|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 27, 2011 15:44:30 GMT -5
Yes,
|
|
|
Post by Jason I on Jun 27, 2011 15:59:42 GMT -5
Hello, you're having fun today aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by Jason I on Jun 27, 2011 16:03:46 GMT -5
I guess it depends how one defines genius? I've always loved this quote though. This is how John would answer your question during the RS interview:
"Yes, if there is such a thing as one, I am one. When did you realize that what you were doing transcended -- People like me are aware of their so-called genius at ten, eight, nine. . . . I always wondered, ``Why has nobody discovered me?'' In school, didn't they see that I'm cleverer than anybody in this school? That the teachers are stupid, too? That all they had was information that I didn't need? I got fuckin' lost in being at high school. I used to say to me auntie, ``You throw my fuckin' poetry out, and you'll regret it when I'm famous, '' and she threw the bastard stuff out. I never forgave her for not treating me like a fuckin' genius or whatever I was, when I was a child. It was obvious to me. Why didn't they put me in art school? Why didn't they train me? Why would they keep forcing me to be a fuckin' cowboy like the rest of them? I was different, I was always different. Why didn't anybody notice me? A couple of teachers would notice me, encourage me to be something or other, to draw or to paint - express myself. But most of the time they were trying to beat me into being a fuckin' dentist or a teacher. And then the fuckin' fans tried to beat me into being a fuckin' Beatle or an Engelbert Humperdinck, and the critics tried to beat me into being Paul McCartney" - JL
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 27, 2011 17:13:26 GMT -5
Hello, you're having fun today aren't you? Ya gotta take your kicks where you find em.
|
|
|
Post by theman on Jun 27, 2011 17:28:17 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but it really bugs me when someone, anyone, puts down teachers. Sorry John, but teachers were there for the entire class, not just for YOU! You know, John could really be a whinny little boy.
By the way, I get it that not all teachers are good at what they do. Ah, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 27, 2011 19:13:25 GMT -5
I'll bite.
I say, "No." I also say that McCartney is not a genius, either. Both of them undoubtedly had/have gifts and, by an amazing quirk of fate, those gifts exactly complemented each other for the duration of a specific period of time. And, during that period, the composite Lennon/McCartney (as augmented by Harrison/Starr in the studio) WAS a genius, a kind of composite genius. But, as individuals, no, neither of them was a genius.
|
|
|
Post by theman on Jun 27, 2011 19:23:57 GMT -5
According to Dictionary.com: gen·ius /ˈdʒinyəs/ Show Spelled [jeen-yuhs] Show IPA –noun, plural gen·ius·es for 2, 3, 8, gen·i·i /ˈdʒiniˌaɪ/ show+spelled">Show Spelled [jee-nee-ahy] Show IPA for 6, 7, 9. 1. an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius of Mozart. 2. a person having such capacity. 3. a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a psychological test, as an iq above 140. Based on definition #1, I'd say both Paul and John are/were geniuses. Now, if we just based our decision on #3, I might have to change my vote .
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jun 27, 2011 20:18:22 GMT -5
Hello, you're having fun today aren't you? Ya gotta take your kicks where you find em. "Kicks just keep gettin' harder to find...." Sorry - couldn't resist. ;D Oh yes! The question! Was John a genius? I heard a critic put it that John was an erratic genius - some of his songs are masterpieces - others .....not so much ( eg, Revolution #9, Two Virgins, etc. IMO)
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 27, 2011 20:44:48 GMT -5
The older I get, the less I believe in individual genius. I used to think certain people were gifted uniquely. Now, I think any one person's gifts reflect the culture, the age, the zeitgeist, the collaborators, the giants on whose shoulders one stands, etc., etc.
I can't really answer the question "Was he a genius?" because I don't think I believe in genius.
I'll say this: he was a very talented songwriter and vocalist.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 27, 2011 22:19:25 GMT -5
. . . I don't think I believe in genius . . . I agree with you. Just like the term "race," I don't think "genius" really exists. It is often determined by gender, culture, and context. It's interesting that "mensa" in Spanish means "dumb."
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 27, 2011 22:24:05 GMT -5
I use to always think that Steely Dan was referencing John when they sang in Reeling in the Years, "You been tellin' me you're a genius Since you were seventeen In all the time I've known you I still don't know what you mean The weekend at the college Didn't turn out like you planned The things that pass for knowledge I can't understand"
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 27, 2011 22:53:49 GMT -5
The older I get, the less I believe in individual genius. I used to think certain people were gifted uniquely. Now, I think any one person's gifts reflect the culture, the age, the zeitgeist, the collaborators, the giants on whose shoulders one stands, etc., etc. I can't really answer the question "Was he a genius?" because I don't think I believe in genius. I'll say this: he was a very talented songwriter and vocalist. I quite agree with your comment when it comes to music. Can anyone whose talents lie in subjective art forms ever be labeled a genius? Music is always subject to the ear of the beholder. I think of the word as more useful in the context of objective professions like science and math. But if you had asked John when he was alive, he would have been happy to tell you he was definitely a genius. He felt that way going all the way back to school days.
|
|
|
Post by Jason I on Jun 28, 2011 2:07:53 GMT -5
There's a cool little interview I have somewhere of George in the mid 80's, that came to mind just reading this thread now. He talks about the supposed hurt to John for omitting him in 'I Me Mine', then (to paraphrase, from memory) he says:
"But I have the upmost respect for John. He was kind of a genius really"
For someone like George, who was subtle with praise for anyone other then Dylan, this was an interesting answer.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 28, 2011 7:32:50 GMT -5
But if you had asked John when he was alive, he would have been happy to tell you he was definitely a genius. He felt that way going all the way back to school days. But John said things like "IF there's such a thing as a genius..." and "so-called". I know exactly how he feels. I felt the same way all through my youth, and in some ways today! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 28, 2011 7:36:35 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but it really bugs me when someone, anyone, puts down teachers. Sorry John, but teachers were there for the entire class, not just for YOU! You know, John could really be a whinny little boy. But that's just his point. Maybe the teachers were great for all the other kids, but a "genius" feels he's way ahead of them, more clever, even smarter in some ways. He feels like he's got something special, and in John's case he did go on to reveal it to the world.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 28, 2011 8:37:16 GMT -5
Would John have still been a genius if he never made it and became a stevedore or something?
If a genius, would we have seen it if someone other than George Martin had been working with him or without Paul or Dylan pushing him?
|
|
|
Post by Jason I on Jun 28, 2011 12:54:53 GMT -5
Would John have still been a genius if he never made it and became a stevedore or something? If a genius, would we have seen it if someone other than George Martin had been working with him or without Paul or Dylan pushing him? That's the thing I guess, even a genius would need a bit of luck to make it.
|
|
|
Post by Jason I on Jun 28, 2011 12:58:57 GMT -5
One question to be asked here, is, would you class anyone as a genius who essentially worked in the pop field?
Personally I would, but I know many would scoff at this and only accept those in the classical field as true musical geniuses.
Someone to me who is definitly a genius is Stevie Wonder. Aside from his obvious handicap, to get signed at the age of 11 to Motown tells its own story. But the ease with which he picked up instruments (really, if you haven't seen him playing drums, it is truly a sight to behold) is staggering to me.
Then not to mention him writing and producing great songs, songs with terrific melody AND lyrics. To quote some R&B guy I've forgotten the name of, when talking about his lyrics said this: "He sees things that people with sight don't see".
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 28, 2011 14:16:35 GMT -5
Hmmmm.
Who are we comparing John to?
He was not as clever as an Einstein nor as witty as Oscar Wilde (although at time he came close). He was hardly a great musician either. His compositions are generally 2 or 3 minutes of pop music. None of these things taken separately really make him a genius. But he had the ability to touch people's lives. The timing of his rise to fame in the early 60s was also a catalyst to his popularity. Any earlier and global exposure was severely limited (along with the technology to produce top quality pop music). Any later and someone else may have stolen the Beatles place at the top of the popular culture tree.
I'd have to say no looking at that analysis. But then I think of songs like "In My Life" and "Strawberry Fields Forever". The first marking a very reflective moment for such a young man wonderfully put to music and the second being such a strange piece of music for a pop song of the time that still works today. Or was some of it George Martin's ability to translate John's ideas into music?
Maybe it was all chance meetings and timing that shaped the John Lennon we all love and miss. But he could go against the grain and make things happen couldn't he? Does that make him a genius? I still don't know.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 28, 2011 14:23:11 GMT -5
One question to be asked here, is, would you class anyone as a genius who essentially worked in the pop field? Personally I would, but I know many would scoff at this and only accept those in the classical field as true musical geniuses.. I guess "genius" is one of those loaded words. It no doubt means many different things to many different people. I think a person can be a genius in any field. I consider Michael Jordan a genius at basketball. Bill Clinton was a genius at retail politics. Lennon was such a rare and exceptional talent in the music field. And quite brilliant in many other artistic mediums. He could hit notes that almost nobody could hit. Touch nerves. Express the most ethereal emotions in concrete form. And communicate it to millions. Its probably why people are still talking about him 30 years after his death. And for a long time after this, too.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 28, 2011 15:44:45 GMT -5
. . . His compositions are generally 2 or 3 minutes of pop music . . . That's part of the point I was making earlier about the context of "genius." Why should a person who writes haiku be considered less a genius than Shakespeare?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Jun 28, 2011 16:35:29 GMT -5
I agree with TheMan's analysis. John Lennon was an artistic genius; so is Paul McCartney.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 29, 2011 7:48:29 GMT -5
I guess "genius" is one of those loaded words. It no doubt means many different things to many different people. I think the matter gets settled once we read the dictionary's definitions of the word "genius". If someone fits one or all possible definitions, then he may be considered a "genius". In John's case, he does fit the definition. Thanks to theman for supplying the definition.
|
|
|
Post by secretfriend on Jun 29, 2011 17:22:59 GMT -5
"Genius is Pain"
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 12, 2011 16:28:42 GMT -5
Let's get into it at the Etymological level (forget colloquial Dictionaries!):
genius late 14c., "tutelary god (classical or pagan)," from L. genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent;" also "prophetic skill," originally "generative power," from root of gignere "beget, produce" (see kin), from PIE base *gen- "produce." Sense of "characteristic disposition" is from 1580s. Meaning "person of natural intelligence or talent" and that of "natural ability" are first recorded 1640s.
So, from the 1640s or so, people used "genius" to mean someone of natural (not learned or studied) intelligence or talent. It seems that only much later -- maybe in the last hundred years? -- did it take on this contemporary idea of being uber-exceptional in some area.
Did John have a guardian spirit watching over him from birth?
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 29, 2011 12:27:59 GMT -5
. . . I don't think I believe in genius . . . I agree with you. Just like the term "race," I don't think "genius" really exists. It is often determined by gender, culture, and context. It's interesting that "mensa" in Spanish means "dumb." Genius means a person who has an extraordinary talent as compared to an average person. How can you say it doesn't exist? You seem to have an overblown defintion of the word.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 31, 2011 1:56:31 GMT -5
RTP, I don't think it's the colloquial usage or the etymological "definition" of the word that we're disagreeing with. What we're disagreeing with is the concept of the "genius" working alone. I just don't think that really happens. Everyone who does something exceptional is doing it in a network of people and is standing on the shoulders of giants. (Yes, this includes his Holiness Paul McCartney.)
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 31, 2011 11:31:46 GMT -5
Genius means a person who has an extraordinary talent as compared to an average person. How can you say it doesn't exist? You seem to have an overblown defintion of the word. Because "genius" is a label. Yes, there are people who do things exceptionally better that other people. But, in American culture, why are few women, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans called genius - even when they do something exceptionally better than anyone else? We throw out the word genius to all the little child prodigies, but as soon as they turn 18 they cease to be called that? Let's look at the art world. Look at all the "geniuses." All men. Were there no great female artists? How about this. Did Mozart do what he did better than what Jack Nicholson does what he does? I haven't heard Jack called a genius. I have never even heard Clapton called a genius. Certainly he does something better than the average person. Look at all the African influence in Picasso's work. He's the genius, but the African artisan is not? Genius, like fame, is bestowed. As long as the label is inconsistently granted to people, it will always be ultimately a meaningless term. And, finally, why is a "genius" at anything held above everyone else? I bet Shakespeare, Hendrix, Einstein, or Ballentine couldn't do my job as well as I do it. In fact, I think I do it really well. Guess that makes me a genius.
|
|