CarrieB Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 This thread is being seriously trolled now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareeh Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Genius is definitely an overused word and doesn't apply to Matt Bellamy. Where Muse were good was stealing ideas from all over the place and creating something interesting with them. Something they don't do any more and just seem to create pastiches of a genre with Bellamy warbling over the top, far from good art. Genius would imply being somebody who has reinvented music and created a whole new way of looking at it and continuing to reinvent. Muse almost seem like dad-rockers these days and they are only just hitting their mid-30's! therefore if originality is the only way you can be genius not many people are genius at all. when in fact most geniuses combine the ideas and actions of others. originality doesn't prove anything, if you're original and successful, that also doesn't make you genius. if you're good [ie. composing orchestra pieces combining with rock with mindblowing vocals, producing some of the best riffs of the 21st century so far, taking the world of live music by storm] by combining attributes of the likes of radiohead, queen etc... and merging it into one, and it works. i'd consider that genius. but i suppose you wouldn't give muse any credit no matter what they do these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I'm famous too, I sing in a band called radiohead Eh, do you think I would believe that? What is your name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrieB Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 but i suppose you wouldn't give muse any credit no matter what they do these days. That is exactly how it is for some folks. I knew they would find this thread eventually. PS I think Matt is doing just a little bit better than all you lot! And in any case I stand by my first post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 therefore if originality is the only way you can be genius not many people are genius at all. when in fact most geniuses combine the ideas and actions of others. originality doesn't prove anything, if you're original and successful, that also doesn't make you genius. if you're good [ie. composing orchestra pieces combining with rock with mindblowing vocals, producing some of the best riffs of the 21st century so far, taking the world of live music by storm] by combining attributes of the likes of radiohead, queen etc... and merging it into one, and it works. i'd consider that genius. but i suppose you wouldn't give muse any credit no matter what they do these days. No, you are absolutely right. Not many people are geniuses. What made you assume that that would be the case? Genius isn't something you call just anyone who creates music that you like. And I suppose that you would give Muse credit no matter what they do these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haze015 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 therefore if originality is the only way you can be genius not many people are genius at all. Well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaphod Chizzlebrox Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I don't think I would ever call Bellamy a genius. Certainly he's musically proficient and has an ear for a decent and popular tune, but I do think it's a stretch to go as far as genius. And in music, there most certainly are not many geniuses about, at least not any that people are aware of. In music, it's very unusual to find anything that's both commercially popular AND original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareeh Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 No, you are absolutely right. Not many people are geniuses. What made you assume that that would be the case? Genius isn't something you call just anyone who creates music that you like. And I suppose that you would give Muse credit no matter what they do these days. a) okay, say i don't like muse for a moment, what artists that you know currently, that aren't teenage prima donna pop act, could fill huge stadiums like wembley two nights in a row, and have managed to make a modern number one album involving a heavy classic influence that they made themselves. b) i do not give credit to muse no matter what they do, hahaha, guiding light and nsc are terrible and by making these songs, evidently, matt has undermined his music prowess, but i know by listening to exogenesis, stockholm syndrome, citizen erased, uprising and seeing them live that he can, and hopefully will, continue to make damn good and intelligent music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 a) okay, say i don't like muse for a moment, what artists that you know currently, that aren't teenage prima donna pop act, could fill huge stadiums like wembley two nights in a row, and have managed to make a modern number one album involving a heavy classic influence that they made themselves. b) i do not give credit to muse no matter what they do, hahaha, guiding light and nsc are terrible and by making these songs, evidently, matt has undermined his music prowess, but i know by listening to exogenesis, stockholm syndrome, citizen erased, uprising and seeing them live that he can, and hopefully will, continue to make damn good and intelligent music. a) None. What is your point? They didn't get to where they are by their classical influences. They got there by their hits. And becoming popular because of their music is in no way genius. I don't get what popularity has to do with it to begin with. b) It was mostly a joke, with the same silly assumption that you made with yours. I'm sure Haze could mention quite a few things that he can give credit to Muse for...in fact, he already did in the post you quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haze015 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 a) okay, say i don't like muse for a moment, what artists that you know currently, that aren't teenage prima donna pop act, could fill huge stadiums like wembley two nights in a row, and have managed to make a modern number one album involving a heavy classic influence that they made themselves. What has filling a stadium got to do with creative "genius"? A rock album with classical influences is far from original. A modern music genius would be someone like Daphne Oram. I bet you're going to have to google her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareeh Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 a) None. What is your point? They didn't get to where they are by their classical influences. They got there by their hits. And becoming popular because of their music is in no way genius. I don't get what popularity has to do with it to begin with. b) It was mostly a joke, with the same silly assumption that you made with yours. I'm sure Haze could mention quite a few things that he can give credit to Muse for...in fact, he already did in the post you quoted. apart from starlight [which i, personally, like] and undisclosed desires, i'd say the hits deserve to be hits for a reason. ie. supermassive black hole was a hit because the riff is genuinely good, and the vocals are pretty good. knights of cydonia is good, progressive modern rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrieB Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 There isn't even a real definiton of genius. In wiki it says this: "Genius is expressed in a variety of forms (e.g. mathematical, literary, performance, etc.) Genius may show itself in early childhood, as a prodigy with particular gifts (e.g. understanding), or later in life. Geniuses are often deemed as such after demonstrating great originality. They tend to have strong intuitions about their domains, and they build on these insights with tremendous energy". I haven't claimed that Matt is a genius but he certainly has a gift. I really don't think that can be denied. A gift which started in childhood. He also appears to have strong intuitions and builds on his insights with energy. Personally, I think that's enough for a thread where people can express what they feel is special about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 apart from starlight [which i, personally, like] and undisclosed desires, i'd say the hits deserve to be hits for a reason. ie. supermassive black hole was a hit because the riff is genuinely good, and the vocals are pretty good. knights of cydonia is good, progressive modern rock. I never said the singles were bad. I enjoy most of them. You are still a far way from explaining why it makes them genius though. And KoC may be the closest Muse have been to prog, but no, it isn't prog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 genius 1 [mass noun] exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability: 2 an exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity: Well, I'd say Matt has exceptional skills in the creation and performance of music, so that makes him a genius if this Oxford Dictionary definition is to be believed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 There isn't even a real definiton of genius. In wiki it says this: "Genius is expressed in a variety of forms (e.g. mathematical, literary, performance, etc.) Genius may show itself in early childhood, as a prodigy with particular gifts (e.g. understanding), or later in life. Geniuses are often deemed as such after demonstrating great originality. They tend to have strong intuitions about their domains, and they build on these insights with tremendous energy". I haven't claimed that Matt is a genius but he certainly has a gift. I really don't think that can be denied. A gift which started in childhood. He also has strong intuitions and builds on his insights with energy. Personally, I think that's enough for a thread where people can express what they feel is special about him. Not sure that I could say that Matt has any of the bolded part. No doubt Matt is talented. He is a brilliant song-writer, and a good pianist and guitarist...not to mention vocalist. But genius? Not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareeh Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 i have realised that genius is one of the many words which meaning is within reason, all about opinion, so depending on what you see as genius anyway, your opinion on who is a genius will differ also. so really we're all arguing about something that is purely about opinion in every way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 But genius? Not even close. I refer you to post number 64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrieB Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Not sure that I could say that Matt has any of the bolded part. No doubt Matt is talented. He is a brilliant song-writer, and a good pianist and guitarist...not to mention vocalist. But genius? Not even close. Well I think you can say those things in bold. I don't know about the originality bit but no music is truly original. It all has to come from somewhere. As I said, there isn't a real definition of genius in any case. And btw I don't think they have got where they are because of their hits, they have got where they are through their continual touring, through which they have gradually built a bigger solid audience. Though the audience may have become massive now because of more recent hits mainly as a result of BHaR, I think, but increased after The Resistance, that isn't really the point. They would have been just as good with a smaller audience. The building blocks, the talent, was always there. PS It doesn't even matter. He's impressive, what he does and what he has achieved is impressive and I find the music special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 genius 1 [mass noun] exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability: 2 an exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity: Well, I'd say Matt has exceptional skills in the creation and performance of music, so that makes him a genius if this Oxford Dictionary definition is to be believed Exceptional skill in performance? In what way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haze015 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 b) It was mostly a joke, with the same silly assumption that you made with yours. I'm sure Haze could mention quite a few things that he can give credit to Muse for...in fact, he already did in the post you quoted. Yes I could. I could also sit here and explain how Radiohead are no more original than Muse. Doesn't stop them being one of my favourite bands of all time. I could go into how Aphex Twin is just using techniques devised in the 50's by the likes of the BBC Radiophonic Workshop, which he has in fact spent time releasing the back catalog of on his own label... There's nothing outright original about what Muse do and they've done nothing to change how people see music. There's no emulation of Muse to be seen anywhere, that's not a sign Muse are so amazing, no one can touch them, it's that they aren't making music others want to make, because there definitely used to be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Exceptional skill in performance? In what way? Erm, in the playing of his instruments. His singing skills? The words 'exceptional skill' are subjective though. Yes, he's far and away better at music than most of the general public, but among only other skilled musicians it's a different story. So which makes you a genius, being well above the norm or being the best of the best? It's a matter of interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Erm, in the playing of his instruments. His singing skills? The words 'exceptional skill' are subjective though. Yes, he's far and away better at music than most of the general public, but among only other skilled musicians it's a different story. So which makes you a genius, being well above the norm or being the best of the best? It's a matter of interpretation. But Matt isn't exactly above even the average musician in any of these features. Most musicians can play what he plays on the piano and the guitar, and his voice isn't exactly a miracle either. He has a 3 octave range, and that includes falsetto, and neither is his technique very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 But Matt isn't exactly above even the average musician in any of these features. Most musicians can play what he plays on the piano and the guitar, and his voice isn't exactly a miracle either. He has a 3 octave range, and that includes falsetto, and neither is his technique very good. I did say creation and performance. The two things together put him way above your average musician, in my opinion. And there's more to a good singing voice than range and technique. Neither of those things automatically make a person's voice pleasant to listen to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I did say creation and performance. The two things together put him way above your average musician, in my opinion. And there's more to a good singing voice than range and technique. Neither of those things automatically make a person's voice pleasant to listen to. But we are talking about performance, not creation. His performance skills are on par with the average musician, and we are talking about what makes someone a genius, enjoying someones voice doesn't exactly matter. You said he had exceptional skills in guitar and piano playing(NOT creating/writing), which isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaphod Chizzlebrox Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I did say creation and performance. The two things together put him way above your average musician, in my opinion. And there's more to a good singing voice than range and technique. Neither of those things automatically make a person's voice pleasant to listen to. It doesn't put him in the league of musical genius though. There's no spark of unpredictability, no radical innovation of any musical techniques, Bellamy is basically a technically proficient musical magpie. Although that can be said of the vast majority of musicians really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.