Stevie Wonder

[RainyDay]

  7/4 said:

  RainyDay said:

People who trashed disco couldn't dance.

No.

It was the lack of guitar solos. :rsmile:

Oh, well, then. B-)

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Wow - "great pop music" is devaluing the music? Those three words would be very high praise from me.

I think that someone somewhere has just overinflated things so that every model is a "supermodel" and every performance gets a standing ovation and if the average is now great, then the great must be "genius".

There are so many people out there who have done as much as Stevie Wonder in their own different ways. In my book, that large number CANNOT possibly ALL be geniuses.

It devalues the term "genius". See - we're on totally different channels here.

Mike

[Jim Alfredson]

  Michael Fitzgerald said:

Wow - "great pop music" is devaluing the music? Those three words would be very high praise from me.

Why does it have to be great "pop" music? Why can't it just be great music?

  Quote

I think that someone somewhere has just overinflated things so that every model is a "supermodel" and every performance gets a standing ovation and if the average is now great, then the great must be "genius".

Maybe someone has, but not me.

  Quote

It devalues the term "genius". See - we're on totally different channels here.

That's pretty obvious.

[Big Al]

What I can’t figure out is how someone can listen to Talking Book and Innervisions, two of the most brilliant and brilliantly-conceived albums of any time and any genre; realize that most if not all instruments were played by one person, that person being BLIND, btw; realize that the same performer also wrote all of the aforementioned songs he played on; and STILL not consider that to be “genius!”

Hell, by any standards of ANY time, that would still be tough for someone with full sight to accomplish!

[GregN]

  doubleM said:

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.

Actually it was used in an ironic sense. Read the entire context. Now for "jive ass". lol

[GregN]

  Big Al said:

What I can’t figure out is how someone can listen to Talking Book and Innervisions, two of the most brilliant and brilliantly-conceived albums of any time and any genre; realize that most if not all instruments were played by one person, that person being BLIND, btw; realize that the same performer also wrote all of the aforementioned songs he played on; and STILL not consider that to be “genius!”

Hell, by any standards of ANY time, that would still be tough for someone with full sight to accomplish!

I concur!

[GregN]

  Jim Alfredson said:

  Michael Fitzgerald said:

Wow - "great pop music" is devaluing the music? Those three words would be very high praise from me.

Why does it have to be great "pop" music? Why can't it just be great music?

Because jazz snobs have to call it either pop or commercial, so there's no mistaking it for "REAL" music.

[chris]

I've come to the point where I just skim these threads looking for Chuck's posts... they always make me smile. I myself am perfectly willing to express my great fondness and love of a lot of music which is not composed or performed by geniuses. I listen to a lot of jazz (duh), but I also listen to a lot of pop/indie/rock/etc. Off the top of my head-- Wilco, Elliott Smith, The Postal Service, Coldplay, Counting Crows, Green Day, Ben Folds, G. Love & Special Sauce, The White Stripes, Verve, Radiohead.

I love some of these guys (and gals), listen to them, enjoy the hell out of them. They're great examples of what they do.

But they aren't geniuses!

I adhere to the old Dick Hugo saying, when asked how he can love the work of X, Y or Z that the questioner hated, he responded "Just lucky I guess."

[marcello]

"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?"

Hell, all I said he put on a great show

"And what does being Italian have to do with anything?"

Nothing to YOU, It's just my cultural perspective on the subject.

"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."

I see YOUR point. I'ts just not MINE. I didn't mean it the way you imply. The Stones are just a good rock and roll show to me and Wonder was better; nothing more, nothing less.

"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?"

The responses are in answer to the "Genius tag", that's all. Nothing to go to war about. You have your standard and I have mine, with all due respect.

"Again, I invoke the disco analogy. People who trashed disco couldn't dance."

Where is your "full of crap" smiley?

From Mike Fitzgerald:

I think that someone somewhere has just overinflated things so that every model is a "supermodel" and every performance gets a standing ovation and if the average is now great, then the great must be "genius".

My position, exactly. Thanks Mike.

[couw]

so what's the answer to the original question?

[Michael Fitzgerald]

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

[RainyDay]

  chris said:

I've come to the point where I just skim these threads looking for Chuck's posts... they always make me smile. I myself am perfectly willing to express my great fondness and love of a lot of music which is not composed or performed by geniuses. I listen to a lot of jazz (duh), but I also listen to a lot of pop/indie/rock/etc. Off the top of my head-- Wilco, Elliott Smith, The Postal Service, Coldplay, Counting Crows, Green Day, Ben Folds, G. Love & Special Sauce, The White Stripes, Verve, Radiohead.

I love some of these guys (and gals), listen to them, enjoy the hell out of them. They're great examples of what they do.

But they aren't geniuses!

I adhere to the old Dick Hugo saying, when asked how he can love the work of X, Y or Z that the questioner hated, he responded "Just lucky I guess."

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.

[Degiorgio]

  Quote

From Mike Fitzgerald:

I think that someone somewhere has just overinflated things so that every model is a "supermodel" and every performance gets a standing ovation and if the average is now great, then the great must be "genius".

with respect, I think Stevie's output is deserving of something more than just 'great'. I don't agree with you that there are 'many' other artists even 'in their own way' who have taken 'pop' to the same levels as Stevie. As I mentioned earlier - possibly Joni Mitchell and Steely Dan, in that they managed to release sophisticated, complex albums which also happened to sell millions of copies worldwide.

As well as performing most of the material single-handedly, Stevie's compositions have entered the 'global songbook' and become standards covered by artists as diverse as you can imagine - from Marion Brown to Luther Vandross.

If you have a copy of Music Of My Mind close-by pls take 10 minutes out to listen again to Superwoman. Analyse what's going sonically and musically and report back on your findings... for me its up there with 'Aja' and 'The Boho Dance'... a composition that sold millions of copies but is very far removed from 'pop'. It's originality is startling... again - I can't think of 'many' artists who made such 'masterpieces' from a totally fresh palette and that still managed to appeal to millions... and then its followed by Happier Than the Morning Sun, Girl Blue (what the hell is going here? check that electronic percussion - bizarre and very NOT 'pop'), Seems So Long... and that's just the first of 4 albums in this vein... by somebody in their early 20's and under pressure from a major label to be hugely popular and accessible... and remember he plays EVERYTHING.

Edited May 4, 2005 by Degiorgio

[chris]

  RainyDay said:

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."

Edited May 4, 2005 by chris

[Michael Fitzgerald]

The "he plays everything" line doesn't hold any weight with me. I know hundreds of people who can do this. Also, it's his choice to do this on his records. Others (even those who CAN play everything, like say, Pete Townshend) choose to have the interaction of several musicians. What I would say really sets Stevie Wonder apart are his compositions and arrangements.

Mike

[Degiorgio]

  Quote

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).

Edited May 4, 2005 by Degiorgio

[Degiorgio]

  Quote

The "he plays everything" line doesn't hold any weight with me. I know hundreds of people who can do this

and how many of these 'hundreds' did this before Stevie? You mention Pete Townsend - and how many others like him who invested in large modular synthesisers did so because of the possibilities first displayed by Stevie.

At the time of Music Of My Mind - large Moog/ARP systems were out of fashion - ridiculed for the many cheesy 'Moog cover' albums of Bach, etc. They were used sparingly by The Beatles, The Byrds, etc, previously - but Stevie was the first to marry the technology of multitrack tape with the idea that a great keyboardist could in effect play all the guitar, string, brass, bass, and even percussion parts and build up complete tracks using this method.

This is quite important - regardless of the quality of the compositions.

Edited May 4, 2005 by Degiorgio

[Sundog]

Something tells me that this is not the most opportune time to start that big "Kingpins vs. MGs" poll I've been planning. B-)

[wolff]

Looks like this one is going the full 15. Lemme hit the john, grab a beer and put on some Stevie.

A draw will go to Fitzgerald, as he's the champ. But, you all are making it interesting. We are missing a strong contender from South Brooklyn. Maybe, he'll get the one still standing.

[Degiorgio]

[Jazz Kat]

  Jim Alfredson said:

  Chuck Nessa said:

So I guess "over the friggin' top" is the order of the day.

I don't think it's over the top to call Stevie Wonder one of the true geniuses of music... right up there with Ellington, Coltrane, etc. in my book.

One jazz artist said the exact same thing on tv once. If I can remember right it went something like, "people would kill me if I compared Stevie Wonder to Duke Ellington, but he is just as talented as he was." (composition wise)

[connoisseur series500]

  Degiorgio said:

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...

Not me.

It's much more fun and interesting to discuss what constitutes musical genius...

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Wasn't Todd Rundgren doing one-man-band stuff at the same time as Wonder?

Of the hundred folks I know, none have Wonder's compositional skill - and I still think it's a matter of personal temperament. A lot of people enjoy playing music *with* other people (and can't afford the studio time to overdub all the stuff).

I certainly agree that Wonder was an important pioneer in synthesizers. He and Townshend, Emerson, Sun Ra, and others. But I don't know that his contribution is any greater than what W. Carlos and Tomita were doing - their stuff was far more complex and the timbres used were much more sophisticated and involved. Wonder seems to have used three or four tracks, mostly melodies with pretty basic patches. It works very well for what he was doing.

And let's please not even get the idea that I'm not a fan of Stevie Wonder's stuff of this period. As suggested, I just listened to Superwoman/Where Were You When I Needed You - wonderful stuff, and definitely something I'd present as an example of how good pop music can be.

Mike

[Harold_Z]

Why don't we just forget this genius crap and talk more specifically about the pros and cons of a particular artist? That would eliminate the hyperbole and marketing aspects that are really a side issue to the matter at hand.

There is an attitude from some posters that reveals that they don't *get* R&B and don't dig R&B. You can substitute 60s soul for R&B or even 60s/70s pop for the term R&B. You can even find a some musicians (some of them good musicians) that have the same attitude. That's fine for them. Fortunately not everybody has this attitude. I think a lot of it has to do with to what we were listening to and (for those of who are musicians) the various bands we played with.

As for Stevie - I think he's great. I love his writing and I love a lot of the records he made. He knows HOW to make a record of HIS music. He fought for that right in contract negotioans with Motown in the early 70s and when he got his contract is when gems like Talking Book, FFF, etct started to appear.

BTW, his keyboard chops are fine for him to play what he wants to play......and his chops on harmonica are pretty remarkable from where I sit.

Edited May 4, 2005 by Harold_Z

[Degiorgio]

  Quote

Wasn't Todd Rundgren doing one-man-band stuff at the same time as Wonder?

that is quite bizarre as Todd R was the ONLY artist in the back of my mind that I was thinking could be compared in this way... I do think he was a little later than Stevie (don't have any of his albums close to hand to check dates) but apart from the fact that he didn't appeal across the board in quite the same way as Stevie I'd put him up there conceptually...

  Quote

And let's please not even get the idea that I'm not a fan of Stevie Wonder's stuff of this period. As suggested, I just listened to Superwoman/Where Were You When I Needed You - wonderful stuff, and definitely something I'd present as an example of how good pop music can be.

yeah - thx for doing that... it really puts everything into perspective actually listening to that track

Chuck - do you have a copy to check out??