Stevie Wonder

[Big Al]

The "he plays everything" line doesn't hold any weight with me.

Mike, with all due respect, doens't the fact that Wonder couldn't SEE what he was doing/playing make it that much more significant in terms of what Wonder accomplished?

[chris]

Steely Dan, to use a recent example, would fit in. As it is, I just know I love their music and I'm not likely to put them in the same group as Armstrong, Parker, and Coltrane in my mind.

Why not? (not being ass-y - genuinely interested why you wouldn't cos for me S Dan really reached a level of excellence in popular music/rock. Difficult to compare what they did with the achievements of Parker & Coltrane but I have no problem putting them in the same group in my mind. I personally don't have a problem with putting rock/pop/r n b artists on an equal footing with jazz or classical artists).

I don't know, really. In compositional complexity, perhaps SD is up there, but in performance? I'll have to think on it some more. It's like putting a guitarist like Steve Vai in with Django Reinhardt. Steve Vai is an amazing talent, fleet of finger, not afraid of complexity, he has all the chops-- but it's not as if he revolutionized music particularly, which is what I think of when I think of genius. Jimi Hendrix was a genius in my book for that reason. Doesn't mean my jaw doesn't still drop at what Vai can do with the instrument.

But maybe Steely Dan does fit-- they certainly do their own thing and do it well, making that unique mix...

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Well, I've never been a blind man and never hope to be one, but once you've played an instrument for any length of time, there's nothing to look at. The most difficult, I think, is vibes, and I've even watched Gary Burton stare down flash photographers while playing a burning solo and not miss a note. Didn't we just have the eyes open/closed thread?

Just negotiating getting around outside of the studio is a whole nother story. I wouldn't want to trivialize what blind people have to deal with.

Mike

And shoot, if you want remarkable, try checking out Evelyn Glennie.

[JSngry]

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.

I've always been under the impression that Stevie was somewhat stung by all the negative reaction, critically and popularly, to the ...Secret Life Of Plants album. This is a pattern throughout 20th Centruy popular music - a songwriter/composer/producer/whatever gets on a popular/creative roll, bumps it up a notch, and gets thrashed for the results. Happened to Gershwin, happened to Ellington, happened to Brian Wilson, happened to Phil Spector, etc. The result is inevitably a period of "pulling in the reigns", creatively. Sometimes they come out of it, sometimes they don't. But quite often, the artist proceeds with an attitude of "well, the people don't want to hear my really good stuff, so I'll keep it to myself and just give them what they can handle", or something along those lines. How much of this is bruised ego, and how much of it is an honest evaluation and acceptance of what thier "true value" to the marketplace is is not for me to say.

As great of an artist as Stevie Wonder is, to overlook the fact that "show busiiness" has been at least as deeply ingrained in him as has "art" (and I'm not one of those who finds the two automatically exclusive. Often at odds, undoubtedly. But it could be argued that most (or at least, a lot) of the significant American art of the 20th century came from the environs of show-biz). So the notion of "something for the people, something for me" is probably not something that Stevie Wonder is unfamiliar with, and, after the rebuff he got from Plants, whatever notions he had of disregarding that notion probably got shoved far aside. The guy's been in "the business pretty much his entire life, and "artist" is no doubt but one part of how he views his role.

Now, my fantasy is that the unissued material is a bunch of electronic madness, sythesizer tone poems full of crazy textures and layering and all that good stuff, pieces that Wonder really did do "for himself" that he knew had no commercial potential whatsoever. That's my wildest dream. But the material might be along the lines of the instrumentals released on the EP that came along w/Songs In The Key Of Life. Or it might be some really wacky, "self-indulgent" songs that he did, again, strictly for his own pleasure. Or it might be regular songs that just didn't measure up to the released material of the time. Or it might be some, or all, of the above. Who knows?

Bottom line - it's Stevie's call, and we should assume nothing until we hear it, if we ever do. What we've had given to us to date is certainly more than we usually get from any kind of popular music (and I say "popular music" only because that is the realm in which Stevie Wonder functions, so, like it or not, that is the first level of appraisal to be rendered), and for that, I am deeply appreciative.

Edited May 5, 2005 by JSngry

[GregN]

My definition of popular music places it in a category that is not classical music (music composed in a strict tradition) and not folk music (anonymous music of the people). Jazz is a difficult proposition since it originated as folk music and has now become something between classical music and popular music.

Anyway, what I keep trying to get at is that musical genius is a rare thing. If it isn't, then the term has been devalued. Just thinking of the 1970s and who was still around then: OK, so Stevie Wonder is a genius. Charles Mingus is a genius. Bob Dylan is a genius. Igor Stravinsky is a genius. Paul Bley is a genius. Stephen Sondheim is a genius. Joni Mitchell is a genius. Bob Marley is a genius. Paul Simon is a genius. Johnny Cash is a genius. Elton John is a genius. Elvis Presley is a genius. Elvis Costello is a genius. Bruce Springsteen is  a genius. Jimmy Page is a genius. Marvin Gaye is a genius. James Taylor is a genius. David Bowie is a genius. Tom Jobim is a genius. Miles Davis is a genius. Sun Ra is a genius. Elliott Carter is a genius. Ray Charles is a genius. Milton Babbitt is a genius. Leonard Bernstein is a genius. Duke Ellington is a genius. Yehudi Menuhin is a genius. Ravi Shankar is a genius. Ned Rorem is a genius. Paul McCartney is a genius. Charles Wuorinen is a genius. Muddy Waters is a genius. BB King is a genius. Pete Townshend is a genius. Ornette Coleman is a genius. Brian Wilson is a genius. Louis Armstrong is a genius. Frank Zappa is a genius. John Lennon is a genius. Aretha Franklin is a genius. Gil Evans is a genius. Andres Segovia is a genius. Wayne Shorter is a genius. Glenn Gould is a genius. Keith Jarrett is a genius. Joaquin Rodrigo is a genius. Benjamin Britten is a genius. Burt Bacharach is a genius. Your five personal choices for genius intentionally omitted.

What was in the water that created such an incredible concentration of GENIUS!!! at one particular time in a very limited area (because this almost entirely omits Africa, Asia, huge portions of Europe, South America)???? Why is it that soooooo many geniuses are around in this small period/area and the rest of history is comparatively devoid of them? Or were the contributions of those older geniuses forgotten - and if they have now been forgotten, were they really geniuses???

Mike

"My definition of popular music places it in a category that is not classical music (music composed in a strict tradition) and not folk music (anonymous music of the people). "

Ever been to Hungary? Folk and Classical are strongly linked. And they are popular.

Anyhow, Mike you argument is internally flawed. Just because these other folks are mislabeled, doesn't mean that Stevie is not a genius. It is a weak argument.

So far, you've called upon this missed-premise twice. Now twice I will tell you that it doesn't directly negate Stevie's genius.

Stevie's work was a work of inspired genius. Not because he was blind, not because of motown hype, not because he was young, but because it grooved like a mother, had compositions like no other, and because (and pardon the beggin' o' the question) he is one bad-ass brother.

[JSngry]

I'll gladly take "inspired" work out of anybody, and leave the "genius" part to those for whom it really matters.

[GregN]

I'll gladly take "inspired" work out of anybody, and leave the "genius" part to those for whom it really matters.

Inspired, but not wholly I should add. Literally, inspired means "poured in". That is, from some source without the artist. Usually something supernatural is implied. However, the rest is within, as I also believe Stevie put in the sweat equity required of any genius.

What is the saying again? Genius is 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration.

I do, however, dig your previous post.

G

[JSngry]

I'll gladly take "inspired" work out of anybody, and leave the "genius" part to those for whom it really matters.

Inspired, but not wholly I should add. Literally, inspired means "poured in".

Well, I've been inspired not to put too much faith in literalism, so...

[GregN]

I'll gladly take "inspired" work out of anybody, and leave the "genius" part to those for whom it really matters.

Inspired, but not wholly I should add. Literally, inspired means "poured in".

Well, I've been inspired not to put too much faith in literalism, so...

ouch! lol

[Michael Fitzgerald]

The Hungarian stuff I know involves classical composers (not anonymous - Kodaly, Bartok, for example) borrowing from anonymous folk music. Just because Vaughan Williams used English folk songs as source material doesn't make his English Folk Song Suite something other than classical music.

Popularity has absolutely nothing to do with popular music. Just because only one person bought the last album by some garage band doesn't mean the music is all of sudden folk music or classical music. It's popular music that doesn't have popularity. Just because Andreas Bocelli made the top ten in England doesn't make it popular music.

But I really don't want to get into this. I've discussed it extensively elsewhere.

As for "because it grooved like a mother, had compositions like no other, and because (and pardon the beggin' o' the question) he is one bad-ass brother" - all those things are fine and dandy. But they don't define genius. Because you say he's a genius doesn't make it so. So all those folks are mislabeled? Stevie Wonder is the ONLY genius out there?

Mike

[GregN]

The Hungarian stuff I know involves classical composers (not anonymous - Kodaly, Bartok, for example) borrowing from anonymous folk music. Just because Vaughan Williams used English folk songs as source material doesn't make his English Folk Song Suite something other than classical music.

Popularity has absolutely nothing to do with popular music. Just because only one person bought the last album by some garage band doesn't mean the music is all of sudden folk music or classical music. It's popular music that doesn't have popularity. Just because Andreas Bocelli made the top ten in England doesn't make it popular music.

But I really don't want to get into this. I've discussed it extensively elsewhere.

As for "because it grooved like a mother, had compositions like no other, and because (and pardon the beggin' o' the question) he is one bad-ass brother" - all those things are fine and dandy. But they don't define genius. Because you say he's a genius doesn't make it so. So all those folks are mislabeled? Stevie Wonder is the ONLY genius out there?

Mike

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Even the pointy-heads contend that Hungarian Classical music is unique in its strong connection to folk music (not all of which is anonymous). It certainly alters your previous comments of category. Aristotle is now rolling in his grave.

Popular music has "nothing" to do with being popular? Are you jokin'?

Of course, it does. It's goal is to be so, it is derived by such, and it is despised by jazz snobs, whether one or 10 million hear it.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Oh what else?

Oh yeah...

citing Elvis et al is what is regarded as reductio ad absurdum.

Everything you've put forth thus far to negate Stevie's contended genius has been weak, ill-informed, missed the mark, and well myopic. Not because I say so, but because I have indicated so. Sooooo, reread the thread, bow down to the genius that is Stevie. And know that I am only having fun with you here.

No offense intended.

[marcello]

because it grooved like a mother, had compositions like no other, and because (and pardon the beggin' o' the question) he is one bad-ass brother.

There ya go.........GENIUS!

Could be.

[Jim Alfredson]

because it grooved like a mother, had compositions like no other, and because (and pardon the beggin' o' the question) he is one bad-ass brother. 

There ya go.........GENIUS!

Could be.

Dang... if I was only a brother, I'd be a genius, too.

Missed it by that much!

[GregN]

because it grooved like a mother, had compositions like no other, and because (and pardon the beggin' o' the question) he is one bad-ass brother.  

There ya go.........GENIUS!

Could be.

Dang... if I was only a brother, I'd be a genius, too.

Missed it by that much!

I was mostly going for the rhyme and hyperbole. They are sufficient conditions, but not necessary.

[John L]

I am also amazed at how many arguments in the world (including in academia) are over definitions: in this case, what (or who) is genius? A definition is a definition. It can't be right or wrong.

To make the argument about Stevie Wonder meaningful, we would need to agree on some definition of "genius" and then make the case for and against Stevie Wonder satsifying such a definition. Alternatively, we could think of several different possible definitions of genius, some of which might include Stevie and others might not.

On the other hand, arguing over what a single definition of genius should be is senseless.

Edited May 5, 2005 by John L

[GregN]

I am also amazed at how many arguments in the world (including in academia) are over definitions: in this case, what (or who) is genius?  A definition is a definition.  It can't be right or wrong.

To make the argument about Stevie Wonder meaningful, we would need to agree on some definition of "genius" and then make the case for and against Stevie Wonder satsifying such a definition.  Alternatively, we could think of several different possible definitions of genius, some of which might include Stevie and others might not.

On the other hand, arguing over what a single definition of genius should be is senseless.

You are right in the sense that we cannot have meaningful dialouge if our terms fail to, at the very least, approximate shared meaning. Of course, and here you are mistaken, we must argue and discuss to get there. Right and wrong, though socially defined, can come with some certainty. Words may have specific (with all that word implies) meaning, if only fleeting. If we begin to agree on the right and the wrong, then we may proceed toward shared understanding of terms. If we all agree that A, B, and C may be equated with genius, and later someone fails to perceive B, because...well...maybe they lack a soul or something... we can regard them as wrong.

G

[RainyDay]

Nobody was talking about those guys.  Nobody said Counting Crows were a bunch of geniuses.  We were talking about this blind guy who plays several different instruments, who writes and produces music for himself and others, who has, on some of his records, played all the instruments, and who had an enormous impact on music during the 1970s.  It offends some of you that the producer of popular music would be labeled a genius.   Oh, well.

You really need to learn to read. It's not that hard-- just take the letters one by one-- they make words and sentences.

This thread has evolved into a discussion of genius and the difference between recognizing genius and differentiating between that and one's own emotional affections for a musician. And it includes pop music.

Notice that I didn't mention Stevie Wonder? You would have had you been reading. I don't know his music well enough over a broad range of time to say where I'd put him. It has nothing to do with my post, which is about bigger ideas and responding to some other items in this thread (try reading those too).

It becomes a numbers game-- if my definition doesn't include as many folks as yours in the "genius" category, then someone has to get left out. If I go with a multiplicity of geniuses, some for every genre and field, perhaps Steely Dan, to use a recent example, would fit in. As it is, I just know I love their music and I'm not likely to put them in the same group as Armstrong, Parker, and Coltrane in my mind.

And more to the point, even if someone disagrees with my labels, it DOESN'T offend me-- and it shouldn't offend you either. It's a personal trip. That's why I like the advice to just think "hey, I'm lucky that Chuck or Chris or whoever doesn't get it and I do."

Guess you are the only one who can read then because it seems people are still talking about Stevie. I understand that you don't know Stevie's music but you still needed to have an opinion--about something.

[RainyDay]

The "he plays everything" line doesn't hold any weight with me.

Mike, with all due respect, doens't the fact that Wonder couldn't SEE what he was doing/playing make it that much more significant in terms of what Wonder accomplished?

Uh, uh. He knows hundreds of blind and deaf quads who can do the same thing.

[GregN]

The "he plays everything" line doesn't hold any weight with me.

Mike, with all due respect, doens't the fact that Wonder couldn't SEE what he was doing/playing make it that much more significant in terms of what Wonder accomplished?

Uh, uh. He knows hundreds of blind and deaf quads who can do the same thing.

I feel guilty for laughing... but lmao. That was funny.

G

[Degiorgio]

to pull this back on topic again... I was further researching the unreleased Stevie material and came across a Down Beat interview from 74. The interviewer mentions some 200 songs and Stevie plays him some with comments like 'this is for Roberta Flack & Donny Hathaway', etc.

Stevie explains that Fulfillingness' First Finale is part 1 of a double album. The second part to be released some time later - then he wanted to take a long break before working again. (He had just survived a near-fatal car crash in the midst of recording these sessions so its not surprising if he wanted to chill for a while).

Stevie also explains that the title indicates that this double album will be the final statement in the TONTO style - ie. different compositions recorded with similar instrumentation. The next project he says he wants be more 'orchestral'.

So obviously 'Fulfillingness' Second Finale' for whatever reason remained unissued. I'm not sure FFF sold particularly well compared to the predecessors - that could be 1 reason why Pt.2 remained unissued. Or maybe Stevie had moved on 'conceptually/stylistically' in his head and didn't want it out and just left us with Pt.1.

There is a very definite shift from the 'baroque', 'classical pop', introspective nature of FFF to the more 'ghetto', uplifting RnB of Songs In the Key...

Somebody really needs to get those tapes of FFF2 out there...

Edited May 5, 2005 by Degiorgio

[JSngry]

I'm not sure FFF sold particularly well compared to the predecessors...

I don't have the figures at my disposal, but everybody I knew bought that one, just as they had the previous two. I know it sold big (and produced two big hit singles), I know that. If it sold as big as its immediate predecessors and succesors, I don't know for sure, but if it didn't, I don't think it missed by much.

Music Of My Mind is the one that not everybody had (no real mega-hit singles), & the one before that, Where I'm Coming From, in spite of a pretty big hit in "If You Really Want Me", sorta got overlooked, and still remains underknown, imo. That's the real "pivotal" album, right there, if you ask me. Not perfect, and not yet fully formed, but the seeds were obviously being sowed in terms of songwriting and production.

[JSngry]

I am also amazed at how many arguments in the world (including in academia) are over definitions: in this case, what (or who) is genius? A definition is a definition. It can't be right or wrong.

To muddy the waters even further, can we safely say that people who are not geniuses per se can nevertheless have moments, or even periods, of genius?

[JSngry]

Dang... if I was only a brother, I'd be a genius, too.

Hey - I finally settled for being a bother instead, and let me tell you, I seem to be a genius at it.

Just ask my wife!

[HWright]

Is it true that at present there is no readily available CD edition of "Where I'm Coming From"?

[John L]

I am also amazed at how many arguments in the world (including in academia) are over definitions: in this case, what (or who) is genius?  A definition is a definition.  It can't be right or wrong.

To muddy the waters even further, can we safely say that people who are not geniuses per se can nevertheless have moments, or even periods, of genius?

Maybe we can refer to that as a "stroke of genius."