Stevie Wonder

[Noj]

I love Stevie, and wouldn't hesitate with the genius label.

"Hey Love" is my favorite.

[md655321]

Im still surprised this is going. Maybe we should have a poll stating whether Stevie Wonder is indeed a musical genius. Of course, we know how the would turn out.

But seriously, I would LOVE some expanded double disc editions of Talking Book, Innervisions and other reacords of that era. Maybe they can throw some live stuff on there. I have a live Stevie boot from 73 and it absolutely smokes.

[Guest akanalog]

i don't care for stevie wonder's music at all but....

how about someone release TONTOS EXPANDING HEADBAND.

i think it was on atlantic so couldn't someone like water reissue it???

that is some sweet music.

[7/4]

  akanalog said:

i don't care for stevie wonder's music at all but....

how about someone release TONTOS EXPANDING HEADBAND.

i think it was on atlantic so couldn't someone like water reissue it???

that is some sweet music.

I have a reissue on CD - can't find it, it's not filed.

[RainyDay]

  marcello said:

The term genius is a term that should be used very judiciously.

Like Mike implies, in the music marketplace, it's used to sell records and create hyberbole.

Now for me, personally, there are few true geniuses. Being a Italian, there is a "Leonardo Standard" that gets in the way of useing the term lightly. For us/Myself, it means someone who does MANY diverse things greatly, effortlessly; a trailblazer. I DO rate Ellington as one. On the other hand, I don't rate Smmmy Davis Jr. as one though. ( Who I saw from the wings of Radio City ( he played with Buddy Rich for a week ) and he was fabulous and even truly emotional. Riveting on stage.

Now I've seen Wonder twice. Both times in the early 70's including a show with the Stones where he made it very hard for them to follow him. Great entertainer. Like Sammy.

Oh well, shit! If the Stones couldn't keep up with Stevie, he couldn't be a genius. Jezusss! Where's the smiley for "how full of crap is that comment?" And what does being Italian have to do with anything? Step, back, Jack and get a reality check. The world of genius is not set by Italian culture.

Stevie made it hard for the Stones to keep up? Boo, hoo. This is just a guess but I bet the Stones couldn't keep up with the James Brown band either. I guess that makes JB a pretender, also. I like the Stones, by the way, they just aren't the measuring stick I would use to evaluate someone else's "genius."

This is directed at Nessa and others with similar opinions: If you don't like popular music in the first place, and there seems to be a particular animus on this board toward R&B, how about just staying out of this? Again, I invoke the disco analogy. People who trashed disco couldn't dance.

[keberobeats88]

Stevie Wonder was by far the best ping pong player I've ever heard of. I saw him playing with Ray Charles once, it was intense.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

When I read "I believe Stevie is high quality pop music for a decade," that did not leave me with the impression of someone who doesn't like pop music.

However, some people seem to want to define "genius" as "someone who makes music that I like."

I appreciated the post that brought in Joni Mitchell and Steely Dan. I agree that they, along with Wonder, did something to advance pop music in the 1970s. There were others as well. Now, just because they did this, does that make them "geniuses"? So, just how many "geniuses" were out there in the 1970s pop music scene? I think being more realistic says that we are dealing with, as Chuck said, good music, maybe great music.

I do think it is valuable to step back and look at the big picture. What advanced pop in the 1970s can be viewed in relation to all American music, or all pop music, and in the end, all music - which seems to me to be the vantage point that Chuck is taking. On the radar screen that is so large that it includes Bach and the classical folks, let alone the never-to-be-known folks responsible for the non-Western traditions, is Stevie Wonder a towering figure?

A couple thousand years makes a couple of great albums seem not so important. Which isn't to say they're not wonderful albums.

Mike

[Noj]

That shit ain't funny man! Stevie Wonder's a musical genius!

[Jim Alfredson]

  Quote

On the radar screen that is so large that it includes Bach and the classical folks, let alone the never-to-be-known folks responsible for the non-Western traditions, is Stevie Wonder a towering figure?

Yes.

[7/4]

  RainyDay said:

People who trashed disco couldn't dance.

No.

It was the lack of guitar solos. :rsmile:

[Alon Marcus]

  Michael Fitzgerald said:

However, some people seem to want to define "genius" as "someone who makes music that I like."

The people who make music I like are geniuses. Others could be evil geniuses

[neveronfriday]

  Michael Fitzgerald said:

When I read "I believe Stevie is high quality pop music for a decade," that did not leave me with the impression of someone who doesn't like pop music.

However, some people seem to want to define "genius" as "someone who makes music that I like."

I appreciated the post that brought in Joni Mitchell and Steely Dan. I agree that they, along with Wonder, did something to advance pop music in the 1970s. There were others as well. Now, just because they did this, does that make them "geniuses"? So, just how many "geniuses" were out there in the 1970s pop music scene? I think being more realistic says that we are dealing with, as Chuck said, good music, maybe great music.

I do think it is valuable to step back and look at the big picture. What advanced pop in the 1970s can be viewed in relation to all American music, or all pop music, and in the end, all music - which seems to me to be the vantage point that Chuck is taking. On the radar screen that is so large that it includes Bach and the classical folks, let alone the never-to-be-known folks responsible for the non-Western traditions, is Stevie Wonder a towering figure?

A couple thousand years makes a couple of great albums seem not so important. Which isn't to say they're not wonderful albums.

Mike

That might all be very true, but what is the point of this discussion? If we say that one has to be Leonardo DaVinci to be considered a genius (or not), what does that tell us?

That we shouldn't get too enthusiastic about what we like ("Hey, you weren' supposed to have that much fun!")?

Does it tell us that we are, at best, talking about mediocre music from morning until evening on this board?

Why is it that some people just have to constantly insist on taking the fun out of music?

I'm with RainyDay.

Some people need to take some dance lessons.

[Alon Marcus]

  Michael Fitzgerald said:

When I read "I believe Stevie is high quality pop music for a decade," that did not leave me with the impression of someone who doesn't like pop music.

However, some people seem to want to define "genius" as "someone who makes music that I like."

I appreciated the post that brought in Joni Mitchell and Steely Dan. I agree that they, along with Wonder, did something to advance pop music in the 1970s. There were others as well. Now, just because they did this, does that make them "geniuses"? So, just how many "geniuses" were out there in the 1970s pop music scene? I think being more realistic says that we are dealing with, as Chuck said, good music, maybe great music.

I do think it is valuable to step back and look at the big picture. What advanced pop in the 1970s can be viewed in relation to all American music, or all pop music, and in the end, all music - which seems to me to be the vantage point that Chuck is taking. On the radar screen that is so large that it includes Bach and the classical folks, let alone the never-to-be-known folks responsible for the non-Western traditions, is Stevie Wonder a towering figure?

A couple thousand years makes a couple of great albums seem not so important. Which isn't to say they're not wonderful albums.

Mike

Sorry Mike, now the serious reply

Your ideas are interesting and you express yourself convincingly about the topic and yet I think that S.W. is at least a great songwriter. It's not only a matter of how much he advanced pop music. Objectively if you judge his songs; don't you enjoy the masterful combination of beautiful melodies, original harmonies (relative even to some adventorous jazz compositions) and the irresistible rhythm all tied together in a natural way?

As a songwriter I think you can compare him to guys like Schubert, Cole Porter or the Gershwin Brothers. At least it's mine impression.

Edited May 4, 2005 by Alon Marcus

[couw]

  neveronfriday said:

Some people need to take some dance lessons.

definitely, here are some tunes to practise

[GregN]

  Michael Fitzgerald said:

When I read "I believe Stevie is high quality pop music for a decade," that did not leave me with the impression of someone who doesn't like pop music.

However, some people seem to want to define "genius" as "someone who makes music that I like."

I appreciated the post that brought in Joni Mitchell and Steely Dan. I agree that they, along with Wonder, did something to advance pop music in the 1970s. There were others as well. Now, just because they did this, does that make them "geniuses"? So, just how many "geniuses" were out there in the 1970s pop music scene? I think being more realistic says that we are dealing with, as Chuck said, good music, maybe great music.

I do think it is valuable to step back and look at the big picture. What advanced pop in the 1970s can be viewed in relation to all American music, or all pop music, and in the end, all music - which seems to me to be the vantage point that Chuck is taking. On the radar screen that is so large that it includes Bach and the classical folks, let alone the never-to-be-known folks responsible for the non-Western traditions, is Stevie Wonder a towering figure?

A couple thousand years makes a couple of great albums seem not so important. Which isn't to say they're not wonderful albums.

Mike

"I do think it is valuable to step back and look at the big picture. What advanced pop in the 1970s can be viewed in relation to all American music, or all pop music, and in the end, all music - which seems to me to be the vantage point that Chuck is taking. On the radar screen that is so large that it includes Bach and the classical folks, let alone the never-to-be-known folks responsible for the non-Western traditions, is Stevie Wonder a towering figure?

A couple thousand years makes a couple of great albums seem not so important. Which isn't to say they're not wonderful albums.

Mike"

One could quite easily argue that, a single Stevie groove has more* rhythm than a catalouge of Bach tunes. To me it's apples and oranges.

If you define your terms of music appreciation narrowly, like some jazz snobs are know to do, than of course you can dump on all sorts of stuff. Of course, what is most revealing is that REAL players love Stevie. REAL players appreciate his vast contribution. Some may even call him a genius.

And with regards to your other comment:

Remember, Ivory Towers have historically and continue to breathe life into genres of music, which otherwise would have faded. They too, are social constructs. Just because they've been around....

wait did you say a couple "thousand" years? Anyhow....

I guess if we had to get nasty about it, I would say that anyone who doubts Stevie's genius, lacks either ears or a soul. But that would be wrong of me.

*in terms of sophistication

[doubleM]

There's a construct for ya'...REAL players. How does one make that list?

[Degiorgio]

  Quote

That shit ain't funny man! Stevie Wonder's a musical genius!

- classic...

as for the rest of this thread - I repeat, I would sooner discuss the possible reasons why this material hasn't been revisited in detail rather than what defines a musical genius...

if Stevie does have control over any unreleased material why wouldn't HE want it released? In interviews he has had a teasing attitude when questioned about it... he doesn't say the material is unfinished or not up to scratch - quite the opposite. He seems to have a 'maybe one day I'll let you all hear it' kind of attitude... well I hope he does in my lifetime.

  Quote

how about someone release TONTOS EXPANDING HEADBAND.

i think it was on atlantic so couldn't someone like water reissue it???

yes - its on Embryo/Atlantic... its been discussed quite a bit on analog synth forums... Nick Kent seems to be close to Margouleff & Cecil (Tonto's Expanding Headband) and this is a quote from his recent post to the Analog Heaven forum:

"Okay - here is what I understand. Mind you I want to make it clear that

it's not the current official word, it's what I heard about 4 years

ago.

The CD that was out there was good, at least in it's day but there was

an unforeseen legal issue with the labeling that came up and that has

since been dealt with but that's the reason why the CD isn't out any

more. The issue I guess did not lead to an immediate re-issue

Malcolm told me that he and Robert Margouleff own the rights to the

recordings and I got the impression they were waiting until they got a

decent deal from a legit label, you know, one that actually pays the

artist.

Now secondarily - and I think what is on everyone's mind that a reissue

in 5.1 surround of some sort was what they would be after."

[Jim Alfredson]

  doubleM said:

There's a construct for ya'...REAL players. How does one make that list?

I would start by not getting caught up in jive heirarcheal categorizations of music. But that's just me.

[Degiorgio]

  Quote

REAL players appreciate his vast contribution

yeah - I think its safe to say Dizzy Gillespie is a REAL player... and he blows his ass off on Stevie's 'Do I Do'

[doubleM]

Yeah, I was actually very much using the term "REAL" as a construct to illustrate that it was being used in the "jive-ass" hierarchical sense. I don't think that anyone is qualified to make an empirical distinction of what is "real" playing vs. the contrary to anyone but themselves. I think that even if there were some aptitude-test that could parse out the geniuses from the non-geniuses in music...Stevie would be in the former (IMO), but that test would be discredited by someone, somewhere.

Edited May 4, 2005 by doubleM

[AmirBagachelles]

Stevie Wonder music enriched my teen years (and beyond) for sure.

I would like to hear some unreleased Stevie with zits etc, the outtakes, and some live stuff.

[joeface]

  Michael Fitzgerald said:

However, some people seem to want to define "genius" as "someone who makes music that I like."

A working definition of 'genius' which I find useful goes something like this: An act or work of innovation without much precedent that proves over time to inaugurate a new paradigm in some form or other, in some discipline or another. But in retrospect this act or work will seem to have come about so easily or naturally, that it would be hard to imagine it not coming about.

With those kinds of qualifiers, I think use of 'genius' in that sense would shield it from abuse, i.e. just designating certain individuals we find appealing and adventurous. I would have to recognize the genius of various people's work which I do not find appealing or constructive on a personal level. It also focuses more on 'acts of genius' regardless of the person. Someone who is called a genius may just be persistent in their acts of genius.

So a more objective argument might be made for designating Stevie Wonder's '70s output (not his 12-year-old child prodigy output) as genius, because of the elements involved. He basically wrote songs with the ease of constructing melodic lines and harmonies in the way of Irving Berlin or other great pop composers, while greatly expanding the sonic pallette, all within the foil of a post-Motown, soul-pop format conveying everything simple joys to heavy social issues. The implications are pretty signifigant.

[neveronfriday]

  joeface said:

[...] An act or work of innovation without much precedent that proves over time to inaugurate a new paradigm in some form or other, in some discipline or another. But in retrospect this act or work will seem to have come about so easily or naturally, that it would be hard to imagine it not coming about.

[...] He basically wrote songs with the ease of constructing melodic lines and harmonies in the way of Irving Berlin or other great pop composers, while greatly expanding the sonic pallette, all within the foil of a post-Motown, soul-pop format conveying everything simple joys to heavy social issues. The implications are pretty signifigant.

Err, I just like listening to his stuff.

[jazzbo]

I would very much like to see expanded versions of "Talking Book" and "Innervisions" . . . . Not sure why they aren't out there. Possibly, Stevie has a say and says not.

Hey, if Ray Charles is a genius, Stevie Wonder is.

I think the answer to that depends on a number of factors for many people. They're shining lights in my musical universe!

Edited May 4, 2005 by jazzbo

[Jim Alfredson]

  doubleM said:

Yeah, but I was actually very much using the term "construct" in the "jive-ass" hierarchical sense. I don't think that anyone is qualified to make an empirical distinction of what is "real" playing vs. the contrary to anyone but themselves.

I agree. What I was trying to say is that all the players I consider "real" are the ones that don't get caught up in whether this or that is or isn't <insert genre here>, but instead are just honest.

To me, saying Stevie Wonder's music is "great pop music" is still doing the music a disservice and is sort of a backwards jab. By categorizing it that way, it instrinsically lowers the value of the music.