dagblog - Comments for "Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts on High Marginal Income to Expire will Stimulate the US Economy"

No, it's you who's silly.

acanuck — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:10:41 +0000

In reply to You two are silly.Sooo.....

No, it's you who's silly.

You two are silly.Sooo.....

quinn esq — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:33:57 +0000

In reply to Joplin's version of "Bobby

You two are silly.

Sooo..... singing can't be genius - 'cause it's not like musicianship? Ahem. There are enormous differences amongst sung versions of songs, perhaps the most obvious examples of musical inspiration come through singing, singing requires not just "gifts" but years and years of work, and yet they're not in the same league as, say, drumming?

And the idea - seriously - that there are no geniuses back at the birth of rock 'n roll, but somehow there ARE when Dylan comes along? (Cause if Elvis wasn't a mid-50's genius, then damn sure none of the others were.) Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis and a handful of others (along with their producers, writers, musicians) CREATED what these other geniuses - like Dylan, the Beatles, Jimi - stood on. And the creators did this work in a very short period of time, during a very particular historical window which closed shortly thereafter (it all opens and explodes in 1955-56, then the boot comes down.)

To take two types of music and bring them together, in a way which had not - simply had not - been done before, and to do so in a non-mechanical way, and then, across ballads, up tempo stuff, you name it... to do that, and once it's done, EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD SEES IT, AND CHANGES WHAT THEY'RE DOING.... that's not genius?

Guys. I adore Jimi and Dylan. But there is no chance on God's good Earth either of them would agree with you. In fact, I was just talking with Dylan the other day...........

Thanks for the Moonshiner

acanuck — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 07:06:10 +0000

In reply to I wasn't trying to revive the

Thanks for the Moonshiner link. Hadn't heard it before. Very nice.

I wasn't trying to revive the

acanuck — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 06:59:30 +0000

In reply to Joplin's version of "Bobby

I wasn't trying to revive the who's-a-genius? debate. I think Jimi Hendrix and Bob Dylan clear that bar, but I wasn't arguing for anybody else, and I know it's totally subjective anyway.

Except sometimes you're forced to acknowledge, "OK, that's pure genius." Dylan's Like a Rolling Stone pushed the reset button in a way nothing by the Beatles or Elvis ever did. Sorry, Q.

But that's the rare exception. Hendrix's Star-Spangled Banner was truly inspired, but it built on what someone else had created. As did all the other examples I cited. The really good stuff often has multiple parents.

The Animals recorded the definitive House of the Rising Sun, but the song had roots across the Atlantic, presumably at some point passed through New Orleans, was collected by the Lomaxes in Appalachia, got reworked, buffed and polished by three decades of fine musicians, including Lead Belly, The Weavers, Dave Van Ronk and Bob Dylan (who as usual tried to claim authorship).

It simply doesn't matter. The song only grew as generations of musicians added their inspired tweaks. Great music is almost always a collaboration, and that's the way it should be.

In passing, I understand Dylan sticks mostly to the keyboard now because of arthritis in his fingers. He may strum a little in concert, but it's pro forma.

Joplin's version of "Bobby

DF — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:36:00 +0000

In reply to Great Jarmusch quote about

Joplin's version of "Bobby McGee" is certainly inspired, but she's another case where I wouldn't apply the "genius" label. I'd say Kristofferson is a better candidate for that label, but not just because he wrote the song. I'd say that same thing about the relationship between Patsy Cline and Willie Nelson - namely that I don't think Patsy Cline is a candidate for the "genius" moniker, but Nelson might be.

Inspired performance is great. And there might be a such thing as "performance genius." I don't think that's implausible. However, singing is not exactly the same as musicianship. Elvis was absolutely not a great musician. As a guitar player, we was passable (look to Bill Black for the real chops here). And he wasn't a song-writer. He sang songs that people like. He had looks and pipes, but both of those things are just straight-up gifts. And they don't necessarily imply any musical skill by themselves. He might be a candidate for performance genius, but calling him a musical genius would seem to put him in the same category as people who manifestly possessed skills that he did not, like Hendrix or Mozart. It just doesn't make sense to me.

To put that in contrast, Dylan is someone who manifestly does not have looks or pipes - unless funny and hoarse are what you're looking for. But I think he's a potential candidate for being a musical genius, even strictly just on the basis of his song-writing ability. That's a musical skill that the guy has in spades. Also, in his younger years that you reference, he spent a lot of time developing his guitar skills. It wasn't something he used a lot later in his career, but he was a pretty mean Travis picker when he was a kid. There's a live recording I have of him doing a version of the old folk song "Moonshiner" where you can hear a bit of this (cool, found it here!), but you can also hear it prominently on the Freewheelin' version of "Don't Think Twice."

So, my point is that Dylan had musical skills that are manifest. I don't see that with Elvis. He might be a genius of a different kind (for whatever the label is actually worth - again, I'm not sure it's worth much in any case), but I don't think he qualifies as a musical genius.

Great Jarmusch quote about

acanuck — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:31:13 +0000

In reply to Well, this is why I find the

Great Jarmusch quote about authenticity trumping originality. Bob Dylan, who has a decent claim to geniushood, started out by stealing everything he could get his hands on and putting his name to it. He literally "made it his own." Jarmusch would have approved.

Does anyone give a hoot that the Righteous Brothers didn't write You've Lost That Loving Feeling? Or that Joplin didn't write Bobby McGee? House of the Rising Sun? That's Alright, Mama? Turn! Turn! Turn!? It can perhaps deepen appreciation to know all the layers, but the actual song is the thing. If it's great, forget about issues of provenance.

I'll make an exception for people whose highly paid job it is to know better. I once heard Simon Cowell refer to someone singing "Jeff Buckley's Hallelujah" -- as if he'd never heard of Leonard Cohen. We're talking about a personal signature here. I was shocked.

Well, this is why I find the

DF — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:48:53 +0000

In reply to A "standard metric?" For

Well, this is why I find the whole concept suspect to begin with. It reminds me very much of Potter Stewart's definition of pornography or Plato's (via Socrates) definition of noesis. We can't really know for sure whether it's there, but we're supposed to believe it is. And we basically just identify by insisting that it's present.

As for originality, I'm reminded of Jim Jarmusch describing his views on the matter:

Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery — celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from — it’s where you take them to.”

So maybe what Elvis did that was exceptional was to take the music (that some like to say he stole) to new places. But that's still not exactly the same thing as originating the music, which I don't think anyone would really claim he did.

Take Jimi in contrast. He started out heavily influenced by blues guitar players. And it's worth pointing out that, unlike Elvis, he had crazy chops on his instrument as well as the ability to write new material (even though he never developed skill with classical notation). But something else he did was to create music that no one had ever heard before. Had any music ever sounded like "Are You Experienced?" or "Third Stone From the Sun" or "Machine gun"? I'm not sure that it had.

So, if originality is what counts, and I'm not saying that I'm sure that it does, then I'm still not sure why Elvis gets the nod. Jarmusch offers a cluse that this might not be the right way to look at it.

But it still seems to me that a meaningful definition of "genius" remains elusive.

Let's just make Jimi the

acanuck — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 05:50:22 +0000

In reply to A "standard metric?" For

Let's just make Jimi the standard and we can all stop arguing. It slipped my mind to dig out some old vinyl to play as a tribute Saturday, but I'll find time this week. Big box of mostly unreleased material coming out in mid-November, by the way. Think I'll make that my Christmas gift to myself.

A "standard metric?" For

quinn esq — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 01:27:27 +0000

In reply to Unless there's some kind of

A "standard metric?" For genius? To apply to music? By definition, genius means people and events/actions well outside the norm, highly original, beyond the capacity of most of us, etc. But a yardstick or hurdle or a metric? That'd mean we'd all have to be able to stand in a common spot, most likely "above" that hurdle, and then... measure?

Pretty tough requirements. Too tough, methinks.

I won't bother to argue that Elvis was a genius, other than to say I didn't grow up a huge Elvis fan. It was only when I went back and made a chronological study of it, and really soaked myself in the music, that his difference jumped out. There really WAS some sort of magic admixture created at Sun Studios, and once it hit radio and was released, it triggered literally dozens of other singers to change what they were doing. It wasn't simply "copying" black artists, or Elvis "stealing" something, or that anybody was turning the handle and pumping out rock ' roll on any regular basis beforehand. There was a clearcut before and after Elvis.

Anyway, more widely, I'm not convinced that the arts, or social life, or maybe even most scientific and technological change, have any grand ways to measure "genius." I mean, even amongst the most knowledgeable hockey fans, there's no consensus on whether Gretzky or Orr or Howe or Esposito or Plante or 20 others created or contributed the most significant innovations to the game. In Literature, the same, I'd say. I'd take Thomas Wolfe and TS Eliot over damn near anyone else, but the debate is endless.

And yet, for me, it's not just people I "emphatically approve" of. The band I've seen the most often live is Midnight Oil. I approve of them, emphatically. And they did a lot of things really well. Genius? Probably not. Same with the Faces. Wilson Pickett. The Jam. Wilco. Great, not genius though. Not enough originality I guess.

Unless there's some kind of

DF — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:50:53 +0000

In reply to In athletics, they talk about

Unless there's some kind of standard metric, then it's just elusive and squishy. Sure, that might be a valid concept, but Quinn obviously sees genius all over Elvis and I don't (at least I think he does - it seems a fair assumption given his response). Well, there's no way to resolve that. So basically the term "genius" just stands in for emphatic approval.