or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › American Geniuses
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

American Geniuses - Page 6

post #76 of 92
You've done a nice job of dancing around what I've said. The problem is, though, that I have done nothing to prove your point and you refuse to explain why you think rock musicians have done nothing to change music.

The fact that you are adamant that the idea of natural constancy is applicabe to things that are purely subjective is problematic. For example, take one of the most fundamental things to music: scale. If constancy applied here, there'd be a universal scale, but there isn't. The traditional Chinese musical scale has ten steps per octave, while the Western has twelve. And there are others.

Basic aesthetic concepts have been around forever, far longer than Mozart or Shakespeare. What IS new is how they are applied, which is why when new genres arise new applications and combinations may be considered genius. Mozart and Shakespeare didn't do anything that hadn't been done since our brains were this size, they just did those things within new genres.
post #77 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher View Post

The fact that you are adamant that the idea of natural constancy is applicabe to things that are purely subjective is problematic. For example, take one of the most fundamental things to music: scale. If constancy applied here, there'd be a universal scale, but there isn't. The traditional Chinese musical scale has ten steps per octave, while the Western has twelve. And there are others.

What you're saying here is that mathematics and science are subjective because an inch is different from a centimeter.
post #78 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

You're right, I don't. It's just a facade for something else (that something else depends on the subject).
You helped to demonstrate my point of (a) when you responded to it, and (b) I can't think of any rock musician off the top of my head that made any significant advances in music (that doesn't mean I don't enjoy listening to it, though, and I think a lot of people ridiculing my argument aren't doing so on its merits but rather that they feel their preferences are being belittled).

Are you saying that to be called 'genius', you have to have advanced your field?

How do you feel about Bob Dylan re: folk music in this case?
post #79 of 92
What why is trying to say is that only those who work in a field where accomplishment can be measured by TRUE or FALSE, 1 or 0, are eligible for genius status.

I propose that those scientists who step away from the lab and opine on other subjects, with the expectation that the public should consider it more than lay opinion of an average joe, should have their genius points reduced. Pauling, Oppenheimer, Einstein, for starters.
post #80 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas View Post

Are you saying that to be called 'genius', you have to have advanced your field?
How do you feel about Bob Dylan re: folk music in this case?

He's a fun entertainer at times (mostly around those Times that Were A-changin'). Most of his stuff was musically taken from other artists or well-established principles

In his autobiography there's something about his change to a blues sound for his later albums (after his voice was damaged from constant touring) was after he walked into a blues bar and noticed how they were singing. He changed the instrumentals to accompany the change in vocals and writes that it allows for more varied sound because 'it has to do with numbers or something' (not a direct quote).
post #81 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas View Post

Are you saying that to be called 'genius', you have to have advanced your field?
How do you feel about Bob Dylan re: folk music in this case?

I think of Dylan as a literary artist, in an oral tradition like Homer. I think his body of work is certainly canonical, as much as Twain or Whitman or Fitzgerald.
post #82 of 92
Thread Starter 
Do you guys think there are any cinematic geniuses, individuals who have created masterpieces that are to be known and studied for centuries to come?
post #83 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by HORNS View Post

Do you guys think there are any cinematic geniuses, individuals who have created masterpieces that are to be known and studied for centuries to come?

Cassavetes
post #84 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

He's a fun entertainer at times (mostly around those Times that Were A-changin'). Most of his stuff was musically taken from other artists or well-established principles
In his autobiography there's something about his change to a blues sound for his later albums (after his voice was damaged from constant touring) was after he walked into a blues bar and noticed how they were singing. He changed the instrumentals to accompany the change in vocals and writes that it allows for more varied sound because 'it has to do with numbers or something' (not a direct quote).

This summary must be from a 2 minute visit to Wiki.
post #85 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HORNS View Post

Do you guys think there are any cinematic geniuses, individuals who have created masterpieces that are to be known and studied for centuries to come?

Cassavetes

Really? I just read up on him and embarrassingly know nothing about him.
post #86 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by HORNS View Post

Do you guys think there are any cinematic geniuses, individuals who have created masterpieces that are to be known and studied for centuries to come?

Jim Henson. Steven Spielberg. James Cameron. Stanley Kubrick.
post #87 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambo View Post

Stanley Kubrick.

That is who pops into my head but still doesn't belong in the pantheon of great artists. Maybe.
post #88 of 92
i think what this thread lacks, and what may be behind some of the disagreement here, is to adress the difference between genius and talent. are they the same or are they different? is supremely creative talent the same as intellectual genius? is artistic genius the same as intellectual genius?

lebron james is certainly talented beyond what almost anyone else can achieve despite any amount of effort, but does that make him a genius? red auerbach was a motivator, coach and strategist extraordinaire, but within the realm of basketball, not science or economics. do either of these talents qualify these people as geniuses? the same can be said for musicians. hendrix was no doubt talented on a level beyond that of 99% of others. but for all i know he didnt know simple geometry. is he a genius?

i dont know the answer to these questions, and maybe there is no answer, its all very subjective in my opinion. but i think they are important questions to ask within the context of this conversation.
post #89 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

i think what this thread lacks, and what may be behind some of the disagreement here, is to adress the difference between genius and talent. are they the same or are they different? is supremely creative talent the same as intellectual genius? is artistic genius the same as intellectual genius?
lebron james is certainly talented beyond what almost anyone else can achieve despite any amount of effort, but does that make him a genius? red auerbach was a motivator, coach and strategist extraordinaire, but within the realm of basketball, not science or economics. do either of these talents qualify these people as geniuses? the same can be said for musicians. hendrix was no doubt talented on a level beyond that of 99% of others. but for all i know he didnt know simple geometry. is he a genius?
i dont know the answer to these questions, and maybe there is no answer, its all very subjective in my opinion. but i think they are important questions to ask within the context of this conversation.

in stitches is a genius.
post #90 of 92
Quote:
Genius has been the subject of much philosophical debate. According to Virginia Postrel, "Creative geniuses are those rare individuals who have, among other qualities, the discipline and gifts to master the large domains of knowledge that allow them to come up with such surprising combinations. They play in larger fields than most other people: more athletic moves, more musical memories, more images and words, a deeper knowledge of mathematics, of history, of art. They mentally map their fields in ways that allow them to access the right combinations at the right time. Along the way, they may make new maps for others to follow — the periodic table or Samuel Johnson's Dictionary — or so thoroughly explore their own domain that they in effect create it anew, as Shakespeare recreated English."[7] This view of geniuses as pathbreakers is echoed by Ludwig von Mises' description of them as "men whose deeds and ideas cut out new paths for mankind." Once this pathbreaking has occurred, leaders may then guide people along the tracks pioneering geniuses have laid.[8]

That's from Wikipedia and I thought it was interesting.

That said, one name that came to mind - not American, but still - was Luca Turin, who recently argued for a theory of smell based on molecular vibration as opposed to the currently-dominant shape theory. I thought the theory held water when I first read up on it, but smarter people than me are still having this argument and haven't capitulated so I guess it's not settled yet.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › American Geniuses