Mack Wilberg's arrangement of "Deep River"

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I watched that with my dad while I was on vacation. What a GREAT show. And yeah, The DH were awesome. I'm not sure I've every heard a bass that deep; just such a cool sound they have. I also liked how Stevie Wonder gets about one verse in and says "okay stop we're starting over."

Not to jack the thread, but Paul Simon is one of the great musical geniuses of the 20th century. He is one of the Mozart's of his time, along with Brian Wilson, Lennon/McCartney and some others I'm probably forgetting.

Anyway, no, not appropriate for sacrament meeting.

Interesting question: How do you compare a pop genius (if there is such a thing) to a musical genius such as Bach or Mozart or Beethoven? Does somebody like Paul Simon or John Lennon compare to Mozart?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

Interesting question: How do you compare a pop genius (if there is such a thing) to a musical genius such as Bach or Mozart or Beethoven? Does somebody like Paul Simon or John Lennon compare to Mozart?

No.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

Interesting question: How do you compare a pop genius (if there is such a thing) to a musical genius such as Bach or Mozart or Beethoven? Does somebody like Paul Simon or John Lennon compare to Mozart?

I knew I would draw this question. I don't think that muscial geniuses only came along during the time what we call classical music was the pop music of its day. They come along in every generation.

To me, the genius is not in being proficient enough to play a classical piece or in understanding an orchestra. Those are things that can be learned. The genius is (1) in doing something different or unique and (2) in the fact that these people seem to "channel" it on some level.

McCartney has talked many times about how whole songs would just arrive in his mind. I don't think God is sending them (could be wrong) I just think their brains work differently. They make connections that normal people don't or that no one has made before.

I think it is a very direct and fair comparison. To me the only real difference is between what the pop music of your era was.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I knew I would draw this question. I don't think that muscial geniuses only came along during the time what we call classical music was the pop music of its day. They come along in every generation.

To me, the genius is not in being proficient enough to play a classical piece or in understanding an orchestra. Those are things that can be learned. The genius is (1) in doing something different or unique and (2) in the fact that these people seem to "channel" it on some level.

McCartney has talked many times about how whole songs would just arrive in his mind. I don't think God is sending them (could be wrong) I just think their brains work differently. They make connections that normal people don't or that no one has made before.

I think it is a very direct and fair comparison. To me the only real difference is between what the pop music of your era was.

I may be wrong, but I don't think Beethoven and Mozart would be considered pop music of their era. It was the minstrels and the folk-songs that would be considered pop. These have been passed down over the years, which many catchy melodies and arrangements. We still use them today.

For example, S&G's "Scarborough Fair" draws on it.

I think Paul Simon is one of the great American songwriters. But I don't put him in the same category as Mozart. Like I don't put Louis Lamour in the same category as Tolstoy.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by creekster

Interesting question: How do you compare a pop genius (if there is such a thing) to a musical genius such as Bach or Mozart or Beethoven? Does somebody like Paul Simon or John Lennon compare to Mozart?

The only valid comparison I can make is by looking at the depth and diversity of their compositions in the context of their musical backgrounds. I believe Bach, Mozart and Beethoven stand alone in terms of their pure musical genius and creativity. Each possessed remarkable gifts that are spiritual in nature.

While geniuses in their own genre, Simon and Lennon are not in the same category as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Paul Simon's music has remarkable depth that crosses several categories. I also think Stevie Wonder is a musical prodigy in his own right. People forget that he signed his first contract at the age of four, attended the USC School of Music and has been a groundbreaking composer.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I knew I would draw this question. I don't think that muscial geniuses only came along during the time what we call classical music was the pop music of its day. They come along in every generation.

To me, the genius is not in being proficient enough to play a classical piece or in understanding an orchestra. Those are things that can be learned. The genius is (1) in doing something different or unique and (2) in the fact that these people seem to "channel" it on some level.

McCartney has talked many times about how whole songs would just arrive in his mind. I don't think God is sending them (could be wrong) I just think their brains work differently. They make connections that normal people don't or that no one has made before.

I think it is a very direct and fair comparison. To me the only real difference is between what the pop music of your era was.

SO, you play me like a fiddle, eh?

I have also read abotu McCartney having that expereince. For example, the song Yesterday which is reputenly the most recorded song in history, just came ot him all at once. He had no lyrics for it and so called "Scarmbled Eggs" as a placeholder until other lyrics could be written, but the tune and chord changes apparently arrived in almost ex nihilo fashion in his head one night. Thus, I do not disagree that he was unique and, to the extent htere is such a thing, a pop genius.

Here is somethign to think abotu: Sir Paul and others that have had great success in pop frequently, as thery become older and more pucially sophisticated, gravitate to writing orchestral and classical pieces. WHy do you think this is?

BTW, I think a closer analog to our pop music from the classical and other eras would be pub drinking songs, or little ditties like "ah vous dirais-je, Maman" (aka twinkle, twinkle little star). IMO, pieces like a requiem are not a direct analog to our pop music.

[UtahDan]

So what Mike and Requiem (to a lesser degree) seem to be saying is that there are no musical geniuses whose genre is not classical. I see what you guys are sayign but just don't agree.

What about a Gershwin for example? I guess Rhapsody in Blue is classical but the German composers we are talking about wouldn't have recognized it as such. Is he disqualified because he composed rags and musical scores?

I can agree that the German composers "stand alone" in their era, but I think that other eras also have masters. I think it is temping to give too much deference to something simply because it is old.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

SO, you play me like a fiddle, eh?

I have also read abotu McCartney having that expereince. For example, the song Yesterday which is reputenly the most recorded song in history, just came ot him all at once. He had no lyrics for it and so called "Scarmbled Eggs" as a placeholder until other lyrics could be written, but the tune and chord changes apparently arrived in almost ex nihilo fashion in his head one night. Thus, I do not disagree that he was unique and, to the extent htere is such a thing, a pop genius.

Here is somethign to think abotu: Sir Paul and others that have had great success in pop frequently, as thery become older and more pucially sophisticated, gravitate to writing orchestral and classical pieces. WHy do you think this is?

BTW, I think a closer analog to our pop music from the classical and other eras would be pub drinking songs, or little ditties like "ah vous dirais-je, Maman" (aka twinkle, twinkle little star). IMO, pieces like a requiem are not a direct analog to our pop music.

I use pop in only the loosest sense that it was the "popular music" of the time. If you are trying to make a distinction between the pop music of the upper classes and that of the lower then I can buy that.

The other good McCartney story is that they were looking to add a song to an album and Lennon kept asking him about that "french" song Paul was always humming. McCartney told him that he had heard it somewhere but not composed it. After thinking about it for a while, he realized that he had never actually heard "Michelle" anywhere else, though he couldn't remember when it came to him.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

So what Mike and Requiem (to a lesser degree) seem to be saying is that there are no musical geniuses whose genre is not classical. I see what you guys are sayign but just don't agree.

What about a Gershwin for example? I guess Rhapsody in Blue is classical but the German composers we are talking about wouldn't have recognized it as such. Is he disqualified because he composed rags and musical scores?

I can agree that the German composers "stand alone" in their era, but I think that other eras also have masters. I think it is temping to give too much deference to something simply because it is old.

Much of popular music is carried by image and charisma and characteristics that are unique to the performer. The question is can the music by itself, hold up, when separated from those things? Maybe in today's day and age, it doesn't have to because of recordings. But are we ever going to say, wow I really love Mike Waters III redo of the Beatles "hard day's night" album. It's an incredible interpretation.

There is plenty of popular music that I love, that might even be superior to Paul Simon, but you haven't heard of them necessarily. Does that mean that Paul Simon is revered only because he is popular?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Much of popular music is carried by image and charisma and characteristics that are unique to the performer. The question is can the music by itself, hold up, when separated from those things? Maybe in today's day and age, it doesn't have to because of recordings. But are we ever going to say, wow I really love Mike Waters III redo of the Beatles "hard day's night" album. It's an incredible interpretation.

There is plenty of popular music that I love, that might even be superior to Paul Simon, but you haven't heard of them necessarily. Does that mean that Paul Simon is revered only because he is popular?

I think the question you are asking is will these artists stand the test of centuries. You and I will never know, but can you really say it is absurd that someone three hundred years from now will be doing some new take on Searget Pepper or Bridge Over Troubled Water? I can't say that.