify our music in the here and now, but ultimately to how we might view the idea of musical canon and what is worthy in the future. It's perfectly possible that separate traditions will exist side-by-side rather than as one single coherent tradition.

Delta40

06-30-2011, 08:38 AM

Main Entry: genius
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: gift of high intellect
Synonyms: Einstein, ability, accomplishment, acumen, acuteness, adept, aptitude, aptness, astuteness, bent, brain, brilliance, capability, capacity, creativity, discernment, endowment, expert, faculty, flair, grasp, head, imagination, inclination, ingenuity, inspiration, intelligence, inventiveness, knack, mature, originality, percipience, perspicacity, power, precocity, prodigy, propensity, prowess, reach, sagacity, superability, talent, turn, understanding, virtuoso, wisdom
Antonyms: idiot, imbecile

MystyrMystyry

06-30-2011, 02:23 PM

Sometimes it's the brevity of the work that makes it genius, ie in a 3 minute song. And then the comparison of that with something else - ie the song before or after.

As a songwiter he was certainly at the right place right time, during a period when people listened to entire albums for a near (actual?) classical experience with whatever slight or tangential connection between melody or thematic development over its course.

But Kylie does tunes that are to my mind more catchy than many of The Beatles or John Lennon (though of course we're talking about producers, musicians and songwriters separate from Kylie who is an 'entertainer' and probably more entertaining on stage than the former - just on an purely visual aesthetic level she wins.

But that doesn't take away from John Lennon's contribution to a cultural period (you could play Revolution or Taxman over the footage of the Greek riots and people would know what you mean)

Was he a genius, and still relevant - yes. But would I want to hear him every day - no.

In fact, just thinking about it, I would rather listen to Back In The USSR than read slabs of facts and criticism about the place

wessexgirl

06-30-2011, 04:25 PM

Mutatis-Mutandis

06-30-2011, 05:29 PM

Too much over-analyzing! Just go with your gut. He was a genius.

LitNetIsGreat

06-30-2011, 07:43 PM

I don't know about a genius, but I think he's certainly a major player. I've always loved the Beatles, such a wonderful body of work to look back on, but I have to be pedantic Neely and say that Here Comes the Sun was written by George, not John :yesnod:.

Oh I wasn't really thinking about Lennon in particular, as usual I have my own interpretation of the question and just lumped him in with the Beatles. Actually, I think The Beatles together were much more than the sum of its parts.

Delta40

06-30-2011, 07:52 PM

Actually, I think The Beatles together were much more than the sum of its parts.

Spot on Neely

MystyrMystyry

07-01-2011, 01:06 AM

He also wrote poems, stories, and drew pictures - he could strum a guitar and sing (at the same time)

When people say oh but Mozart could have done all that if he tried - where's the proof?

Delta40

07-01-2011, 01:21 AM

As Lennon himself said: 'They're just words man. They don't mean anything'

Serena03

07-01-2011, 02:18 AM

Is the age of genius over? Is technology a contribution to this? Every generation has its perception of 'genius' which goes along with moderation, they become synchronized with each contemporary event, but distorted at the wake of every new technical emergence.

What was it about these classical musicians/writers/artists that made them appear more superior and legendary? When analyzed, broken down and compared with artistry of today on a fundamental level, it is not very much more complicated or brilliant. Rock and roll or jazz really appears as the classical music of today; in many ways, it's just as elegant but without the pomp. The difference of ages is coated with a more eloquent style of language and compositions which generates the concept of innovative grace and originality in a world of lacking sufficient education and ubiquitous media to universally affirm a production's existence.

The concept of 'genius' today becomes more distorted and ambiguous as innovation is compulsory. It's an empty and overrated term which is often misunderstood, it's been meaninglessly volleyed to describe an illusion of superiority and 'true' quality without justification. I tend to abstain from using this term since it's about as stable as the concepts of 'good' and 'evil.' While intelligence may be as immeasurable as the heavens, the 'genius' concept is as mysterious as the dark side of the moon or extra terrestrial life, revolving around truth. Was Lennon a genius? Cleverness is just another one's ignorance. Who are we to currently say what will become legendary and remembered before time can proceed? History's discernment will have the last word.

The Atheist

07-01-2011, 02:28 AM

Just a wee note for those who think it is impossible that The Beatles could ever attain the place in music occupied by Mozart, Beethoven et al:

http://www.royalalberthall.com/tickets/beatles-philharmonic-tribute/default.aspx

http://ilovehongkong.org/events-a-festivals/57-hk-symphony-orchestra-to-play-beatles-hits

http://www.wso.ca/ (doesn't link properly, just type "beatles" into search)

http://jbpimentel.blogspot.com/2010/07/beatles-for-strings-rrso-symphony.html

I'm not saying they will, but saying they won't is plain shortsighted.

jajdude

07-01-2011, 03:10 AM

I think Lennon was very good, but I think the word genius is used too much. Genius is probably a rarer thing than people tend to think

I agree with this statement. He was no Michelangelo. Or Da Vinci. Or Shakespeare.

jajdude

07-01-2011, 03:20 AM

I guess death, violent wreckless death can boost one's reputation.....we'll never know what type of old geezers they would have grown into and so the legend is born!

Ever see the, what is it? Famous people who died at age 27? Hendrix, Morrison, a few others. Odd.

Jack of Hearts

07-01-2011, 03:37 AM

MarkBastable

07-01-2011, 04:57 AM

A lot of his stuff is terrible....
A lot of everyone's stuff is terrible. I'll have a look around for the citation on this - but I read a convincing theory somewhere that the reputation of any artist - even the best of them - is built on the quality of about twenty percent of their output, because the other eighty percent tends be a bit ordinary.

... made for mass consumption at the time it was written....

Just because something is written for mass consumption, doesn't mean it's not a work of genius. In fact, one might make an argument that it's the ability to make brilliant stuff widely-acceptable that characterises genius - which is one reason for suggesting that Shakespeare, Picasso and Gaudi qualify.

After 1968, the greater songwriter was George Harrison.
J

I'd be interested to see an argument in support of that contention.

Helga

07-01-2011, 05:11 AM

I have always found it interesting that when people talk about the Beatles or are asked about the best Beatle so many say Lennon, he was great yes and McCartney is also often mentioned. They were great partners and made some great songs and Harrison did too but I still think Ringo is the best.

but I agree with some statements above, we use the word Genius way to much so I am just gonna say Lennon was great.

Drkshadow03

07-01-2011, 12:32 PM

Not to mention if we limit ourselves to trite definitions of genius how will important bands like Guttermouth ever be remembered (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxVpG-KHE1k) by later generations? :devil:

A lot of his stuff is terrible, made for mass consumption at the time it was written, especially the early (keeping in mind many of the Lennon/McCartney songs have a singular, definitive author).

Just one opinion-

After 1968, the greater songwriter was George Harrison.

J

I think the Beatles early albums are solid. I would agree they're not the groundbreaking original music that are the late albums, but they're still fun and enjoyable to listen to.

Patrick_Bateman

07-01-2011, 12:36 PM

John Lennon and Paul McCartney changed the world and music.

I'd say that is criteria fulfilled for the title of genius

stlukesguild

07-01-2011, 02:27 PM

Rock and roll or jazz really appears as the classical music of today; in many ways, it's just as elegant but without the pomp. The difference of ages is coated with a more eloquent style of language and compositions which generates the concept of innovative grace and originality in a world of lacking sufficient education and ubiquitous media to universally affirm a production's existence.

I wouldn't underestimate what has been termed "classical music". While I threw out the notion that the best of the various popular musical genres of the last century may survive as something akin to the classical music of our day, I have no illusions about the complexity of Mozart and Bach vs Lennon-McCartney. A 2nd tier composer of the 18th century would quite likely have a far greater mastery of his chosen instrument and a far greater understanding of musical forms, structures and rules than almost any pop instrumentalist. Jazz may approach the complexity and sophistication of classical music... but this is rare in pop music due to the simple fact that the musician/composers are no way educated in the complex forms of classical music. (And this is something I'll admit with regard to my own art form: the average 19th century academic painter could quite likely draw better and organize shapes and forms in space on the canvas better than all but the greatest living realist artists.) Classical music isn't just lovely tunes perfumed with an illusion of elegance and pomp. It involves a masterful grasp of musical structure, form, harmony, etc... Most pop music isn't even fully "composed" in the sense that classical music is. Let us take a lovely Beatles song for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaRNrDaoMqw

Lennon and McCartney bang out the tune on piano and guitar. They then take the song to the rest of the group and the vocal harmonies are worked out. Then going to their producer, George Martin, it is decided that the work really out to be scored for strings, like Yesterday... but something with a bit more ummph! So they agree upon a string octet. George Martin then composes the score for the octet. The compositional credits read: Lennon/McCartney but in all rights it ought to read Lennon/McCartney/Harrison/Starkey/Martin. A work of music is not merely a tune and lyrics. beethoven didn't just come up with a catchy jingle (Bum-bum-bum-bummmmm!...) and then bang out the scoring with the orchestra and his producer. The choice of elements, the harmonies, the scoring for individual instruments... all of these elements go into making a work of music.

This is the reason that I suggested Lennon-McCartney (and other popular song-writers) may survive as as something akin to minor classical composers. There is a huge difference between composing a 3-minute tune comprised of a verse and chorus where the lyrics are the only thing that really changes from verse to verse... and composing a 70-minute symphony involving scoring for a hundred or more instruments and allowing several themes to unfold, develop, and weave into each other or composing a three hour opera in which not only must one consider the development of the musical themes, but one must consider these and develop them in response to the unfolding drama.

What I realize, however, is that complexity and sophistication aren't the sole measures of art. Simplicity is not always to be confused with simple-mindedness. Erik Satie's Gymnopedie No.1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atejQh9cXWI

... is an incredible "simple" piece... but that does not undermine its merits. At the same time, I would not put it up against Bach's Mass in B-minor or Wagner's Ring of the Nibelungens anymore than I would place a single sonnet... no matter how lovely... in contrast to Dante's Comedia, Homer's Odyssey, or Don Quixote. The difference isn't just pomp and perfume and filling.

stlukesguild

07-01-2011, 02:31 PM

I think Lennon was very good, but I think the word genius is used too much. Genius is probably a rarer thing than people tend to think.

I agree with this statement. He was no Michelangelo. Or Da Vinci. Or Shakespeare.

Of course... and yet how many classical composers of the last 100 years might rival Bach or Beethoven? How many recent artists might stand comfortably along side Michelangelo or DaVinci? How many writers of the last century wouldn't pale before Shakespeare and Dante?

The Atheist

07-01-2011, 05:02 PM

They were great partners and made some great songs and Harrison did too but I still think Ringo is the best.

Are you referring to his genius as a narrator of Thomas the Tank Engine, or his singing of You're 16?

Mutatis-Mutandis

07-01-2011, 07:12 PM

A lot of his stuff is terrible, made for mass consumption at the time it was written, especially the early (keeping in mind many of the Lennon/McCartney songs have a singular, definitive author).

Just one opinion-

After 1968, the greater songwriter was George Harrison.

J

Shakespeare wrote for mass consumption, too.

I'm also curious if Helga is being serious, though. :laugh:

Poor Ringo. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68edB_Q1e4g)

MystyrMystyry

07-01-2011, 07:24 PM

So what we need are a degree scale of genius.

Should we include the works the author/composer/painter/sculptor didn't think particularly worthy or slapped off as a joke, but which the audience do and miss the joke?

Should we compare the talent one has in one field with the total lack of talent they have in every other you-name-it field?

Should we contrast and compare Mondrian's paintings with Holbein's on an equal playing field?

Should we decide that the works of some are so far above us that they can no longer be considered as entertainment but as the closest the human mind has come to divinity?

I think Lennon would have been a superior dinner party guest than either Michelangelo, Beethoven (too much shouting!), or whomever you want to pull out of a hat - which is to say I wonder how far the social cripple aspect of certain personalities has forced them to being beyond everything in their field, and also how much of their creativity is dependent upon those around them.

There are folk melodies and rhythms that have found their way into the 'superior' classical music, and Michelangelo couldn't have gotten away with publicly producing Picasso's Bull - in fact the period and culture are at least as important.

If Lennon/Beatles appeared today, say only exposure on youtube, would they get as many views as some of the 'stuff' that gets viewed?

Because jazz and rock have similar roots, doesn't mean they can be equated - and to call them both popular forms is odd as jazz these days doesn't have anywhere near the clout it had in the early 20th C - which doesn't make it less than, just by and large out of vogue.

So how to compare a single 3 minute song by Lennon to the Pastoral Symphony - one is short and to the point, the other is a drawn out rambling mess, listenable only if you're in the rare mood - it may succeed as a work of genius but without a dedicated fan base it's usually the last one anyone chooses for pure pleasure

Delta40

07-01-2011, 07:32 PM

:iagree:

and I'm singing that to the strummed chords of D A G.....

Jassy Melson

07-01-2011, 08:06 PM

MarkBastable

07-01-2011, 08:47 PM

I find all these comments about Lennon amusing. After 1966, most of the songs he wrote were nonsense; witness Strawberry Fields Forever, I am The Walrus and Come Together. None of them made sense; and Lennon was well aware of this. Lennon was a real poet from 1966 on. His songs/poems from1966 on cannot be analysed or defined. They were poetry--nothing more or less.

Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether pop music and poetry can ever be synonymous, I'd say that the songs you mention, although brilliant, are not entirely representative of Lennon's output post-66. You don't say 'the good songs he wrote', of course, you say 'most of the songs he wrote'. In which case - and even sticking to (what I think are) the good ones - I'd cite...

Good Morning
Yer Blues
I'm So Tired
Sexy Sadie
Revolution
The Ballad of John and Yoko
I Want You (She's So Heavy)
Cold Turkey
Mother
Working-Class Hero
Jealous Guy
Crippled Inside
How Do You Sleep?

....to name only those that most LitNetters will have heard of.

Actually, it's difficult to think of a nonsense song he wrote after 1971.

However, in the late sixties, he wrote a lot of (in the Lear sense) nonsense, some - though not all - of which were terrific. But he went through other phases - in the seventies, he had bouts of the political, revelational, familial, rockandrollial.... And the respective output of each of those phases varied in quality, as all his work had.

So - to suggest that 'after 1966, most of the songs he wrote were nonsense', is, umm, in the other sense, nonsense.

MystyrMystyry

07-01-2011, 09:02 PM

Nonsense songs speak to the imagination - intentional nonsense is far above unintentional nonsense (apart from Rumsfeld's line of course - was he kidding? Ah - he probably didn't even write it))

mortalterror

07-01-2011, 10:43 PM

If he were a true genius on the level of Bach or Beethoven, his solo career would have been better than it was. The same goes for McCartney. His later music is just awful. The band was the genius, because each individual brought what the others were lacking. Call him an incomplete genius, if you must finally label him after all.

MystyrMystyry

07-01-2011, 11:49 PM

But it comes back to being able to write songs, sing them, and play the guitar (simultaneously) - and still have them accepted by an audience.

There are many geniuses you haven't heard and won't hear of because they're not operating in the sphere of self-promotion.

But let's do a poll:

1. How many Litnetters can strum a guitar?

2. How many can sing?

4. How many can do this at the same time?

5. How many can do it to their own words?

6. How many can make it entertaining enough to actually make a decent living from the appreciation.

7. How many can as a result afford an entire building in Central Manhattan from the proceeds (even with a Yoko Ono weighing them down)?

Someone once said the first best thing is to write the song, the second best is to sing it. But if that's what it takes to get it to an audience - then that's the complete picture

mortalterror

07-02-2011, 01:33 AM

MarkBastable

07-02-2011, 04:50 AM

But let's do a poll:

1. How many Litnetters can strum a guitar?

2. How many can sing?

4. How many can do this at the same time?

5. How many can do it to their own words?

6. How many can make it entertaining enough to actually make a decent living from the appreciation.

7. How many can as a result afford an entire building in Central Manhattan from the proceeds (even with a Yoko Ono weighing them down)?

MM, why is the number of Litnetters who can do it a relevant question?

Incidentally, mortalterror, there are those who'd argue that Lennon was far and away the best singer in the Beatles. I think it was Rolling Stone that suggested that Lennon what the only truly original vocalist to come out of the UK.

At a slight tangent, I have to say that I think McCartney remains underrated as a songwriter and particularly as a bassist - and that George's contribution is often overestimated, partly because it's a much better story to say he was constrained by John and Paul than to say he got about as much recognition as his talent warranted.

MystyrMystyry

07-02-2011, 05:17 AM

MB - because it's only Litnetters who can answer the question. Personally I'd like world stats on how many people can play ANY instrument with a recognisable degree of proficiency, this to clear the air on how you define musical genius.

If you regard genius as not potential, but actual, it becomes an increasingly small room of exclusive nothing. There are people who devote their lives to build their own castles out of seashells, bottles, and any discarded detritus - are they genius?

Were Rodin and Henry Moore geniuses? Or just the best sort of sculptor you could realistically expect in the modern era?

I think everyone has the potential to do something that someone would regard as genius, especially if it hasn't been done before - doing it well is the question, not merely refining what is already there.

Craft>Art>Genius - or can you just wake up one morning and declare I'm a genius! and that's enough proof.

There's a line in Spinal Tap where the character (this one goes up to 11) is describing how he learnt guitar:

'Ya know Jimmy Page wrote Stairway to Heaven when he was 21. I learnt it when I was 14.'

MarkBastable

07-02-2011, 06:28 AM

You've lost me.

MB - because it's only Litnetters who can answer the question. Personally I'd like world stats on how many people can play ANY instrument with a recognisable degree of proficiency, this to clear the air on how you define musical genius.

If you regard genius as not potential, but actual, it becomes an increasingly small room of exclusive nothing. There are people who devote their lives to build their own castles out of seashells, bottles, and any discarded detritus - are they genius?

Were Rodin and Henry Moore geniuses? Or just the best sort of sculptor you could realistically expect in the modern era?

I think everyone has the potential to do something that someone would regard as genius, especially if it hasn't been done before - doing it well is the question, not merely refining what is already there.

Craft>Art>Genius - or can you just wake up one morning and declare I'm a genius! and that's enough proof.

There's a line in Spinal Tap where the character (this one goes up to 11) is describing how he learnt guitar:

'Ya know Jimmy Page wrote Stairway to Heaven when he was 21. I learnt it when I was 14.'

MystyrMystyry

07-02-2011, 07:19 AM

You asked: why is the number of Litnetters who can do it a relevant question?

This is Litnet, only registered users of Litnet can answer the question, obviously - and it wasn't How many do you know? because that may include ten or a hundred people who all know the same person.

My point being, in trying to ascertain how you define someone with a distinctive musical voice - or any distinct voice in any field - as a genius. What are the unique qualities that separate them from the rest?

There's another thread about Dylan vs Lennon - my money's on Lennon because 99.99% of the time I'd prefer to listen to music, so he passes in that respect.

But to say Lennon's not up there with Beethoven or Mozart is ridiculous because it's a different type of music - like you're only permitted to describe him as a genius in his field (popular music) because that's the category - but being a genius in the pop music field is still perfectly valid, especially if it transcends the limitations of the set (popular songs).

The reason why the set contains so many one hit wonders is because it in itself is no easy task, requires dedication and a level of sagacity that comes from understanding what is an essentially abstract craft.

And you could argue about his charisma not being part of the songs - but it necessarily is, and that's emotional intelligence, or charm, that grants us a view of the person (which, by contrast, with all the words Tom Clancy's written, I still don't have a clue who he is - I know who Beethoven, Michelangelo and Picasso are, and I've read far less of their words)

Delta40

07-02-2011, 07:48 AM

He is at least worth discussing for another two pages, I reckon....

MarkBastable

07-02-2011, 09:21 AM

Drkshadow03

07-02-2011, 10:31 AM

Hmmm, it seems everyone is overlooking the wonderful and mind-blowing Revolution 9 when considering John Lenon's genius. What an oversight!

ShadowsCool

07-02-2011, 12:13 PM

John Lennon was one of a few who made a huge difference in our culture whether you agreed with him or not. He also wrote some of the greatest songs ever written in the 20th century. How could he not be? In my mind there is no doubt.

You can call him whatever you want, genius, musician, icon, whatever. To me he is one of the greats of my generation.

People should remember that when Rubber Soul & Revolver came out this was considered mind-blowing music. We have the taint of time to look back and say, they were just a pop group. This is so wrong on many levels. For those of us old enough to remember the Beatles, we know what kind of impact they had on the world.

Post 66 Classic Lennon Songs with the Beatles:

Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds
With A Little Help From My Friends (Written By Lennon, Sung By Ringo)
A Day In The Life
Strawberry Fields Forever
I Am The Walrus (I don't care if it don't make sense, it's a facinating song)
Revolution (single version)
Dear Prudence
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
I'm So Tired
Julia
Yer Blues
Cry Baby Cry
Don't Let Me Down
Come Together
Sun King, Mean Mr. Musturd, Polythene Pam, Melody (Actually written by John but much Credit goes To Paul)
Across The Universe

These are all great songs.

MystyrMystyry

07-02-2011, 03:52 PM

MB - it means that to sufficient people his genius has already been verified.

It doesn't matter that Crazy Suzanne doesn't think he's a genius.

Who else can afford to buy same - Mr Investment-Stockbroker? Maybe, but I probably wouldn't have bought the records

The thing is if you can earn a decent living from screwing absolutely NO-ONE over it says something about your inherent quality and character - Bernie Madoff had no such genius

Pick someone in the same field who is on a par with earnings as Lennon - say Bono? Tax haven man Bono?

The Duke of Westminster didn't start out by having to learn guitar chords - not even guitar chords - and there are countless others who's cultural contribution is equally nil.

(p.s. Oasis aren't the new Beatles - they're not even the new Rutles)

NikolaiI

07-02-2011, 04:51 PM

Absolutely, yes and certainly. He was a genius, and beautiful; like Hendrix, though he didn't have the same raw ability and skill in performing. His gift lay in his songwriting - his ability to write songs that moved millions upon millions, and move them deeply. Not just one generation, but every generation since has been touched by him as well. Paul Ringo and George were great songwriters as well. It would seem natural to ask if any of these were geniuses, but it would be a different topic and not necessarily relevant to the question of John.

JCamilo

07-02-2011, 05:39 PM

Mystyr, it's no great feat to play the guitar and sing a song you've written. Any high school kid can do as much, usually within a few months of picking up an instrument. Also, John Lennon wasn't a particularly good guitar player or singer, even by pop standards. He wouldn't chart on a list of the top 100 best guitar players or singers of the 60s. He wasn't even the best in his own band at those aspects of creation. George was the better guitar player and Paul was the better singer. He was however, the best at writing lyrics and tunes to go with them.

The thing is that rock and roll works better with groups. The Elvis model is more something pre-rock and roll, coming from jazz, blues, etc, the other forms of popular american music. There is of course a few exceptions Dylan, Hendrix, etc. And Rock and roll demands simplicity, raw talent, rather than the virtuose.

Inside their style Beatles was genial, i doubt anyone would make top chart of 100 greatest rock's artists they would be out... Probally only Ringo would be out due the individual contribution. But this is inside this minor genre, and even there, he is not the top genius or anything near it.

Gladys

07-02-2011, 11:00 PM

They were great partners and made some great songs and Harrison did too but I still think Ringo is the best.

As a drummer, Ringo did have something of genius, whether with the Beatles or John Lennon. In support I offer: Fifth song from the album "John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42ot0i2w8zY)

The musical complexities of Lennon's last album show genius maturing: John Lennon - Watching The Wheels (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp9dc9im3-M)

I have long adored Bach Cantatas and Beethoven quartets. Am I to believe the above Lennon links are inferior listening?

Atomic

07-02-2011, 11:05 PM

I'm going to throw this out there, so don't shoot me for it, but wasn't Lennon's murderer inspired by The Catcher In The Rye? All the more reason to dump on that loathsome, whiny, vastly overrated novel.

Do I think John Lennon was a genius? I suppose he was, musically. I love The Beatles.

Mutatis-Mutandis

07-02-2011, 11:30 PM

Yes, his murderer was obsessed with The Catcher in the Rye.

I do think Ringo is underrated as far as drumming goes. He wasn't fast or fancy, but he did interesting and unique things.

stlukesguild

07-03-2011, 12:20 AM

So what we need are a degree scale of genius.

And what is the problem with that? Even within a given field there are creative individuals... "geniuses" if you will... of greater or lesser achievement. Personally, I avoid terms like "genius" for all but the most towering figures and as much as I like the Beatles, John Lennon doesn't qualify.

Should we include the works the author/composer/painter/sculptor didn't think particularly worthy or slapped off as a joke, but which the audience do and miss the joke?

Should we compare the talent one has in one field with the total lack of talent they have in every other you-name-it field?

I can say without the least doubt that we're not looking at genius in discussion or debate here.:sosp:

Should we contrast and compare Mondrian's paintings with Holbein's on an equal playing field?

Ultimately, that is just what history will do. This is not to say that we judge Mondrian upon the standards of Holbein's era... but rather we look at what each artist brings to the table... their achievement within their time and place. Mondrian's reputation is still up in the air. It depends upon the direction taken by several subsequent generations of artists. Within our time his work has been incredibly influential upon subsequent artists of merit. But what will be his reputation if abstraction is abandoned... or recognized as nothing more than one more possibility within the scope of the whole of art history?

Should we decide that the works of some are so far above us that they can no longer be considered as entertainment but as the closest the human mind has come to divinity?

I think Lennon would have been a superior dinner party guest than either Michelangelo, Beethoven (too much shouting!), or whomever you want to pull out of a hat -

Perhaps Lennon might have been more personable than Michelangelo and Beethoven (but even that's debatable) yet I would surely rather sit down over a beer with Oscar Wilde, Goethe, Duke Ellington, Peter Paul Rubens, J.L. Borges, Puccini, Robert Herrick, Shakespeare, and any number of others well before Lennon... but what on earth does that have to do with anything?

I wonder how far the social cripple aspect of certain personalities has forced them to being beyond everything in their field, and also how much of their creativity is dependent upon those around them.

The social cripple aspect of most artists is little more than a Romantic myth... not that all artists are social butterflies either... rather they are largely no different than anyone else... except that they make art.

There are folk melodies and rhythms that have found their way into the 'superior' classical music...

And? These tunes are not the whole of the artistic creation.

Michelangelo couldn't have gotten away with publicly producing Picasso's Bull - in fact the period and culture are at least as important.

I'm not certain what you are getting at here. Obviously every artist must work within the language of his or her time... the social constructs, however, do not create a single work of art. The individual human beings do.

If Lennon/Beatles appeared today, say only exposure on youtube, would they get as many views as some of the 'stuff' that gets viewed?

Who cares? What does this have to do with the question of "genius"?

Because jazz and rock have similar roots, doesn't mean they can be equated - and to call them both popular forms is odd as jazz these days doesn't have anywhere near the clout it had in the early 20th C - which doesn't make it less than, just by and large out of vogue.

"Popular music" is a term used to define music written for the popular mass audience... yesterday or today. Gilbert and Sullivan, Jacques Offenbach, Johann Strauss as well as Jazz and a good deal of Rock were and are popular music. Ultimately, the traditions are irrelevant. Only the strongest work... the work that continues to resonate with an audience over time... survives.

So how to compare a single 3 minute song by Lennon to the Pastoral Symphony - one is short and to the point, the other is a drawn out rambling mess, listenable only if you're in the rare mood - it may succeed as a work of genius but without a dedicated fan base it's usually the last one anyone chooses for pure pleasure

How to compare such indeed? How does one compare a sonnet by Byron to Don Quixote... or Byron's own Don Juan? The sonnet may be perfect... flawless. But how difficult is it to achieve that one perfect poem (almost every poet of any merit will achieve this at least once) vs the epic masterwork... even a sprawling and flawed one such as Don Quixote?

The pastoral Symphony, by the way, is far from a rambling mess. A little grasp of symphonic form and thematic development might be of use... but considering that you would far prefer a simple catchy tune to a classic symphony, it would probably be a waste of time.

By the way... what does the fan base have to do with anything? Temporal popularity is no measure of the merit of art... for or against. The fact that Beethoven is still being played 200 years after the fact says much more about merit than the fact that the Beatles are still being played on classic radio stations geared primarily at aging adults. Glen Miller and Benny Goodman were once the popular stars, but as you noted, already they have faded from popular recognition.

But let's do a poll:

1. How many Litnetters can strum a guitar?

2. How many can sing?

4. How many can do this at the same time?

5. How many can do it to their own words?

I would say that quite a few could all these things.

6. How many can make it entertaining enough to actually make a decent living from the appreciation.

7. How many can as a result afford an entire building in Central Manhattan from the proceeds (even with a Yoko Ono weighing them down)?

Again... you confuse popularity with artistic merit. It's rather like using the Box Office sales records to judge which movies are really great or the New York Times Best Seller List to discern which books are truly great literature.

There's another thread about Dylan vs Lennon - my money's on Lennon because 99.99% of the time I'd prefer to listen to music, so he passes in that respect.

Perhaps someday you'll mature enough to recognize that your personal tastes do not necessarily define "genius". I would much rather read a Confederacy of Dunces than Ulysses again... but I recognize that it is quite likely that James Joyce was the far greater writer.

But to say Lennon's not up there with Beethoven or Mozart is ridiculous because it's a different type of music -

Who said that? I believe those of us who suggested that Lennon was not up there with Mozart and Beethoven gave far better reasons than simply because he wrote a different kind of music.

Who else can afford to buy same - Mr Investment-Stockbroker? Maybe, but I probably wouldn't have bought the records

The thing is if you can earn a decent living from screwing absolutely NO-ONE over it says something about your inherent quality and character - Bernie Madoff had no such genius

:sosp::crazy::ack2::willy_nilly::skep::frown2:

Pick someone in the same field who is on a par with earnings as Lennon - say Bono? Tax haven man Bono?

The Duke of Westminster didn't start out by having to learn guitar chords - not even guitar chords - and there are countless others who's cultural contribution is equally nil.

I want whatever you've been drinking.:D:sosp::crazy::willy_nilly::eek6:

libernaut

07-03-2011, 12:28 AM

From a "literary" standpoint, if you look at his lyrics alone you can see the man was clearly genius.

I just had to start listening to the beatles after seeing this thread, happiness is a warm gun!

Delta40

07-03-2011, 12:52 AM

I really think it is a matter of opinion and nothing more. Some people like Lennon, others don't.

MystyrMystyry

07-03-2011, 01:23 AM

So StLukes can't play guitar... Anyone else?

If you don't like the term genius, or have issue with the term, could someone please elaborate on the definition - I think my dictionaries may be out of date

Delta40

07-03-2011, 02:00 AM

I do but atm I can't While My Guitar Gently Weeps...!

MarkBastable

07-03-2011, 04:33 AM

I do think Ringo is underrated as far as drumming goes. He wasn't fast or fancy, but he did interesting and unique things.

Yeah, there's this oft-trotted-out idea that Ringo wasn't a very good drummer. I have never once heard a drummer say so.

MystyrMystyry

07-03-2011, 05:46 AM

Here's some pictures of Bob Dylan

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m605/mystyrmystyry/Australia%20Day%202011/images1.jpg

Planking

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m605/mystyrmystyry/Australia%20Day%202011/images.jpg

Waking up

Here's some pictures of John Lennon

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m605/mystyrmystyry/Australia%20Day%202011/images5.jpg

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m605/mystyrmystyry/Australia%20Day%202011/images3.jpg

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m605/mystyrmystyry/Australia%20Day%202011/Statue.jpg

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m605/mystyrmystyry/Australia%20Day%202011/image6.jpg

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m605/mystyrmystyry/Australia%20Day%202011/john_lennon_illusion.jpg

Conclusion: John Lennon is far more interesting

LitNetIsGreat

07-03-2011, 06:16 AM

He is at least worth discussing for another two pages, I reckon....

We want page 7, we want page 7...:hat:

Personally I'm not sure where the fuss is with genius here. I tend to think that true genius is something rarely occurring and only applicable to handful of people in history. In these terms then John Lennon was far from genius, cultural icon, talented singer/song writer along with the rest of the band, cool fellow etc, etc, but not genius by these terms as I see it.

JCamilo

07-03-2011, 10:05 AM

From a "literary" standpoint, if you look at his lyrics alone you can see the man was clearly genius.

I just had to start listening to the beatles after seeing this thread, happiness is a warm gun!

From lliterary standpoint, his lyrics are poor. He does not even come close to Bob Dylan or Lou Reed level. And those two were not genius from literary stand or moving point.

ShadowsCool

07-03-2011, 12:28 PM

I'm still learning this quote thing.

Shadows

ShadowsCool

07-03-2011, 12:28 PM

Personally I'm not sure where the fuss is with genius here. I tend to think that true genius is something rarely occurring and only applicable to handful of people in history. In these terms then John Lennon was far from genius, cultural icon, talented singer/song writer along with the rest of the band, cool fellow etc, etc, but not genius by these terms as I see it.

What terms are you going by? The fact that the Beatles are still considered the best at what they did, 40 years after their breakup, should say enough. Whether you like them or not is not important. The fact is, their music is timeless. John Lennon founded the group. Not many artist in any field can make that claim. To me that is the true measure of genius. Just my opinion.

Shadows

JCamilo

07-03-2011, 12:49 PM

Ozzy and Tommy, 40 years considered the best on their genre too...

LitNetIsGreat

07-03-2011, 03:29 PM

What terms are you going by? The fact that the Beatles are still considered the best at what they did, 40 years after their breakup, should say enough. Whether you like them or not is not important. The fact is, their music is timeless. John Lennon founded the group. Not many artist in any field can make that claim. To me that is the true measure of genius. Just my opinion.

Shadows

My own terms nothing more. I'm not arguing that The Beatles were not influential and/or timeless, but this doesn't make one of them a genius on a par with the most brilliant minds of all time.

Anyway, this thread is lacking lists, we must have irrelevant lists with Western bias.

Highest IQ top ten
http://listverse.com/2007/10/06/top-10-geniuses/

IQs of Greatest Geniuses
http://hem.bredband.net/b153434/Index.htm

Random top 50 (by Joe Bloggs)
http://4mind4life.com/blog/2008/03/30/list-of-geniuses-top-50-influential-minds/

mortalterror

07-03-2011, 03:39 PM

The thing is that rock and roll works better with groups. The Elvis model is more something pre-rock and roll, coming from jazz, blues, etc, the other forms of popular american music. There is of course a few exceptions Dylan, Hendrix, etc. And Rock and roll demands simplicity, raw talent, rather than the virtuose.

But rock music is full of virtuosos and much of it isn't simplistic. The solo is essentially a built in show case for virtuosos to display their talents and step beyond the simplistic format of popular music. Observe:

Eddie Van Halen - Eruption
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULEBSxP725w

Yngwie Malmsteen - Arpeggios from Hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS_IYe5JTZ4

Steve Vai- For the Love of God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt6r5A6_sVA

Jimi Hendrix - The Star Spangled Banner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa-q-ztyZZw

Joe Satriani- Always With Me, Always With You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4fPv450OYM&feature=related

Stevie Ray Vaughan - Texas Flood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWLw7nozO_U

Frank Zappa - Muffin Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFIMWRXWY90&NR=1

Eric Johnson - Cliffs of Dover
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55nAwmVLQSk

Chris Impellitteri - Somewhere Over the Rainbow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytvzMr1N1m8

Uli Jon Roth - Sky Overture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e5072S-hBg

John Petrucci - Glasgow Kiss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFXvfBL4WkU

Duane Allman - Blue Sky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1jpQu6qR1E

Eric Clapton - Layla
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WUdlaLWSVM

Chet Atkins - Mr. Sandman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-c66SJPuUI

John Butler - Ocean
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xZw9D9c18E

For all you people who think that John Lennon was a great guitar player, this is what great guitar playing sounds like. John Lennon never played a guitar half so well as these men did. He wasn't much of a singer either, when you compare him to the greatest singers of popular music.

MystyrMystyry

07-03-2011, 04:35 PM

The issue isn't about virtuosity. It's about music. Songwriting. Performance. In equal balance.

If Dylan had stuck to sogwriting and stayed in the background instead of deciding he had to perform and produce neither music nor performance - do not be confused on the issue: average guitar, average harmonica, below average annoying voice, do NOT music make.

Mutatis-Mutandis

07-03-2011, 07:22 PM

But rock music is full of virtuosos and much of it isn't simplistic. The solo is essentially a built in show case for virtuosos to display their talents and step beyond the simplistic format of popular music. Observe:

Eddie Van Halen - Eruption
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULEBSxP725w

Yngwie Malmsteen - Arpeggios from Hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS_IYe5JTZ4

Steve Vai- For the Love of God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt6r5A6_sVA

Jimi Hendrix - The Star Spangled Banner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa-q-ztyZZw

Joe Satriani- Always With Me, Always With You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4fPv450OYM&feature=related

Stevie Ray Vaughan - Texas Flood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWLw7nozO_U

Frank Zappa - Muffin Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFIMWRXWY90&NR=1

Eric Johnson - Cliffs of Dover
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55nAwmVLQSk

Chris Impellitteri - Somewhere Over the Rainbow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytvzMr1N1m8

Uli Jon Roth - Sky Overture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e5072S-hBg

John Petrucci - Glasgow Kiss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFXvfBL4WkU

Duane Allman - Blue Sky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1jpQu6qR1E

Eric Clapton - Layla
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WUdlaLWSVM

Chet Atkins - Mr. Sandman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-c66SJPuUI

John Butler - Ocean
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xZw9D9c18E

For all you people who think that John Lennon was a great guitar player, this is what great guitar playing sounds like. John Lennon never played a guitar half so well as these men did. He wasn't much of a singer either, when you compare him to the greatest singers of popular music.
Yeah, but, so what? These guys are all wonderful guitarists, but can they all write songs as timeless as Lennon? No. I value musicianal (is that a word? it should be) talent as much as anyone else, but the ability to write good music is more important. You can be the greatest guitar player in the world, but if you only play crap, it doesn't really matter that much, does it?

P.S. You forgot Al Di Meola, John McLaughlin, Alan Holdsworth, and Robert Fripp. :)

Delta40

07-03-2011, 07:24 PM

Omg! Lennon is gonna make it to page seven....:cheers2:

MarkBastable

07-03-2011, 07:48 PM

I value musicianal talent as much as anyone else...

Well, stop it.

...but the ability to write good music is more important

Quite. Which is why so few of us have any idea who first played the clever bits of the Eroica, but a lot of us know who wrote it.

Talented musicians, like great actors, are commonplace. Writing the stuff they play - that's difficult.

JCamilo

07-03-2011, 07:57 PM

But rock music is full of virtuosos and much of it isn't simplistic. The solo is essentially a built in show case for virtuosos to display their talents and step beyond the simplistic format of popular music. Observe:

No doubt. Even if some of those guys are not exactly inside the rock and roll label (like Clapton), the talent of guitar solos is also a trait of some musicians, but is that of rock and roll? When Pink Floyd exagerated on the virtuose, they almost left the label too. It was necessary two raw versions (heavy metal and punk) to keep rock and roll alive. Not that you cannt have solos (basic rule for heavy metal), but rock and roll is more for short stories than novels.

This by no means implies Led Zepellin, Rush, Marillion, Queen, etc are not rock and roll and their musicians had no talent, but the model still the raw power of Beatles.

For all you people who think that John Lennon was a great guitar player, this is what great guitar playing sounds like. John Lennon never played a guitar half so well as these men did. He wasn't much of a singer either, when you compare him to the greatest singers of popular music.

He was good at all and also, original. He is not the better songwritter ever as in pure talent, there will be bands that are up with beatles, but of course, they are performers of higher quality, wich great capacity of re-invention, being basically a little of everything. That was their strength.

MarkBastable

07-03-2011, 08:04 PM

For all you people who think that John Lennon was a great guitar player, this is what great guitar playing sounds like. John Lennon never played a guitar half so well as these men did. He wasn't much of a singer either, when you compare him to the greatest singers of popular music.

I don't think that any of 'us people' suggested that Lennon was a great guitar player.

But if no one else will, I'll suggest that he was one of the best five or six vocalists of the genre.

MystyrMystyry

07-03-2011, 08:44 PM

An artist generating an audience is a big part of the game.

If Shakespeare was around in these days of out-of-control media he may well have put less work into the plays, and much more into the talkshows, magazine interviews, cinematic adaptations, and even outrageous drunken publicity stunts - but by building his own Ye Grande Ol' Oprey he let the audience come to him

Dickens today would have been writing soap operas.

Botticelli would have been a fashion designer.

Lennon is a genius - fine, a genius of our time perhaps - but amongst modern artists whom I and his enormous fan-base would want to revisit the works of regularly, he's up there with any modern composer. If Philip Glass and African Sanctus are your idea of modern composers/compositions, you're welcome to them - but popular music IS one of the modern lingua francas - everything, including the surrealistic videos, eating the interviewer's notes, swearing on television, comparing your band to Jesus, and being caught by the paparazzi with your pants down is allowed in the rules.

Shakespeare and Beethoven are a blast, but I get much more from seeing them performed live than on a video or CD - and I think this is a part of the problem: all the scrapbook newsreel footage of Lennon just seems as out of date as Edison talking into a microphone, and doesn't serve to contribute to the legend.

If it was possible to see him perform I think you'd come away knowing he was a genuine genius (there are very few bad reviews too)

tonywalt

07-03-2011, 09:24 PM

You could debate whether John Lennon was a genius.

However, the sum of the parts, the Beatles, were genius in my opinion. Each on their own, had varying degrees of critical and commercial success, but together there are few equals in music.

stlukesguild

07-03-2011, 09:28 PM

So StLukes can't play guitar... Anyone else?

Actually I can. I own a Fender Stratocaster, white, from the period when they were made in the US before they started churning crappy knock-off out in Asia.

Yourself?

MystyrMystyry

07-03-2011, 10:00 PM

American Fender Strat 70's, one American Tele, one Gibson, one Les Paul - a Maton, a Martin 12string, a Dobro, an Ovation, even an el cheapo from China (shall I continue? There are mandolins, zithers and ukeleles in there as well as classic synthesisers. Or do you want to hear them?)

Stephen King said he likes playing guitar, but still only has the one he learnt on in High School, and doesn't feel he can play well enough to justify buying a better one. I keep thinking that one day I'll be extraordinarily successful and right off the expense - but I love 'em! And I love a bargain when it arises!)

stlukesguild

07-03-2011, 10:04 PM

popular music IS one of the modern lingua francas

The populist arts were always the lingua franca. Do you honestly believe that the majority of the population of the Italian Renaissance was listening to Gesualdo, looking at Michelangelo (remember, the Sistine was the Pope's private chapel), and reading Dante? You can't honestly be that naive. The peasants hung out on the taverns listening to some local schleps play the popular folk tunes, he probably couldn't read at all, and his only exposure to art outside of the images in the churches would have been crude popular prints. The majority in Vienna in the 18th century weren't listening to Mozart, Reading Rousseau and traveling to Italy to check out Tiepolo. They were listening to folk music... dance tunes cranked out on accordions, bagpipes, and flutes... churned out in pubs and at festivals; if they were able to read they were reading crappy pulp novels with lots of sex scenes, and they're art consisted of mass-produced engravings of illustrations of these same trashy novels, or landscapes, or religious subjects to hang over the dining room table. The opinions and taste of the masses on art were irrelevant. They remain irrelevant for the simple fact that art is little more than mindless entertainment and decoration to the majority.

Whether you like it or not, the questions as to which art survives and which art is deemed "important"... or "genius" is decided upon by an elite. In the past, this was an elite of social status... class... decided upon by birth. Today the "elite" is comprised of those individuals who have put forth the greatest time and effort into the study, appreciation, creation, and preservation of art. It is an "elite" of elective affinity. It is a population comprised of "experts" (academics, critics, curators, historians, dealers, etc...) subsequent generations of artists, and subsequent generations of passionate art lovers.

The fact that millions read Harry Potter means nothing to the literary reputation of that book when the vast majority of those readers can't lay claim to having read much of anything else... let alone any of the "classics" that they might may a valid comparison. The fact that the Beatles sold millions of records means nothing when you consider that a lightweight band like the Association outsold them them in 1967 (the years of their ground-breaking Sgt. Pepper's) while the Monkee's Theme Song outsold any of their singles that year. The fact that the Beatles still remain popular is irrelevant considering that a majority of the population who grew up with their music and hold a sentimental place for it are still alive. When the Beatles are still selling 100 years after the fact, then we can talk about them as true "classics". Personally, I believe that a good deal of their finest work will survive, but I don't have the infantile illusion that popularity has the least thing to do with artistic merit. McDonald's outsells any restaurant in the world... but it is far from making the greatest hamburgers...let alone the greatest food.

Delta40

07-03-2011, 10:05 PM

Please. I love the pissing match on who has a better one....

JCamilo

07-03-2011, 11:00 PM

An artist generating an audience is a big part of the game.

Which game? Some artists still produce for a limited audience. Some produced for 1 or 2 individuals. And by the way, the person who generated audicences for The Beatles was not Paul or John, It was their manager who explored their work. More a genius no?

If Shakespeare was around in these days of out-of-control media he may well have put less work into the plays, and much more into the talkshows, magazine interviews, cinematic adaptations, and even outrageous drunken publicity stunts - but by building his own Ye Grande Ol' Oprey he let the audience come to him

Dickens today would have been writing soap operas.

Are you suggesting Dickens didnt wrote soap operas them? It is clear that in portuguese the name for them is Novelas. Which is the same term for Dickens, Dostoievisky,etc.

Botticelli would have been a fashion designer.

Lennon is a genius - fine, a genius of our time perhaps - but amongst modern artists whom I and his enormous fan-base would want to revisit the works of regularly, he's up there with any modern composer. If Philip Glass and African Sanctus are your idea of modern composers/compositions, you're welcome to them - but popular music IS one of the modern lingua francas - everything, including the surrealistic videos, eating the interviewer's notes, swearing on television, comparing your band to Jesus, and being caught by the paparazzi with your pants down is allowed in the rules.

I wonder why popular art allow anything? This is ridiculous: popular art has nothing or little to do with the mass industry in america. It was there before it and even the pop star is hardly a modern invention. Lord Byron did this act before.

Shakespeare and Beethoven are a blast, but I get much more from seeing them performed live than on a video or CD - and I think this is a part of the problem: all the scrapbook newsreel footage of Lennon just seems as out of date as Edison talking into a microphone, and doesn't serve to contribute to the legend.

If it was possible to see him perform I think you'd come away knowing he was a genuine genius (there are very few bad reviews too)

It may be a shock for you, but if you cannt see Lennon alive, imagine if you can see Beethoveen...

Mutatis-Mutandis

07-03-2011, 11:09 PM

I value musicianal talent as much as anyone else...Well, stop it.

Why? :)

MystyrMystyry

07-03-2011, 11:31 PM

mortalterror

07-04-2011, 01:34 AM

But if no one else will, I'll suggest that he was one of the best five or six vocalists of the genre.

Freddie Mercury - Don't Stop Me Now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzGwKwLmgM

Ronnie James Dio - Shame on the Night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kig7BgyDSLw

James Brown - It's a Man's World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Febr_t_qa9U

Elvis Presley - In the Ghetto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ox1Tore9nw

Johnny Cash - Hurt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o22eIJDtKho

Roy Orbison - Only the Lonely
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2whGEvy13Ag

Tom Jones - She's A Lady
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIfxBthfFkg

Frankie Valli - Dawn (Go Away)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE40KM4SGAY

Jay Black - Cara Mia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sFy5_kmEi4

Janis Joplin - Piece of My Heart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8PGDlh6GfM

And that is just rock and roll. There are so many better R&B, country, jazz, salsa, and blues singers than John Lennon it's crazy. Think Aretha Franklin, Diana Ross, Conway Twitty, Patsy Cline, Bing Crosby, Edith Piaf, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Ella Fitzgerald, etc. That's not even comparing him to classically trained singers like Pavarotti, Placido Domingo, Jussi Bjorling, Caruso, or Andrea Boccelli.

No doubt. Even if some of those guys are not exactly inside the rock and roll label (like Clapton), the talent of guitar solos is also a trait of some musicians, but is that of rock and roll?

Eric Clapton is definitely a rock and roll musician. Derek and the Dominoes, The Yardbirds, and Cream were all rock bands. He has been inducted into the Rock and Roll hall of fame 3 times.

When Pink Floyd exagerated on the virtuose, they almost left the label too.
Pink Floyd is rock, it's progressive rock like King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Yes, or Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. It just tends to be very intricate and artsy.

It was necessary two raw versions (heavy metal and punk) to keep rock and roll alive. Not that you cannt have solos (basic rule for heavy metal), but rock and roll is more for short stories than novels.

This three minute single song hypothesis completely ignores the concept album phenomenon. A number of rockers have put out concept albums that tell a single story, with recurring themes, over one or more records. Pink Floyd's The Wall would be the classic example, but The Who, The Kinks, Iron Maiden, David Bowie, and Jethro Tull all released concept albums. The concept album is rock music's answer to the symphony.

Delta40

07-04-2011, 02:48 AM

C'mon you page 8.....

MarkBastable

07-04-2011, 03:06 AM

Freddie Mercury - Don't Stop Me Now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzGwKwLmgM

Ronnie James Dio - Shame on the Night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kig7BgyDSLw

James Brown - It's a Man's World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Febr_t_qa9U

Elvis Presley - In the Ghetto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ox1Tore9nw

Johnny Cash - Hurt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o22eIJDtKho

Roy Orbison - Only the Lonely
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2whGEvy13Ag

Tom Jones - She's A Lady
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIfxBthfFkg

Frankie Valli - Dawn (Go Away)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE40KM4SGAY

Jay Black - Cara Mia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sFy5_kmEi4

Janis Joplin - Piece of My Heart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8PGDlh6GfM

I don't know why you're posting all these links as if I had never heard of these people. I have.

Though, frankly, I think we must being working from completely different premises if you cite Dio.

JCamilo

07-04-2011, 09:10 AM

Eric Clapton is definitely a rock and roll musician. Derek and the Dominoes, The Yardbirds, and Cream were all rock bands. He has been inducted into the Rock and Roll hall of fame 3 times.

I think Clapton is a guy who did rock and roll, but for sure, is bigger than the genre. (he is obviously a huge influence on guitar playing anywhere). And All Clapton bands would just work as the band formation that suits to rock and roll..

Pink Floyd is rock, it's progressive rock like King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Yes, or Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. It just tends to be very intricate and artsy.

As I said, they almost left the label, and they do. Floyd is obviously strange as hell at somepoints, breaking the norm of rock and roll all the time. The Punk- Heavy metal movement are often a reaction to it and both are quite sucessfull - more bands followed the punk-heavy metal routine and new (old) breath than Pink Floyd intricated pattern.

This three minute single song hypothesis completely ignores the concept album phenomenon. A number of rockers have put out concept albums that tell a single story, with recurring themes, over one or more records. Pink Floyd's The Wall would be the classic example, but The Who, The Kinks, Iron Maiden, David Bowie, and Jethro Tull all released concept albums. The concept album is rock music's answer to the symphony.

Well, the 3 minute musics is an exageration and much linked to Ramones. The Clash didnt 3 minute music for example. And so what if they ignore the album story thing?

And even so, The Kinks is a typical rock and roll band when they started, briths invasion, the latter story ideas are not exactly their big hit, right? Iron Maiden is born from Black Sabath, not from Pink Floyd, they do not work in that direction and like all heavy metal they deal with speed, distortion, long guitar riffs, fast drumms, etc. Not the the ideal rock and roll orchestra of progressive rock. Bowie is a Factory's child, from punk rock world, absolutelly genial and unique. He did even chinese music, but when Bowie was shouting Ziggy Stardust, england picked The Clash, Black Sabbath and Sex Pistols to move foward.

You can have Meatball, Marillion, etc helping to the symphony rock, you can have Metallica doing it - but the prime rock and roll is raw. For each of those, you can list a hundred movements which are closer to simplicity: Punk Rock and his many versions, Heavy Metal, Reggae, Disco, Eletronic Rock, New Wave, even because the simplicity of Rock and Roll (which does not imply Sid Vicious lack of musical skills) is what allow so many fusions with other genres, things that most of 60's bands were aware.

Of course, this does not make Lennon a genius, neither the better vocals, lyrics, guitar, etc ever. Of course, he works much better with the group, which obviously implies Paul, George and Ringo deserves as much credit as him and that he is far from Beethoveen, and of course, it is no problem that he is limited to a genre or playing popular music.

mortalterror

07-04-2011, 03:15 PM

I don't know why you're posting all these links as if I had never heard of these people. I have.

Though, frankly, I think we must being working from completely different premises if you cite Dio.

2 reasons: 1)If you think that John Lennon is a great singer then you obviously don't know much about music. 2)It's common to include evidence or examples whenever you make a claim; so that a skeptic who doesn't take you at your word can verify your claim. For instance, you can say that John Lennon is a great singer all day until you are blue in the face without proving a thing. It's still just your faulty opinion. But if you post a song where Lennon sings well, and point out what it is he does well, then your argument might have a leg to stand on.

I included examples of several different types of good singers. Some of them have naturally beautiful voices like, for instance, Barry White. Some of them can hit a wide range of notes, or sing in a number of different styles. Others have mastered various techniques such as trills or holding notes for long periods of time, and other types of showmanship which impress audiences. James Brown, Janis Joplin, and Ronnie James Dio, have unique gravely voices which they have learned to use in non-traditional ways to affect their own unique styles. In short, I used a number of different examples to show a range of different singers, all of whom are better than John Lennon.

Blasarius '33

07-04-2011, 03:44 PM

1)If you think that John Lennon is a great singer then you obviously don't know much about music. There has to be some context I'm missing here.

stlukesguild

07-04-2011, 03:46 PM

I thought I'd already explained that the Beatles and individually sold consistently well - and not just to the masses, but to the elites as well. I like (and understand) Mozart and Stravinsky (most of the Ruskies actually), and I, along with many others similar to me, also like the Beatles and are prepared to classify them as 'up there'.

Again, considering the Beatles reputation over the long haul any number of their songs and performances may quite possibly survive. But let's face it, your opinion of their achievements is greatly inflated when we consider equal achievements in music only over the last century. Surely the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Muddy Waters, Elmore James, B.B. King, Johnny Cash, The Carter Family, The Louvin Brothers, James Brown, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, John Lee Hooker, John Coletrane, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Thelonius Monk, Benny Goodman, Louis Armstrong, Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Fats Waller... to name just a few, have had an equal impact upon the music of the last century... and this doesn't even speak of the realm of classical music: Stravinsky, Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Mahler, Ravel, Debussy, Puccini, Rachmaninoff, Richard Strauss... on through John Adams, Philip Glass, Arvo Part, Henryck Gorecki, and Osvaldo Golijov.

Virtually no one with a great grasp of classical music would even begin to think of placing Mahler, Stravinsky, or Strauss... let alone someone from the last half of the 20th century (Penderecki, Ligeti, Glass, or Golijov) on the same plateau as Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart. The idea would be thought of as absurd. To place the Beatles on that plateau is simply comic. With time I can imagine Strauss, Debussy, and perhaps Mahler, Puccini, and Rachmaninoff being recognized at that level... perhaps. And certainly Miles Davis, Ellington, Armstrong, and Monk might achieve a status not unlike Ravel, Faure, Schumann, Chopin, etc... But Mozart?!:out:

If popularity is a negative trait of genius, then that explains why so many choose not to strive toward it.

It isn't a negative trait but neither is it a positive trait. It is irrelevant. It has about as much to do with aesthetic merit as the individual's height or eye color.

Beatles = screaming girls = can't be any good?

If I recall, they also screamed for Michael Bolton, the Monkees, the New Kids on the Block, Menudo, and they still scream for Hannah Montana. It means nothing.

Beethoven's decision to increase the size of the orchestra was a master stroke in musical history - he also put on an event! and signalled the modern age. There was sheet music you could buy to play on your chosen instrument(s) or sing - a bit like singles and albums really.

The scale of the orchestra had been increasing in size since the Baroque and earlier. Mozart often employed a larger ensemble than Bach. Beethoven moved even larger. Wagner, and Mahler surpassed him. In all actuality, Beethoven's orchestras were not all that large... certainly not on the scale of the average symphonic orchestra today. Historically Informed Performances of pre-Romantic era music has unveiled just what these earlier composers likely sounded like. In many ways, the smaller ensembles performing in more intimate venues packed a greater whallup than they do in the overly saccharined Romantic-scale orchestras.

MystyrMystyry

07-04-2011, 08:50 PM

Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Muddy Waters, Elmore James, B.B. King, Johnny Cash, The Carter Family, The Louvin Brothers, James Brown, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, John Lee Hooker, John Coletrane, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Thelonius Monk, Benny Goodman, Louis Armstrong, Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Fats Waller

Stravinsky, Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Mahler, Ravel, Debussy, Puccini, Rachmaninoff, Richard Strauss... on through John Adams, Philip Glass, Arvo Part, Henryck Gorecki, and Osvaldo Golijov

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha!

ShadowsCool

07-04-2011, 10:39 PM

But let's face it, your opinion of their achievements is greatly inflated when we consider equal achievements in music only over the last century. Surely the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Muddy Waters, Elmore James, B.B. King, Johnny Cash, The Carter Family, The Louvin Brothers, James Brown, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, John Lee Hooker, John Coletrane, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Thelonius Monk, Benny Goodman, Louis Armstrong, Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Fats Waller... to name just a few, have had an equal impact upon the music of the last century...

No group, certainly none of the above, have had a greater impact than do the Beatles, on not only music but in culture in general. Can you name 30 songs from any of the above? I couldn't. But with the Beatles, I can. They did so much to change the face of popular music, it's not even a question of who compares to them, because no one does. Lennon was right in saying that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ.

I certainly know their are an equal amount of Beatles haters out there, for I've heard them all my life. They just have a problem with them, and that's fine. But to compare any of the above, except maybe Elvis, to the Beatles is comical.

Musicians themselves will tell you how much the Beatles have influenced their work. That to me speaks volumes. I can go on and on about their achievements but I fail to see why I should. I've learned, never argue with someone who won't see.

Delta40

07-04-2011, 10:43 PM

I'm sure Lennon is 'aving a good laff....

BienvenuJDC

07-04-2011, 10:52 PM

I'm sure Lennon is 'aving a good laff....

Unless he's in hell? Which is likely the way that me mocked God...and of course the atheists of this site will likely ridicule the notion...

Delta40

07-04-2011, 11:06 PM

Unless he's in hell? Which is likely the way that me mocked God...and of course the atheists of this site will likely ridicule the notion...

You mean: Was John Lennon a Genius AND a Christian?

Mutatis-Mutandis

07-04-2011, 11:35 PM

Pink Floyd is rock, it's progressive rock like King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Yes, or Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. It just tends to be very intricate and artsy.
Pink Floyd isn't intricate.

This three minute single song hypothesis completely ignores the concept album phenomenon. A number of rockers have put out concept albums that tell a single story, with recurring themes, over one or more records. Pink Floyd's The Wall would be the classic example, but The Who, The Kinks, Iron Maiden, David Bowie, and Jethro Tull all released concept albums. The concept album is rock music's answer to the symphony.
Yes, but most concept albums still use 3-minute songs, as does The Wall. Tull is a better example. I don't think the concept album is rock music's answer to the symphony, because symphonies don't tell a story (in the narrative sense). Concept albums are more the answer to opera. I'd say long songs, and progressive rock in general, are rock's answer to classical music. If there are any bands that really attempted to fuse that classical and rock sound together, it was Yes and Genesis.

And, I'd have to disagree with you on Lennon not being a great singer, or at least you stating it as if it's a fact. You don't have to be a real powerful singer, or have an insane range, to be considered "great" (even though I think Lennon was both). That's like saying a guitar player or drummer that isn't fast can't be great, which is just ludicrous.

And finally, BienvenuJDC, why'd you have to bring that BS into the conversation?

Page 8: You're welcome, Delta40. :)

JCamilo

07-04-2011, 11:52 PM

No group, certainly none of the above, have had a greater impact than do the Beatles, on not only music but in culture in general. Can you name 30 songs from any of the above? I couldn't. But with the Beatles, I can. They did so much to change the face of popular music, it's not even a question of who compares to them, because no one does. Lennon was right in saying that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ.

I certainly know their are an equal amount of Beatles haters out there, for I've heard them all my life. They just have a problem with them, and that's fine. But to compare any of the above, except maybe Elvis, to the Beatles is comical.

That has nothing to do with Haters. Beatles certainly more impact than Elvis? He is the white guy who played rock and roll. The entire genre is build after him, his impact is imense.

Bob Dylan? Beatles changed their stye, the entire rock and roll moved to another level due to Dylan. After him it was singing like Beatles, talking like Dylan.

And this is pure rock and roll. The suggestion that Michael Jackson (In negative way), Chuck Berry, Little Richards, James Brown, Sinatra, Davis... has "certainly" less impact on popular music than the Beatles and the Berry-Richards-Brown even on rock and roll is not hating Beatles. It is respecting story. Lennon himself would die to see those guys playing.

Delta40

07-04-2011, 11:54 PM

Page 8 and was John Lennon an atheist or not?

stlukesguild

07-05-2011, 12:07 AM

No group, certainly none of the above, have had a greater impact than do the Beatles, on not only music but in culture in general. Can you name 30 songs from any of the above? I couldn't.

Well perhaps you aren't quite qualified to make an intelligent comment upon this matter, are you? It would seem rather like arguing that Shakespeare is far superior to Dante when you haven't bothered to read Dante. 30 songs?! I can name at least 15 essential LPs by Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, and Thelonius Monk. I can easily name far more than 30 songs by the Rolling Stones who are in no way inferior to the Beatles. The Beatles bigger than Elvis? Again quite debatable. Bigger than Sinatra? perhaps if you don't know anything about music prior to the 1960s.

This has nothing to do with hating the Beatles. I grew up with their music and have virtually all their albums on CD... but I realize that the Billboard Pop Charts of the last 40 years are not the sole measure of musical merit. As JCamilo suggested, it's not about hating the Beatles... its about recognizing and respecting the other brilliant achievements in music in the last century in a broad array of genre beyond mainstream popular music. There were giants in these other genre at the same time as the Beatles and before them. How much impact did the Beatles have upon jazz, the blues, R&B country/bluegrass, etc...? The answer would be near zero. Certainly far less than Miles Davis, The Louvin Brothers, John Lee Hooker, and Stevie Wonder. But I suppose you presume that these genre are irrelevant because the come before your time or because they are not your favorite genre?

Considering the population of India, it might just be possible that Ravi Shankar... yes the guy George Harrison had open for a number of his concerts... has had far more impact upon music as one of the leading figures in classical Indian music. JCamilo might even be able to set you upon a number of musicians who have had as huge an impact in Latin America... which last I heard had a rather sizable population.

Delta40

07-05-2011, 12:12 AM

Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first - rock and roll or Christianity.

John Lennon

jajdude

07-05-2011, 12:23 AM

Eight pages, not bad. Couldn't be bothered to read much of the thread as I really don't care.

stlukesguild

07-05-2011, 12:23 AM

Not one of Lennon's most brilliant comments. Rock-n-Roll has made it to 50 or 60 years now... and Christianity... closing in on 2 millennium.

JCamilo

07-05-2011, 12:33 AM

Forget, Elvis is some fat guy fired from vegas that makes a cover of Sid Vicious.

OrphanPip

07-05-2011, 12:54 AM

Pink Floyd isn't intricate.

Yes, but most concept albums still use 3-minute songs, as does The Wall. Tull is a better example. I don't think the concept album is rock music's answer to the symphony, because symphonies don't tell a story (in the narrative sense). Concept albums are more the answer to opera. I'd say long songs, and progressive rock in general, are rock's answer to classical music. If there are any bands that really attempted to fuse that classical and rock sound together, it was Yes and Genesis.

They're more like scripted music, or theme music, in the line of something like Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique. I'd think a rock opera, like Weber's Jesus Christ Superstar, or the Who's Tommy (which did begin as a concept album) are probably more in line with the operatic tradition since they involve dramatic presentations.

Of course, popular music has overlapped with drama as far back as ballad operas. Gilbert and Sullivan's operetas were immensely popular as well, and were a major influence on the development of the contemporary Broadway musical.

Anyway, I actually like Yoko Ono's music. She's had huge influence on new wave rock in the 80s, and the influence of her music can be heard today in acts like Bjork or the music of Karin Andersson from The Knife and Fever Ray.

MarkBastable

07-05-2011, 03:38 AM

2 reasons: 1)If you think that John Lennon is a great singer then you obviously don't know much about music.

I don't think I'll dignify that with even a facetious answer.

2)It's common to include evidence or examples whenever you make a claim; so that a skeptic who doesn't take you at your word can verify your claim.

You can't support a subjective view with objective evidence. All you've done is posted links to singers you like more than you like Lennon.

For instance, you can say that John Lennon is a great singer all day until you are blue in the face without proving a thing. It's still just your faulty opinion.

...this from someone who presumes to lecture on how to argue properly.

But if you post a song where Lennon sings well, and point out what it is he does well, then your argument might have a leg to stand on.

The argument is good or its not - and it'll be good or not whether or not I decide to support it. Usually I would, as anyone who knows me on this site will attest. But given your tone, I'm not going to get into it. It'd give me indigestion.

I included examples of several different types of good singers. Some of them have naturally beautiful voices like, for instance, Barry White....

....Also, if you believe that, there's absolutely no point in us discussing it, as (in my faulty opinion), you're beyond help.

Delta40

07-05-2011, 03:47 AM

Was John Lennon a Genie?

mortalterror

07-05-2011, 04:00 AM

Pink Floyd isn't intricate.

Then what would you call Dark Side of the Moon if not intricate?

Anyway, I actually like Yoko Ono's music. She's had huge influence on new wave rock in the 80s, and the influence of her music can be heard today in acts like Bjork or the music of Karin Andersson from The Knife and Fever Ray.

Oh yes, let's have a listen to some of Yoko Ono's contribution to our musical culture. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9kgu71d81U

OrphanPip

07-05-2011, 06:28 AM

Uh huh? I was thinking more along the lines of songs like Yang Yang or Walking on Thin Ice, but whatever Mortal. Several musicians have recognize Ono as an influence.

mortalterror

07-05-2011, 08:49 AM

Uh huh? I was thinking more along the lines of songs like Yang Yang or Walking on Thin Ice, but whatever Mortal. Several musicians have recognize Ono as an influence.

The guitar is alright on the first one, but those songs are just abominable. No good musician would cite her as an influence.

MarkBastable

07-05-2011, 08:57 AM

The guitar is alright on the first one, but those songs are just abominable. No good musician would cite her as an influence.

As a musician, I'm not a fan of Yoko's music. But some are. Elvis Costello,for instance, is most complimentary about her, and has covered Walking on Thin Ice (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mDtb0E8-ps). Then again, it may be that you don't consider him a good musician.

Emil Miller

07-05-2011, 08:58 AM

Didn't think this was serious enough for serious chat.

Precisely.

JCamilo

07-05-2011, 10:07 AM

As a musician, I'm not a fan of Yoko's music. But some are. Elvis Costello,for instance, is most complimentary about her, and has covered Walking on Thin Ice (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mDtb0E8-ps). Then again, it may be that you don't consider him a good musician.

This make me think of a Power Puff Girls Episode. Some villains join in quartet, defeat the power puff girls. Then they domain the city. All with Beatles's tunes, quoting, etc. Then they are defeated when a chimp was disguised as a girl, the Mojo Jojo falls in love with her, instead of being a normal criminal with laser weapons, giantic robots, etc, he and the chimp (which he does not know it is a chimp) torture people by screaming.

Drkshadow03

07-05-2011, 12:02 PM

Oh yes, let's have a listen to some of Yoko Ono's contribution to our musical culture. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9kgu71d81U

Clearly you forgot to include this piece (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GMHl7bmlzw) in your assessment of Yoko's talent.

OrphanPip

07-05-2011, 01:44 PM

Clearly you forgot to include this piece (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GMHl7bmlzw) in your assessment of Yoko's talent.

What? It's conceptual art. It's a piece of aleatory music in the same vein as John Cage's 4'33. It's a performance piece that calls on us to contemplate the nature of sounds, in this case the spontaneous improvised screaming. Ono has been performing Voice Piece for Soprano (which has a great title) since the 60s. It's actually interesting how it has evolved from outright screeching, to baby cries, to that.

It's certainly not a catchy pop song though. :rolleyes5:

mortalterror

07-05-2011, 02:36 PM

Drkshadow03

07-05-2011, 02:59 PM

What? It's conceptual art. It's a piece of aleatory music in the same vein as John Cage's 4'33. It's a performance piece that calls on us to contemplate the nature of sounds, in this case the spontaneous improvised screaming. Ono has been performing Voice Piece for Soprano (which has a great title) since the 60s. It's actually interesting how it has evolved from outright screeching, to baby cries, to that.

It's certainly not a catchy pop song though. :rolleyes5:

None of which makes any of it any good.

OrphanPip

07-05-2011, 03:39 PM

None of which makes any of it any good.

Uh huh, but you haven't argued anything makes it bad either. Except your implicit agreement with Mortal that Ono's music is just terrible. I'm not sure how I should react because no one has really put forward a reason why Ono is bad other than the fact that they don't like her. In which case, big ****ing deal, I don't like a lot of music, but that doesn't mean ****.

First of all, the piece you linked to is not an example of Ono's musical output as part of her music career, but is entirely a piece of concept art. It is also a fairly successful piece of concept art that has resonated with audiences since the 60s. "Voice Piece for Soprano" is more about sound than it is about music, of course the title evokes our associations between vocal performance and music, but that is part of the charm of the concept. It sets us up for a song, and then it gives us screams. I would argue it is a fairly successful example of this sort of art.

Moreover, if we want to take influence as a measure of quality. Ono was influential on, and predicated, a lot of musical trends of New Wave in the late 70s and early 80s. She has also had several number one hits on US dance charts in the last 10 years. While most members of the Beatles haven't topped any charts anywhere recently. She continues to produce music and art that continues to resonate with audiences. Did anyone buy Ringo's latest country music album?

Mutatis-Mutandis

07-05-2011, 04:06 PM

It's really, really stupid to pick out one piece or song by an artist and say, "Listen to this, see how much they suck!" You can do that with an prolific band or musician. I can do it with all my favorite bands. Picking some of Ono's (who I am not a fan of, at all) bizzarre stuff as if it proves the faults of her entire ouvre is childish.

the Rolling Stones who are in no way inferior to the Beatles.
Really? :)

Eight pages, not bad. Couldn't be bothered to read much of the thread as I really don't care.
You started the thread. :lol:

Then what would you call Dark Side of the Moon if not intricate?
Epic, spacey, grand, beautiful, and well-composed are words that come to mind. I can't think of anything that Pink Floyd has done, aside from a few guitar solos, that is intricate. Yes is intricate. Gentle Giant was intricate. King Crimson was intricate. Zappa was intricate. Genesis had plenty of intricate moments. Pink Floyd wasn't.

No group, certainly none of the above, have had a greater impact than do the Beatles, on not only music but in culture in general. Can you name 30 songs from any of the above? I couldn't.
What does that prove? I can name a bunch of Song by Tool, Opeth, and Between the Buried and Me. I guess that makes them good, too.

The guitar is alright on the first one, but those songs are just abominable. No good musician would cite her as an influence.
Wow.

Didn't think this was serious enough for serious chat.Precisely.
So, why have you even bothered to comment, Emil?

Drkshadow03

07-05-2011, 04:19 PM

Uh huh, but you haven't argued anything makes it bad either. Except your implicit agreement with Mortal that Ono's music is just terrible. I'm not sure how I should react because no one has really put forward a reason why Ono is bad other than the fact that they don't like her. In which case, big ****ing deal, I don't like a lot of music, but that doesn't mean ****.

First of all, the piece you linked to is not an example of Ono's musical output as part of her music career, but is entirely a piece of concept art. It is also a fairly successful piece of concept art that has resonated with audiences since the 60s. "Voice Piece for Soprano" is more about sound than it is about music, of course the title evokes our associations between vocal performance and music, but that is part of the charm of the concept. It sets us up for a song, and then it gives us screams. I would argue it is a fairly successful example of this sort of art.

Moreover, if we want to take influence as a measure of quality. Ono was influential on, and predicated, a lot of musical trends of New Wave in the late 70s and early 80s. She has also had several number one hits on US dance charts in the last 10 years. While most members of the Beatles haven't topped any charts anywhere recently. She continues to produce music and art that continues to resonate with audiences. Did anyone buy Ringo's latest country music album?

I wasn't really looking to get into a long debate about the merits of Ono's "work." The post with the link was more of a kind of mockery/joke post since the work's crappiness I feel is self-explanatory. It's a lady screaming in front of a microphone and with a few vague words on a wall as part of a conceptual art piece.

Anyway, I think the only real response worth-giving is, uhm, okay, enjoy then?

mortalterror

07-05-2011, 04:33 PM

It's really, really stupid to pick out one piece or song by an artist and say, "Listen to this, see how much they suck!" You can do that with an prolific band or musician. I can do it with all my favorite bands. Picking some of Ono's (who I am not a fan of, at all) bizzarre stuff as if it proves the faults of her entire ouvre is childish.

Good bands do make bad songs from time to time. The Beatles had Revolution 9, Queen had Tear It Up, the Rolling Stones had... well a lot of crummy songs really, but that doesn't keep them from being great bands if their output is tilted toward the good. But that does not mean we should stop offering examples to demonstrate the veracity of what we are saying. Nothing is stopping other people from making the counter argument and posting any good songs they think Yoko Ono made.

Epic, spacey, grand, beautiful, and well-composed are words that come to mind. I can't think of anything that Pink Floyd has done, aside from a few guitar solos, that is intricate. Yes is intricate. Gentle Giant was intricate. King Crimson was intricate. Zappa was intricate. Genesis had plenty of intricate moments. Pink Floyd wasn't.

Fair enough. I don't want to quibble over semantics.

What does that prove? I can name a bunch of Song by Tool, Opeth, and Between the Buried and Me. I guess that makes them good, too.

Why do you have my name listed in the quote there? I never said that. You are responding to something somebody else said.

Emil Miller

07-05-2011, 04:51 PM

So, why have you even bothered to comment, Emil?

It's not a comment but merely a passing observation.

ShadowsCool

07-05-2011, 04:59 PM

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Well perhaps you aren't quite qualified to make an intelligent comment upon this matter, are you? It would seem rather like arguing that Shakespeare is far superior to Dante when you haven't bothered to read Dante. 30 songs?! I can name at least 15 essential LPs by Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, and Thelonius Monk. I can easily name far more than 30 songs by the Rolling Stones who are in no way inferior to the Beatles. The Beatles bigger than Elvis? Again quite debatable. Bigger than Sinatra? perhaps if you don't know anything about music prior to the 1960s.

This has nothing to do with hating the Beatles. I grew up with their music and have virtually all their albums on CD... but I realize that the Billboard Pop Charts of the last 40 years are not the sole measure of musical merit. As JCamilo suggested, it's not about hating the Beatles... its about recognizing and respecting the other brilliant achievements in music in the last century in a broad array of genre beyond mainstream popular music. There were giants in these other genre at the same time as the Beatles and before them. How much impact did the Beatles have upon jazz, the blues, R&B country/bluegrass, etc...? The answer would be near zero. Certainly far less than Miles Davis, The Louvin Brothers, John Lee Hooker, and Stevie Wonder. But I suppose you presume that these genre are irrelevant because the come before your time or because they are not your favorite genre?

Gosh..Do I want to really engage this any further? Well yes! I find your response ludicrous. If you had said to me: I like the Rolling Stones better than the Beatles, well then fine. How are the Stones head & head with the Beatles? They should be too. They've been around for 47 years. The Beatles only 6 1/2, counting their recording career. You would think the Stones would make it up? Close the gap. But they didn't.

Now according to your "opinion", say you, that the Beatles are somehow only on par with "I can name at least 15 essential LPs by Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, and Thelonius Monk." All great acts, I must admit, but they never did, nor moved culture in general the way the Beatles did. Anyway, this is a John Lennon thread, so I wish not to engage this much further. A few points though I will go over.

I found your comment: How much impact did the Beatles have upon jazz, the blues, R&B country/bluegrass, etc...? Disturbing! As if a rock band should have some profound impact on Jazz, give me a break. You seem to have this thing with Billboard and its impact on music. Could the Beatles help that their music sold well? Why are the Beatles always put on top on all respectable music survey's? Rolling stone magazine, many, many other's. Look it up. You don't have to agree with them and that's not why I agree with them. But there is something to it, don't ya think? If it smells like .... it probably is. Same thing with them being ranked number 1. Because they are!

The Beatles surpassed Dylan following Rubber Soul. Gander a listen to Revolver and then listen to any other record at that time. I like Dylan, but he bores me. One voice, one sound. Beatles, not so. Always changing.

Top album rankings of all time usually have the fab 4 with the fab 5 albums of all time in the rarified top twenty. Let's see: Revolver, Pepper, White, Abbey & Rubber Soul. All of them ranked right up there. Were these people bias? or idiots? You can say that, but what does that say about your opinion?

I think Beatle haters have a thing against them and they are out to prove that the sun is cold when it's not. Nothing against you personally, but enough said....:)

JCamilo

07-05-2011, 05:58 PM

Bob Dylan was surpassed? When rock and roll had a better lyric writer? Geez, Jimmy Hendrix surpassed them all with his guitar, and really... Blues and Jazz are influential on rock and roll, basically their bastard child. You could have point Beatles do have influence on R&B or watever, Michael Jackson loved them after all, but several rock artists had influence on several other music styles. And try not dismiss the guys who moved those music from nowhere, forbidden on american culture, to be the american culture which opened the path to the beatles. It goes ridiculous.

Mutatis-Mutandis

07-05-2011, 06:02 PM

Why do you have my name listed in the quote there? I never said that. You are responding to something somebody else said.
My mistake, mortal. It's been remedied. :nod:

It's not a comment but merely a passing observation.
Okay, but what was the point of it?

Gosh..Do I want to really engage this any further? Well yes! I find your response ludicrous. If you had said to me: I like the Rolling Stones better than the Beatles, well then fine. How are the Stones head & head with the Beatles? They should be too. They've been around for 47 years. The Beatles only 6 1/2, counting their recording career. You would think the Stones would make it up? Close the gap. But they didn't.
What point are you even trying to make here? :lol:

Now according to your "opinion", say you, that the Beatles are somehow only on par with "I can name at least 15 essential LPs by Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, and Thelonius Monk." All great acts, I must admit, but they never did, nor moved culture in general the way the Beatles did. Anyway, this is a John Lennon thread, so I wish not to engage this much further. A few points though I will go over.
StLukes never said they did "move culture" as much as The Beatles did. He was just pointing out the ability to name a bunch of songs by any artists proves absolutely nothing.

I found your comment: How much impact did the Beatles have upon jazz, the blues, R&B country/bluegrass, etc...? Disturbing! As if a rock band should have some profound impact on Jazz, give me a break. You seem to have this thing with Billboard and its impact on music. Could the Beatles help that their music sold well? Why are the Beatles always put on top on all respectable music survey's? Rolling stone magazine, many, many other's. Look it up. You don't have to agree with them and that's not why I agree with them. But there is something to it, don't ya think? If it smells like .... it probably is. Same thing with them being ranked number 1. Because they are!
So, it's bad for him to be hung up on Billboard charts, but it's okay to be hung up on a plethora of useless "best of" lists? Why is one more valid than the other?

MarkBastable

07-05-2011, 06:23 PM

Sure, but Tila Tequila made the definitive version. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CswOwf-KDp0&feature=related

Yeah, yeah. Do you think, as it appears you must, that Costello is not a good musician?

Delta40

07-05-2011, 08:39 PM

I am only here to help John to page 10

mortalterror

07-05-2011, 08:53 PM

Yeah, yeah. Do you think, as it appears you must, that Costello is not a good musician?

You know, I'm not really a fan. I don't really like him or hate him. Two of his songs are even alright. On the scale of musicians I really don't care for he is not in Justin Bieber country, as it appears there's at least one or two things he can do well. But neither is he in Bob Dylan/Frank Sinatra company either with musicians I love. He's just alright. It kind of surprised me that you would pull him out to top your list of the super amazing musical geniuses Yoko Ono has influenced, but maybe he's just much bigger in the UK than he is over here.

Mutatis-Mutandis

07-05-2011, 09:44 PM

Elvis Costello has a pretty big following in the USA. Quite popular, actually.

stlukesguild

07-05-2011, 09:49 PM

Gosh..Do I want to really engage this any further? Well yes! I find your response ludicrous. If you had said to me: I like the Rolling Stones better than the Beatles, well then fine. How are the Stones head & head with the Beatles? They should be too. They've been around for 47 years. The Beatles only 6 1/2, counting their recording career. You would think the Stones would make it up? Close the gap. But they didn't...

According to...?

Top album rankings of all time usually have the fab 4 with the fab 5 albums of all time in the rarified top twenty. Let's see: Revolver, Pepper, White, Abbey & Rubber Soul. All of them ranked right up there. Were these people bias? or idiots? You can say that, but what does that say about your opinion?

Usually? Usually? And what all lists are you looking at beside the Rolling Stone Magazine Record Guide? Even if we consider solely the Rolling Stone Magazine guide (which hasn't changed much in 20 years of "editing") the Beatles have 11 LPs in the list of the 500 greatest rock albums of all time. Bob Dylan Has 10. The Rolling Stones have 10. This shows a clear hegemony to you? And this is but one "best of" chart of many. And how does this chart challenge the merit of Miles David, Duke Ellington, B.B. King, John Lee Hooker, the Louvin Brothers, the Carter Family etc... when it focuses exclusively upon Pop and Rock? How do we even measure the number of LPs on any chart as a measure of quality when a majority of the rock and pop stars (or rather their producers and the record companies) prior to the 1960s didn't even approach the LP as a unified artistic expression, but rather as a collection of a couple hits and a bunch of filler?

But then there's sales, right? It's like that classic old Elvis Greatest Hit's LP entitled "50-Million Elvis Fans can't Be Wrong"... or can they? Micheal Jackson, AC?DC, Pink Floyd, Meat Loaf, even Shania Twain and the Backstreet Boys have albums to their credit that have outsold anything by the Beatles. Am I to assume that this means Shania Twain and the Backstreet Boys produced at least one album that is better than anything the Beatles did? Or is it again possible that popularity... especially during an artist's lifetime... is no measure of artistic merit?

Now according to your "opinion", say you, that the Beatles are somehow only on par with "I can name at least 15 essential LPs by Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, and Thelonius Monk." All great acts, I must admit, but they never did, nor moved culture in general the way the Beatles did. Anyway, this is a John Lennon thread, so I wish not to engage this much further. A few points though I will go over.

Please do explain to me how the Beatles moved culture as whole to a greater extent than any and all of these other musicians? It wasn't the Beatles but Bob Dylan who was at the center of the anti-war/anti-government movement early on.

Dylan, along with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones can be equally credited with establishing the pop/rock LP as an art form... and not as a mere collection made up of a couple of hits and a bunch of filler (as was common in the 50s with pop music). Oh... but I forget... Frank Sinatra, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Howlin' Wolf, Ella Fitzgerald, Thelonius Monk, etc... had already achieved this with the LP a decade of more before.

Or perhaps we should speak of the Beatles brilliance in merging popular music with the fine art forms of classical music. Oops Once again Frank Sinatra, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, George Gershwin had already explored this possibility... in some instances almost before the Beatles were born.

But we should look at the Beatles impact on the other arts. Of course we'll need to ignore that a great many of the European Modernists in painting (Robert Delaunay, Piet Mondrian, Wassily Kandinsky, Max Beckmann) or in music (Ravel, Stravinsky, Shostakovitch, Satie, Poulenc, etc...) were all inspired by jazz. Abstract Expressionism, critically acclaimed as the most important movement in American painting, all worked under the influence of jazz and were inspired by its spontaneity. And this was all achieved in spite of the nascent stage of the mass-media: The LP or long-playing record didn't even come into use until the late 40s and 50s. There was no television. The Depression and the Second World War limited the number of materials that could be used for churning out "entertainment", and there was little chance of any international market. Add to this the inherent racism... and yet the passion for jazz and jazz culture, and early rock and rock culture spread across the US and abroad.

I found your comment: How much impact did the Beatles have upon jazz, the blues, R&B country/bluegrass, etc...? Disturbing! As if a rock band should have some profound impact on Jazz, give me a break.

The comment merely pointed out the absurdity of the argument that the Beatles had more impact than anyone else upon pop music as proof that the Beatles were bigger than any jazz or blues or country musician. I guess that breezed right by ya.

You seem to have this thing with Billboard and its impact on music. Could the Beatles help that their music sold well?

Again, this is a straw man. No one has suggested that sales are something negative. They are simply irrelevant as a measure of artistic merit. T.S. Eliot and Proust had far smaller audiences than Dickens or the "Harry Potter" novels. That doesn't in any way signify whether Dickens or Rowling is a greater or worse writer than Eliot or Proust.

Why are the Beatles always put on top on all respectable music survey's?

Another misleading question. The Beatles are not placed on the top of all respectable music surveys. They quite likely would never make Gramophone Magazine's list or the CMA lists. But you seem to assume that the only standard or measure is that of the Rolling Stone and Billboard Pop/Rock charts... as if bluegrass, country, jazz, folk, R&B, classical... to say nothing of the music of the rest of the world were all somehow irrelevant. The world of music is not limited to mainstream pop and rock since 1960. Such a concept is either ignorant, dismissive of the past and of other cultures and genre... and as such perhaps even xenophobic or racist.

The Beatles surpassed Dylan following Rubber Soul. Gander a listen to Revolver and then listen to any other record at that time. I like Dylan, but he bores me. One voice, one sound. Beatles, not so. Always changing.

A good many critics might just as well argue that the Beatles went downhill if not after Rubber Soul then after Revolver, while Dylan and the Rolling Stones only got better during the late 60s. Dylan produced Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde on Blonde and John Wesley Harding while the Stones turned out Beggar's Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street. The Beatles have nothing that can match the lyrical mastery of Dylan during that period, and I can't think of any Beatles song that better conveys the chaos, political turmoil, and violence of the late 60s as well as Sympathy for the Devil, Salt of the Earth, Gimme Shelter, etc...

Again... this is not to undermine the Beatles. Neither Dylan or the Rolling Stones could ever achieve a pop standard on the level of Something or Here Comes the Sun, nor are the Beatles to be surpassed in terms of mastery in the studio, and their brilliant harmonies.

mortalterror

07-05-2011, 09:59 PM

Elvis Costello has a pretty big following in the USA. Quite popular, actually.

Compared to what? I don't know what it's like in your home, but the phrase "Honey, mark the calendar. Elvis Costello is coming to town," hasn't been uttered in a long time around here. He can't be pulling down Ozzy Osbourne numbers. He isn't as popular as Pete Townshend, or The Rolling Stones. He's not David Bowie, Judas Priest, or Iron Maiden. Jimmy Page and Roger Waters would eat him alive. Of all the great British musicians he could have picked, he's going to go with Elvis freaking Costello? No one's ever offered me an ear bud to listen to the new Elvis Costello album. Maybe my parents are listening to him or something. StLuke, you're old. Did you maybe listen to this dude back in the 70s, on the gramophone? Big fan of "Watching the Detectives" were you?

OrphanPip

07-05-2011, 11:05 PM

Mutatis-Mutandis

07-05-2011, 11:56 PM

Compared to what? I don't know what it's like in your home, but the phrase "Honey, mark the calendar. Elvis Costello is coming to town," hasn't been uttered in a long time around here. He can't be pulling down Ozzy Osbourne numbers. He isn't as popular as Pete Townshend, or The Rolling Stones. He's not David Bowie, Judas Priest, or Iron Maiden. Jimmy Page and Roger Waters would eat him alive. Of all the great British musicians he could have picked, he's going to go with Elvis freaking Costello? No one's ever offered me an ear bud to listen to the new Elvis Costello album. Maybe my parents are listening to him or something. StLuke, you're old. Did you maybe listen to this dude back in the 70s, on the gramophone? Big fan of "Watching the Detectives" were you?
Actually, we do "mark the calendar" when Costello comes to town, as do many other people, as the venue he usually plays (The Pageant in St. Louis, which is not some small bar) sells out.

Infraction points be damned: Quit acting like a pompous prig, mortalterror.

JBI

07-06-2011, 12:18 AM

As I have no time at the moment to read through ten pages, a brief moment of internet at the border between China, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, I will offer an idea of comparison.

To compare Lennon to Beethoven and Mozart is not fair, one should compare him to other artists, like Schubert and his Lieder, or a Troubadour Poet and his work - the idea of genre must come in to play - Lennon is not comparable to Wagner, the same way a Totem poll is not particularly comparable to the Sistine Chapel. such differences of genre must be taken into account -

What Lennon does for me is continue a tradition of song writing with performance, contemporaneously with Bob Dylan, or Gordon Lightfoot, and others in other languages, like Jacques Brel, or Charles Aznavour. Compare him that way, and you will get a clearer idea - in my mind anyway, As an artist Lennon does not really fit well into the definition of Rock and Roll - he gets his start there, and develops it, but if we look at the individual creation, he seems to be predominantly with a much older tradition that merely changed the musical accompaniment to fit with modern tastes.

JCamilo

07-06-2011, 01:13 AM

Do people listen to new Ozzy albums? Elvis Costello is post-punk and New Wave, most of his music was made in the 80s...

Anyway, Rolling Stone's 500 greatest songs list from 2010 contains three Elvis Costello songs and two Black Sabbath songs, so clearly some people like him.

And the idea of someone comparing Elvis Costello to Judas Priest makes me a little sick to my stomach.

Well Judas Priest Rob Halford was said by Pavarotti to be the best vocalist he saw... Anyways, so what? Elvis Costello in the story of rock and roll? One good guy of genre. Black Sabath?Fathers and probally forefathers of a genre. If Rollingstone cannt write Paranoid, Iron Man and War Pigs and some "i care less" for this dude who never made success aboard, that is Rolling Stone problem. They are not a good reference anyways.

And Frankly, I still try to understand Ono was New Wave - or the punk went gay, pretty and glam - genre influence. I can see her on Sonic Youth and Flaming Lips (as I can see Factory, Zappa and all experiments) but New wave?

OrphanPip

07-06-2011, 01:31 AM

And Frankly, I still try to understand Ono was New Wave - or the punk went gay, pretty and glam - genre influence. I can see her on Sonic Youth and Flaming Lips (as I can see Factory, Zappa and all experiments) but New wave?

Fly is essentially a experimental/punk album that experimented with many of the same kind of elements that would later become hallmarks of New Wave. Not to mention that acts like the B-52s and Costello have acknowledged Ono. Season of Glass is pretty much right in with the New Wave in the 80s. Not all of her music is experimental.

Of course, she has also influenced Sonic Youth through her early experimental music. Like the aforementioned voice piece for soprano.

I also mentioned earlier that she has influenced Scandinavian electronic acts like Bjork and The Knife.

The point of all this was that Ono is hardly a talentless hack like people make her out to be. Most people that claim she is haven't taken even a second to look at her artistic and musical career. Nor do they acknowledge that she has been a prominent figure in performance art for 5 decades. The Wish Tree exhibit, where the video drk posted came from, was awarded as the best museum exhibit in New York for 2010.

JCamilo

07-06-2011, 02:12 AM

I do not mind much Ono - she is a bad musician. She had her fame, but really, had not Lennon she would be a page on the phone list. Cage, Factory people, Pink Floyd, Bowie, Zappa, they are all experimental musicans with much more talent and influence than her.

Anyways, New Wave is basically post-punk british movement, a bit of what happened with punk and disco, they happened in england. The name may make reference to early american bands, but New Order, Duran Duran, Etc are not experimental raw like Ono - they are more glam, as Bowie taught well british to be. Bjork, easily to see Ono there, Kim Cathral from Sonic Youth experimental works, easy to see there, but what it gave to Ian Curtis, the prototype of punk death and New Wave raise?

MarkBastable

07-06-2011, 02:51 AM

You know, I'm not really a fan. I don't really like him or hate him.

I didn't ask whether you liked him. Though the following people like him enough to have covered his songs...

Linda Ronstadt
Johnny Cash
Darden Smith
Dusty Springfield
June Tabor
Chet Baker
Everything But The Girl
Ivette Oliveras
Alison Moyet
Bonnie Brett
Mary Coughlan
Curtis Stigers
Suzanne Vega
Ronnie Drew
Laura Cantrell
Al Stewart.....

I could go on, for several pages. The point, I think, is that whether or not you like Costello's work, a lot of musicians do - and, interestingly, not just New Wave musicians. The list above covers country, jazz, folk as well as mainstream pop. And the songs covered are taken from a career of four decades. He has worked with McCartney, Bacharach, Toussaint and the Brodsky Quartet, so one or two quite reputable people evidently think he's not too shabby a collaborator. And he's made about thirty albums - which an artist doesn't get to do for that long, unless someone's buying them, even if it's no one in your house.

However, as I say, I didn't ask whether you liked him. I asked whether you thought he was a good musician. And I asked because you said this....

No good musician would cite her [Ono] as an influence.

So I'm just trying to find out whether you hadn't thought it through, or whether you were just being provocative or whether, I suppose, you really believe it so strongly that, should you ever come across someone who does cite Ono, you immediately write them off as not being a good musician.

mortalterror

07-06-2011, 07:02 AM

I didn't ask whether you liked him. Though the following people like him enough to have covered his songs...

Linda Ronstadt
Johnny Cash
Darden Smith
Dusty Springfield
June Tabor
Chet Baker
Everything But The Girl
Ivette Oliveras
Alison Moyet
Bonnie Brett
Mary Coughlan
Curtis Stigers
Suzanne Vega
Ronnie Drew
Laura Cantrell
Al Stewart.....

I could go on, for several pages. The point, I think, is that whether or not you like Costello's work, a lot of musicians do - and, interestingly, not just New Wave musicians. The list above covers country, jazz, folk as well as mainstream pop. And the songs covered are taken from a career of four decades. He has worked with McCartney, Bacharach, Toussaint and the Brodsky Quartet, so one or two quite reputable people evidently think he's not too shabby a collaborator. And he's made about thirty albums - which an artist doesn't get to do for that long, unless someone's buying them, even if it's no one in your house.

However, as I say, I didn't ask whether you liked him. I asked whether you thought he was a good musician. And I asked because you said this....

So I'm just trying to find out whether you hadn't thought it through, or whether you were just being provocative or whether, I suppose, you really believe it so strongly that, should you ever come across someone who does cite Ono, you immediately write them off as not being a good musician.

Your six degrees of Kevin Bacon logic has swayed me. Johnny Cash once did a cover of an Elvis Costello song. Elvis Costello likes Yoko Ono. I like Johnny Cash, who as we all know is infallible (like the pope). Therefore, I now like Yoko Ono as well. She's a genius.

MarkBastable

07-06-2011, 07:09 AM

Your six degrees of Kevin Bacon logic has swayed me. Johnny Cash once did a cover of an Elvis Costello song. Elvis Costello likes Yoko Ono. I like Johnny Cash, who as we all know is infallible (like the pope). Therefore, I now like Yoko Ono as well. She's a genius.

I'm not suggesting you should like Ono. I don't like her much. I'm asking whether you stand by the assertion that no good musician would cite her.

Mutatis-Mutandis

07-06-2011, 08:58 AM

OrphanPip

07-06-2011, 09:32 AM

but what it gave to Ian Curtis, the prototype of punk death and New Wave raise?

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Ian Curtis and Joy Division were the prototype of New Wave. They were very influential on a branch of New Wave, especially the later bands to emerge, like The Cure. I don't see much Joy Division in the B-52s and Costello, or to get away from Ono, there is little Joy Division in the American New Wave bands like Blondie or the Talking Heads, who are more heavily influenced by disco.

JCamilo

07-06-2011, 10:42 AM

stlukesguild

07-06-2011, 12:05 PM

To compare Lennon to Beethoven and Mozart is not fair, one should compare him to other artists, like Schubert and his Lieder, or a Troubadour Poet and his work - the idea of genre must come in to play - Lennon is not comparable to Wagner, the same way a Totem poll is not particularly comparable to the Sistine Chapel. such differences of genre must be taken into account -

That has been my argument... but it seems all or nothing. John Lennon is a genius... thus he must be equal to Bach. Seriously I think he would pale beside Schubert as well considering just the scale of Schubert's lieder (songs) and the fact that they were fully orchestrated by the composer. But then you also have Schubert's symphonies, quartets, choral music, and other larger musical compositions. I do agree that one might imagine Lennon as standing alongside such composers of songs as Henri Duparc, Hugo Wolf, Johann Loew, the Troubadours, Gershwin, etc... But I guess some imagine that it is possible to compare the Totem Pole with the Sistine Chapel or the Buried Army of Emperor Qin.

mortalterror

07-06-2011, 03:29 PM

I'm not suggesting you should like Ono. I don't like her much. I'm asking whether you stand by the assertion that no good musician would cite her.

I'm sorry, you're wrong. I'm sorry you don't see you are wrong. I'm sorry you've never made the connection that bad artists sometimes come into contact with better artists, or that people can be bad artists and work for very long periods, or that someone somewhere will enjoy what they do, for whatever reason. I'm sorry that the music business continues to cannibalize itself with endless covers instead of writing new songs, or that they fill their albums with such filler only to push a single. I'm sorry that entertainment is such an incestuous business that you can marry somebody famous and that makes you famous. I'm sorry, but you've still proved nothing.

MarkBastable

07-06-2011, 03:43 PM

Yeah. I'm right, you're right. It's unreconciliable.

But the question is - do you stand by this...?

Originally Posted by mortalterror
No good musician would cite her [Ono] as an influence.

Whoever's right about who's good and not good, the quoted line is a very definitive statement. Do you stand by it? It's a simple yes-or-no answer.

mortalterror

07-06-2011, 05:24 PM

Whoever's right about who's good and not good, the quoted line is a very definitive statement. Do you stand by it? It's a simple yes-or-no answer.

I'm glad you brought that up. Now that I think about it, I should probably rephrase that. Obviously, Yoko Ono had an impact on the career of John Lennon, if not the rest of the Beatles, so a terrible artist can effect a great artist. My assumption was based on the hypothesis that in order to create good art one must first be able to tell the difference between good art and bad. Thus, only good artists would influence other good artists, but now I see that reasoning is flawed. In a world were good men are corrupted, and wise men mislead, my assumption must necessarily be foolish. However, I will stand by my original premise that Yoko Ono is a terrible musician, and furthermore I'll suggest that if she has had an impact no doubt it was a negative one, though at this point it's not fair to say that she has had no impact.

For instance, here's an example of Yoko Ono influencing the Beatles recording their album Let It Be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYqCpvzXGTE

MarkBastable

07-06-2011, 06:11 PM

So - 'no'.

Thank you.

mortalterror

07-06-2011, 06:31 PM

So - 'no'.

Thank you.

No problem. But why is it so important for you to prove that Yoko Ono has some kind of influence?

MarkBastable

07-06-2011, 06:42 PM

No problem. But why is it so important for you to prove that Yoko Ono has some kind of influence?

It's not. And I don't think I've proved anything of the sort.

But for me it's important to pursue the logic of ill-considered and unsupportable statements in debate because that kind of thing undermines the credibility of the discussion.

I don't know why you didn't just say, "Yeah, that was a sweeping generalisation made in a moment of exasperated irritation. Forget it."

OrphanPip

07-09-2011, 12:46 AM

That because it is a strech calling a punk band turned disco like Blondie or Talking Heads , both bands playing way before the term new wave was used on CGBC. The New Wave was a term for the punk 76 generation, kind of the after Pistols and Clash. It only became a separate genre, with proper traits after the 80, basically with the New Order softned adaptation of what was left from Joy Division. Costello could suit there as part of the past 1976, albeit he wasn't part exactly of the punk scene; But B-52's? Surf music, dancing mixs, they are called post-punk not by any style or anything close of it. It is more a back-tracking designation, because B-52's does not suits to much labels.

The B-52s were definitely New Wave though, they performed at New Wave festivals, and toured with New Wave acts. They were a major part of the scene in the US along with the Talking Heads. New Wave covers any of the rock bands that grew out of punk rock to incorporate earlier pop and experimental forms. The B-52s incorporate surf and dance music, while others like the Talking Heads took up elements of disco, they're both part of the same aesthetic movement. It certainly became more homogenized in the mid 80s, but that doesn't mean the earlier bands aren't part of the movement.

And Cure, which is more a gothic band than new wave, is as older or more than Joy Division. That is why you see little on them, albeit they share the dark themes and vocals and of course, their music is punk with softned dancing tunes.

The Cure are definitely punk influenced, and that incorporation of dance and pop aesthetics is what characterizes them as a new wave band. Though they of course give birth to goth music later on. Their early albums are very punk, while their mid-80s stuff starts moving towards what became characteristic of the mellow sound of new wave during that time.

Like I said, I can see Ono is many singers, but a major influence on New Wave? The guy in your avatar is a major influence of New Wave. And altough it is only a matter of geography, she is not a great influence either like Frank Zappa is and well, Frank Zappa or Cage are much more interesting that her on Sonic Youth or Flamming Lips. But how did Ono entered here anyways?

She was an influence on some prominent New Wave bands, that makes her an influence on New Wave. I'd agree lots of people are way more interesting than Ono, but that's not really important. You don't have to be the greatest thing ever not to be dismissed as mere garbage.

Just something: that a band made a cover of another musician does not imply they share major influences. Not saying it is the case here, but reallt, Sonic Youth has covers of Madonna, Metallica of Nick Cave, Ramones played Spiderman cartoon tune, Oh, Eillein music (forgot who did it) was recorded for a bunch of bands, Faith No More recorded Lokomia, etc.

No, but Sonic Youth's use of voice piece for soprano is done sincerely. And even last year Sonic Youth joined Ono for a benefit concert for Japan in New York. Sonic Youth has not just covered Ono, but maintained a professional relationship with her.

MarkBastable

07-09-2011, 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by JCamilo
And Cure, which is more a gothic band than new wave, is as older or more than Joy Division. That is why you see little on them, albeit they share the dark themes and vocals and of course, their music is punk with softned dancing tunes.

This is factually incorrect, JC. Both bands were formed in 1976. Joy Division's first EP was released in 1978, though both the Cure and Joy Division released their debut albums in 1979 (Three Imaginary Boys and Unknown Pleasures respectively).

Although both emerged from the punk era,I agree that it's hard to call either of them punk bands - neither group often displays the approaches that characterise punk, to wit: speed, volume, shouty vocals, lack of reflection and (somewhat contrived) contempt for anything that came before.

Then again, The Cure aren't goth either. There's more to goth than eye-liner. Or possibly less. I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'you see little on them'. Certainly they're still out there and popular. They are headling the Isle of Wight Festival this year, and they sold out the Sydney Opera House for two or three nights on the trot.

Ian Curtis, on the other hand, has done nothing useful since the Eighties. Just lazy.

JCamilo

07-09-2011, 08:57 AM

Pip said he didnt saw much of Ian Curtis on Cure, that is why I am talking you do not see much on them, It is you do not see much of Joy DIvision on Cure. Albeit we can always find something (the obvious turn from punk agressivity to nihilism).

Maybe i have written wrongly, when i said "as older" I wanted to mean they have similar age (albeit, the members of Cure were already roadies, etc. before joining a band, similar to Siouxie), and I would not call them punk, I call them Gothic because them alongside Bauhaus, Siouxies, Sisters of Mercy were the original Gothic bands. Maybe you are thinking of eletronic gothic bands that are usual today, more metal-based like Type-O- Negative?

Pip:

Not all that was post-punk and pop was New Wave. The term i repeat was used to punk bands of a second generation in england such, to make a difference from Clash and Sex Pistols. Only the 80's the term started to be used as a general reference to bands that split from Punk to a more pop, soft, dacing style which New Order is a major example. Reggae blow as as post punk rock style, disco, gothic, indie, hardcore, even Bruce Springstein... Calling all of those new wave just for being post-punk and pop is like i saying all that happened after hippie movement was Punk.

The B-52 was only labeled as new wave for commercial convinience. They are not part of the brithsh post-punk generation, neither really a part of New York Punk movement.

And They have little to do with Talking Heads, with a back past on CGBC, direct influence from that scene and the intellectualism of factory and some people like patti smith and other underground music from 60's and early 70's. Soon, you will include them among new waves, as you are doing with Disco punk band Blondie, which existed before the term...

As Yoko and Sonic, as I said, I can see Yoko Ono on them. But again, Ono is a bit more than a singer, she carries some of Lennon ideals and is without doubt some kind of cultural icon.