Elliott Smith (duh)
Jeff Buckley
the two-headed beast of Lennon-McCartney
Marvin Gaye
Miles Davis
Billy Cobham
Max Roach
Wynton Marsalis
Charlie Parker
Duke Ellington
Gerry Mulligan
Coltrane
Buddy Guy
damn, i can go on forever with jazz musicians
back to non-jazz...
robert johnson
Muddy Waters
Jimi Hendrix
Bob Dylan
Woody Guthrie
Leadbelly
Pete Seeger
Jack Elliott
Dave Van Ronk
now i'll let you kids download some of those and listen before i go on.
I wouldn't put Mick Jagger on my list just because he didn't do any of the arranging of his music, same with Michael Jackson. Sting and Phil Collins just don't look right next to Dylan, Clapton and Wonder.
Springsteen seems to me like an electrified version of Woody Guthrie's populism.
And Bono, while he has made some good music, he has also made some of the most god-awful power balladish sing-along songs ever.
PS: It's Jimi Hendrix.
Ok, Jimi Hendrix now.
Mick Jagger is the co-writer of all the rolling stones songs with Keith Richards. And Mehawhile Michael Jackson doesnt writte any of his songs, he is a genious in another terms. A genius isnt only the one who write great songs, there can be genious dancing and siging , like Jackson.
Springteen , sting and Phil Collins are great singers and very complete musicians.
Bono kick ass. His voice an leadership are great.
Mick Jager has nothing to do with the music, he doesn't do much with the music; just because they get hte co-writing credit doesn't necessarily mean that they actually wrote the song (we all know that Lennon had nothing ot do with "Yesterday" or any of McCartney's songs on The White Album and vice versa).
Michael Jackson can sing very well - but that doesn't make him a genius. It makes him talented. Just because Carl Lewis has the God-given ability to run doesn't make him a 'track and field genius'.
Springsteen is very derivative. To me, a genius needs to come up with new things. That's just me, though. I like originality in music.
And Sting and Phil Collins both just annoy be on a personal level. Same with Bono.
But seriously...how can you put Bono and forgot about Robert Johnson...Phil Collins instead of Leadbelly...Mick Jagger instead of John Lee Hooker...
First of all, that of all is bullshit and crap because we are talking about personal tastes. Questioning the lists by another people only by personal tastes or because we dont like those artists is stupid. I could critize another people lists because i dont like many people of those lists, but they like them and they think that they are genious, fine. No problem at all.
Second point, to post that only the people who could writte great songs could be musical genious is pretty idiotic. What happens with another fields? Nobody could be genious playing guitar or bass or drums, or singing or dancing? That is retarded. There can be genious in his own fields. And a very, extremely talented person is a genious. Singing, dancing, writting songs, playing an instrument, etc.
And How do you know that Mick Jagger never wrote any of the rolling stones songs? Yeah, Lennon diddnt too much in yesterday or let it be or another paul songs, but he wrote another songs. If Jagger is acredited as co-writter, it means that he wrote some songs. The opposite is non sense.
And another thing, i cant post all the musical genious in music story because one only post is too little to that. I can only post some ones.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Second point, to post that only the people who could writte great songs could be musical genious is pretty idiotic. What happens with another fields? Nobody could be genious playing guitar or bass or drums, or singing or dancing? That is retarded. There can be genious in his own fields. And a very, extremely talented person is a genious. Singing, dancing, writting songs, playing an instrument, etc.
In my defense..
I don't think any singer is a genius, especially if he doesn't write his own tunes.
A very talented person, by definition, is NOT a genius in the traditional sense, because singing, isn't an intellectual or creative power by any means. That can't be measured, songwriting can, and POSSIBLY dancing, although that's just creativity, not so much ingenuity.
I'm a talented debater, but the only sense that I may be a genius in is selecting my words, which is an aptitude.
Lets see, i think that you are confusing the term "genious" with someone extremely intelligent or intelectual gifted, that is the general term, the general definition. But in music, like in cinema or another arts, that term is different, it have a very different concept in those fields. I considered people like robert de niro,marlon brando, al pacino or dustin hoffman genious. In their artistic fields. Genious acting. And they dont write scripts. In those arts there can be genious acting or singing or dancing or playing an instrument or directing a movie. The term of genious is very diferent in the arts fields, not only about intelectual abilities.
comparing movies to music is dumb; a true genius in music can write music, lyrics and singing is just a plus. Christina Aguilera is not a genius because she has a great voice.
In your acting analogy, de niro, brando, pacino, etc are multitalented - to say they can act well doesn't tell the whole story.
As for the co-writing thing, thell that to the many people who have their names on the credits just to get a higher share of royalties; do you really think that radiohead still has all its members write their music? No. Thom Yorke writes everything but they still have all their names on the music. It doesn't mean that they actually wrote it, and we all know that.
I think that singing is an ability, a talent, and a great one - but placed alone it doesn't justify 'genius' status. Like I said, would you consider Christina Aguilera a genius because of her singing ability? She has a great voice. What about all these boy bands? What differentiates them as performers from Michael Jackson? The music, and lyrics - which he doesn't have anything to do with.
Nope, i desagree. First, music and cinema are arts, they are related in one or another way. If you think in it, all the actors have singed in a movie in one or another moment, or almost all or many of them. And a singer in scene or in a music video is like an actor, he sings his song like playing a character , in one or another way. Its some kind of performance or acting. Their gestures, posses, etc. For that , they are related in one or another way.
And i think that there can be genious in their own fields. Singing or dancing or writting songs, etc.Not only the multitalented could be considered genious, there can be genious in one only field too.
Shall we not turn it into a discussion of what 'genius' means?
If people just give reasons for their choices there is no need for the philosophical asides.
Some that I would cite are Hendrix, for being the most creative and innovative guitarist there has ever been; Prince, for mastering just about every aspect of music there is; Mike Patton, needs no explanation.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Shall we not turn it into a discussion of what 'genius' means?If people just give reasons for their choices there is no need for the philosophical asides.
Yes, there is, because nobody knows the true definition and how it applies to music. Too many people are stepping over the line that seperates ingenuity and genius, because of it.
Besides that, hardly anyone's giving any reasoning that makes any sense, especially this "all actors have sung" and "musicians are actors" bullshit.
There's no need to break things down so literally, but we've resorted to it because nobody knows what their talking about essentially.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Lets see, i think that you are confusing the term "genious" with someone extremely intelligent or intelectual gifted, that is the general term, the general definition. But in music, like in cinema or another arts, that term is different, it have a very different concept in those fields. I considered people like robert de niro,marlon brando, al pacino or dustin hoffman genious. In their artistic fields. Genious acting. And they dont write scripts. In those arts there can be genious acting or singing or dancing or playing an instrument or directing a movie. The term of genious is very diferent in the arts fields, not only about intelectual abilities.
...and I think you're the one confusing the two. You think Michael Jackson is a "genius dancer". There is no such thing. He may be ingenuitive, but dancing isn't something that can be a work of genius, period.
Genius doesn't belong in singing, because it's just a talent, there's nothing in executing notes vocally that would stand to be a genius work.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Nope, i desagree. First, music and cinema are arts, they are related in one or another way. If you think in it, all the actors have singed in a movie in one or another moment, or almost all or many of them. And a singer in scene or in a music video is like an actor, he sings his song like playing a character , in one or another way. Its some kind of performance or acting. Their gestures, posses, etc. For that , they are related in one or another way.And i think that there can be genious in their own fields. Singing or dancing or writting songs, etc.Not only the multitalented could be considered genious, there can be genious in one only field too.
WHAT? Every actor has sung once in their life in a movie, and singers are actors? You're way, way off on your backwards reasoning, man. Again, singers alone are NOT intellectual geniuses, which is what the term is rooted in, mental prowess.