Jump to content

How do you define genius , as it pertains to jazz?


Dmitry

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I feel like genius -- such as it exists -- necessitates that someone is able to pull together concepts from a variety of experiences and is able to create and organize on terms that go beyond the single dimension of artistic output. In other words, a musical genius could very easily transliterate their creations into other fields, and those connections should be easy to see. 

In this music I think of Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, Charles Mingus, Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, Bill Dixon, Misha Mengelberg, Bengt Nordström, François Tusques, Derek Bailey, Evan Parker, John Stevens, Tony Oxley, Anthony Braxton, Roscoe Mitchell...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. What's a genius? For me it's Eric Dolphy, because he took the freedom to express himself in his own way, like Mingus did with his opinions on politics. Don't forget his compositions.

 Bird, because he changed the jazz, searching new ways.....The same for Trane and Ornette. To name a few.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a genius is someone who plays what sounds like a new solution to a problem, a fresh, new approach, that is instantly recognizable as "the next step forward."  It is truly bound up in the person - it is not "inevitable," and perhaps would not exist if that person had not come along.  Thelonious Monk is a good example - he put forward a new approach that others could use in their own playing.  Coltrane, too, in the way he led the power approach to playing.

Some caveats:

Genius is not eternal.  It erupts, maintains for a few years, then declines.

Genius has to be useful and enjoyable.  Many people are labeled geniuses who are just annoying.  On the classical side, Harry Partch comes to mind.  On a parallel note, mental illness should not be confused with genius.  

Some jazz musicians/composers/arrangers who I would consider geniuses: Lester Young, Fletcher Henderson, Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Bud Powell, Jimmy Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I might say that "genius" involves taking a premise that the general population does not even recognize as possible and then not only creating it, but proving it to be valid, not necessarily immediately, but eventually.

Past genius there is genius as evolution, don't just prove the premise but develop it, evolve it. "1" is pretty much meaningless unless/until there becomes "2". If 1 & 2 follow from the same source, so much the better.

I guess you can have genius without creativity, there are plenty of people who don't exhibit the geius of creativity, but do have the genius of taste...perhaps that's "art". Genius and "art" are, like, two circles of a Venn diagram, they only sometimes interest. Same thing with "skill", sometimes, not always, although a skill that is specific to a particular genius/art and none other should be appreciated for its uniqueness, which may or may not involve genius and/or art.

My personal geniuses....Bach, Beethoven. Pops. Bird/Bud. Ornette. James Brown. Phil Spector. Warne Marsh. Prez. Cecil. Sonny. Elvin. Duke. Firesign Theatre. There's more, but not that many more. "Genius" is a word that's like "awesome". 99% of what it's applied to is not really that. Most of it is skills and work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think any genius is someone who has an original idea.  Einstein is considered a genius because he thought of his theory of relativity before anyone else did.

So in jazz, I think a good example would be A Love Supreme.  That is not a favorite of mine, but it is unlike what came before it, so it is a work of genius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are different kinds. One kind tells us things we already knew but didn't know we knew - or as Richard Gilman said, this kind of genius "tells us the next thing we will be thinking." Like Bird, Beckett. Prince. Miles. 

Another just has visions which they are able to express, and that describe new relationships between existing forms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend toward GA Russell's idea, so I differentiate between "brilliance" and "genius." Brilliant musicians excel and do original things within a context. For me, Prez was brilliant, but not necessarily a genius. A genius does something truly original, something that hasn't been done before. I don't think there have been many of those: Armstrong, Ellington, Mingus, Coltrane, and yes, Miles. Maybe Monk.

 

 

gregmo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gmonahan said:

I tend toward GA Russell's idea, so I differentiate between "brilliance" and "genius." Brilliant musicians excel and do original things within a context. For me, Prez was brilliant, but not necessarily a genius. A genius does something truly original, something that hasn't been done before. I don't think there have been many of those: Armstrong, Ellington, Mingus, Coltrane, and yes, Miles. Maybe Monk.

 

 

gregmo

"A genius does something truly original, something that hasn't been done before" = Pres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh geez, I left out Monk. By any standard, Monk. And not just "Genius Of Modern Music" genius. real genius, created a reality that becomes more true as time goes by, Alpha and Omega, Monk's music is.

2 hours ago, paul secor said:

I'll let MacArthur folks decide who's a genius and who's not. I'm happy just listening to the music.

They'll decide who gets money, that's about it. Time will decide who's a genius and for how long.

MacArthurReturnsLeaf.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mjzee said:

I think a genius is someone who plays what sounds like a new solution to a problem, a fresh, new approach, that is instantly recognizable as "the next step forward."  It is truly bound up in the person - it is not "inevitable," and perhaps would not exist if that person had not come along.  Thelonious Monk is a good example - he put forward a new approach that others could use in their own playing.  Coltrane, too, in the way he led the power approach to playing.

Some caveats:

Genius is not eternal.  It erupts, maintains for a few years, then declines.

Genius has to be useful and enjoyable.  Many people are labeled geniuses who are just annoying.  On the classical side, Harry Partch comes to mind.  On a parallel note, mental illness should not be confused with genius.  Some jazz musicians/composers/arrangers who I would consider geniuses: Lester Young, Fletcher Henderson, Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Bud Powell, Jimmy Smith.

I like a lot of what's in this post, particularly Genius has to be useful and enjoyable.  Which seems to me to make the issue Jim Sangrey raised, of who's deciding who gets paid irrelevant. If it IS indeed useful and enjoyable, the creator will get paid. Armstrong, Ellington, Hawk, Bird never had any trouble getting paid good money. I doubt if Ornette or Monk did either.

At the same time, however, so much of what everyone has been saying is predicated on the notion that progress is what it's all about. This is a local problem confined to the western world. Except insofar as it's been influenced by the west, the rest of the world doesn't give a toss about progress; in fact they'd greatly prefer things NOT to change. And you can include in the non-west, all those in the west who 'don't know anything about art, just know what they like'. And so the question arises; by what standards do we who are pronouncing on this consider our opinions to be better than those of the other group?

Now, if you're, like me, playing on the OTHER team, you'd pick a different bunch entirely; Gene Ammons, Sonny Criss, Wild Bill Davis, Jaws, George Freeman, Ike Quebec etc etc.

MG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...