Announcement

**Steppenwolf** · 01-20-2004, 10:41 AM

What is genius? What a difficult, but deeply interesting, question!

I don't think I have much light to shed on this great enigma. For a really really interesting discussion of the nature of genius, I would direct all readers to the writings of the divine Schopenhauer - that great but neglected philosopher, and a genius himself, IMO - who dealt with the subject in some depth.

When we study the works of the great masters, a fundamental distinction emerges between great talent, on the one hand, and actual genius, on the other. The difference is very hard to define but absolutely recognisable when heard. For instance, let's compare Mozart to Haydn. Now, I don't mean any disrespect to Haydn when I say this, because I have great respect for the man and his musical achievements, but compared to Mozart he seems merely to have had a great talent, whereas Mozart had that that extra, magical spark that we call 'genius'. Superficially their works are very similar. But plumb the depths of feeling in both, and it is clear that Mozart's music extends to another dimension, whereas Haydn's by contrast is 2 dimensional. The difference, I think, is that a composer with great talent (let us confine our discussion of genius to musical genius) has absolute technical mastery of a musical form, and can craft it in many interesting and inventive ways. But a genius is able to do something extra - to instil in those forms an energy, a spark of divinity, a depth of human feeling, that goes beyond the confines of the musical form. Like Jehova in the book of Genesis, he takes a perfectly formed, albeit lifeless construction, and beathes the breath of life into it. He is able to breath human life into what would otherwise be merely a clever and logical arangement of sounds. So the skill in manipulation of musical form, and true depth of human expression which surpasses, or goes deeper than that superficial form, are two distinct things, even though they will usually go together. But not always.

For instance, I believe that Richard Wagner had less 'control' over musical expression than many other composers. His music is sometimes sloppy and undisciplined (although not when at its best) - out of balance, a-symetrical, and badly judged in terms of timing. He did not have the perfect mastery of form that Beethoven had. But his ability to instil passion, emotion and deep human feeling into his music is surpassed by none other. Even when the outer artifice is built on less than firm foundations, a sublime and god-like passion bursts up like a torrent from the depths, bursting through it all, almost smashing it to pieces! This is the element rightly called genius.

Another interesting point for discussion concerns popular songs. There is an old saying that in each one of us there is at least one good novel. I believe also that in very many of us there is the potential for one good song. Often a song will be written (take for example, in pop music, 'A Whiter Shade of Pale' by Procul Harem), which contains very beautiful, deeply moving and deeply passionate music. Yet such songs emerge from people who otherwise do not seem to have any particular talent at all, let alone genius. They are mere 'one hit wonders'. Once their song is played, they are forgotten. Further songs will follow, that seem only copies of the inspiration of the original.

Interestingly Schopenhauer addressed this point, citing as his examples famous folk songs from his day, such as the songs contained in the collection, charmingly titled, Des Knaben Wunderhorn. I will look up the relevant passage again and remind myself what he says about it ...

[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited January 20, 2004).]

**Chaszz** · 01-20-2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
What is genius? What a difficult, but deeply interesting, question!

I don't think I have much light to shed on this great enigma. For a really really interesting discussion of the nature of genius, I would direct all readers to the writings of the divine Schopenhauer - that great but neglected philosopher, and a genius himself, IMO - who dealt with the subject in some depth.

When we study the works of the great masters, a fundamental distinction emerges between great talent, on the one hand, and actual genius, on the other. The difference is very hard to define but absolutely recognisable when heard. For instance, let's compare Mozart to Haydn. Now, I don't mean any disrespect to Haydn when I say this, because I have great respect for the man and his musical achievements, but compared to Mozart he seems merely to have had a great talent, whereas Mozart had that that extra, magical spark that we call 'genius'. Superficially their works are very similar. But plumb the depths of feeling in both, and it is clear that Mozart's music extends to another dimension, whereas Haydn's by contrast is 2 dimensional. The difference, I think, is that a composer with great talent (let us confine our discussion of genius to musical genius) has absolute technical mastery of a musical form, and can craft it in many interesting and inventive ways. But a genius is able to do something extra - to instil in those forms an energy, a spark of divinity, a depth of human feeling, that goes beyond the confines of the musical form. Like Jehova in the book of Genesis, he takes a perfectly formed, albeit lifeless construction, and beathes the breath of life into it. He is able to breath human life into what would otherwise be merely a clever and logical arangement of sounds. So the skill in manipulation of musical form, and true depth of human expression which surpasses, or goes deeper than that superficial form, are two distinct things, even though they will usually go together. But not always.

For instance, I believe that Richard Wagner had less 'control' over musical expression than many other composers. His music is sometimes sloppy and undisciplined (although not when at its best) - out of balance, a-symetrical, and badly judged in terms of timing. He did not have the perfect mastery of form that Beethoven had. But his ability to instil passion, emotion and deep human feeling into his music is surpassed by none other. Even when the outer artifice is built on less than firm foundations, a sublime and god-like passion bursts up like a torrent from the depths, bursting through it all, almost smashing it to pieces! This is the element rightly called genius.

Another interesting point for discussion concerns popular songs. There is an old saying that in each one of us there is at least one good novel. I believe also that in very many of us there is the potential for one good song. Often a song will be written (take for example, in pop music, 'A Whiter Shade of Pale' by Procul Harem), which contains very beautiful, deeply moving and deeply passionate music. Yet such songs emerge from people who otherwise do not seem to have any particular talent at all, let alone genius. They are mere 'one hit wonders'. Once their song is played, they are forgotten. Further songs will follow, that seem only copies of the inspiration of the original.

Interestingly Schopenhauer addressed this point, citing as his examples famous folk songs from his day, such as the songs contained in the collection, charmingly titled, Des Knaben Wunderhorn. I will look up the relevant passage again and remind myself what he says about it ...

[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited January 20, 2004).]

I don't think Mozart and Beethoven would have shared your view of Haydn.

I agree that Wagner sometimes does lose control of his materials. In other cases, however, I think what may seem formlessness in his music is really his practice of letting the melody and his variations on it shape the musical structure. Nothing from outside, such as sonata or any other external structure, is imposed on it, and the form finds it own way, like a stream sculpting the countryside. This is closer to an art of pure variation, where the melodic fragment shapes the music. The Meistersingers, for instance, is five hours of variation on a few simple melodic themes, with constant inspiration that does not flag for a moment.

Your observation on the one-hit wonders of popular music is very true. I lived thru the sixties, and kept noticing how many artists there were who could not come up with a second great song. Christopher Cross, who wrote "Sailing", was a good example. That was a wonderful song, and he never wrote anything else that even approached it. I also felt that way about James Taylor, who never came close in quality to his first hit, "Fire and Rain." He however has eked out a good career for himself, though what anyone sees in his mediocre output is beyond me.

**Steppenwolf** · 01-21-2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Chaszz:
I don't think Mozart and Beethoven would have shared your view of Haydn.

I agree that Wagner sometimes does lose control of his materials. In other cases, however, I think what may seem formlessness in his music is really his practice of letting the melody and his variations on it shape the musical structure.

As you know, Charles, my love for Wagner at the very least matches your own. My comments about structure I did not mean to apply to Tristan, Meistersinger or Parsifal - each of those three works is absolutely perfect, there is not one single superfluous, unecessary or badly judged note in any of them. They are each, I believe, among the greatest works of art ever produced. Wagner at his beast is beyond fault.

But there are some sections, for instance, in the Ring which I feel are not well planned ... some parts of Siegfried are dreary and lacking in inspiration, and some of the monologues of Wotan are stretched out beyond the bounds of geniune musical inspiration. In that sense was the 'form' of the music badly judged, the structure loose and without sufficient substance. Beethoven would never have done something like that, IMO. If he had no musical ideas he would not have insisted on writing whole hours worth of music regardless. However, working against that weakness was his enormous genius for emotional expression ... the less than inspiring sections of Siegfried are worth sitting through for the erruption of inspiration in the final love duet between Siegfried and Brunhilde, for example.

Your observation on the one-hit wonders of popular music is very true. I lived thru the sixties, and kept noticing how many artists there were who could not come up with a second great song.

If these artist, who produce great one hit wonders, could sustain their inspiration, and fill lots of works with the same passion and originality, there would be legitimate grounds, I believe, for attributing to them genius. Because in some of these songs there really is a profound depth of feeling and passion. But, unfortunately, for some reason, the musical Muse visits them only once in their lives ..

Another interesting thing I have noticed about those who write (good) rock songs, is that they peek in their artistic inspiration early in life, and then dry out, and fizzle out. Take that guy (I forget his name ... Brian somebody) who was in the Beach Boys, who wrote their songs, and that album Pet Sounds ... he has to my knowledge never since that time recaptured that inspiration. He mightn't be a good example, because he ended up a bit mad and mixed up, but there are plenty of others, Paul McCartney is another example, he contributed at least half of the input (along with Lennon) to Seargent Pepper, etc. but his talent has dried up. If you listen to the songs he was written recently they are rubbish.
On the other hand, with classical composers, they seemed to just get better and better the older they became ... like Beethoven's late quartets, Wagner's Parsifal etc (the only exception to this principle I can think of is Liszt, who seems to have followed the pattern of a pop star and peaked early in life).

[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited January 21, 2004).]

**urtextmeister** · 01-21-2004, 01:33 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Wagner's intention was to go back to making the text the driving force behind the music (a movement that seems to have been intermittently renewed since the beginning of the 17th century) instead of the other way around. This might explain why moments in the operas do not seem to have value as music alone. Earlier composers such as Handel and Mozart got the talking out of the way with recits and did more bending of the words to fit their glorious music.

**Chaszz** · 01-22-2004, 06:18 PM

I think Urtextmeister is right, that the needs of the text trump the music sometimes in 'The Ring'. I agree with you, Steppenwolf, exactly, that the three non-Ring operas you mention are the finest. In this we are closer in judgment than the denizens of a certain website I could name, where 'The Ring' is worshipped as a totem pole might be. I think even the earlier operas like Lohengrin and Tannhauser are more consistently radiant throughout in music than 'The Ring', which to me seems over-intellectualized to its detriment as art, both dramatic and musical. Notwithstanding I have just paid a leg and two fingers to see it at the Met this year.

As for the rock composers, I personally think the initial use of drugs made possible some of those one-hit wonders. Then when used consistently, drugs sapped whatever creativity those second-raters had, and seriously undermined the first-raters, like Bob Dylan, who peaked about 1975 and hasn't written up to that level since. Could one imagine Beethoven, Wagner or Bach using any drugs more than an occasional glass of shnapps or wine, and producing outputs like that? Impossible.

And though jazz is not to the taste of most who correspond here, the same thing happened to its two main geniuses. Louis Armstong's creativity was sapped by his late thirties from habitual marijuana use, and Charlie Parker was literally dead of heroin by the same period in HIS life... At any rate, as Gurn would say: That's my opinion, I may be wrong.

[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited January 22, 2004).]

**Steppenwolf** · 01-23-2004, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Chaszz:
the three non-Ring operas you mention are the finest. In this we are closer in judgment than the denizens of a certain website I could name, where 'The Ring' is worshipped as a totem pole might be.

The problem with the Ring, is that despite its sublime, radiant moments, the quality is inconsistent. There are gaps in the high standard of the work. So, considered in its entirety, as a single, whole piece of work, it is not perfect. Whereas Tristan, Meistersinger and Parsifal have no gaps - the quality is sustained throughout. Therefore artistically they are each more of a success.
Gotterdammerung, considered on its own, comes close to the standard of T,M & P, but it usually isn't considered on its own ... its usually lumped in together with the other three.
The reason for this, I think, is that firstly Wagner was a bit overly ambitious. He got it into his head that he wanted to write an enormous work that went on for 15 hours, and being the intensely ambitious and will-driven character he was, nothing would stop him from achieving that goal ... not even a lack of genuine inspiration.
Secondly, it was written over such a long period of time, about twenty years, with a big gap in the middle, that the style is not consistent, it changes and reflects the changes in his compositional skill.
A work like Tristan, by contrast, was the product of a single burst of energy, a single creative idea.

As for the rock composers, I personally think the initial use of drugs made possible some of those one-hit wonders. Then when used consistently, drugs sapped whatever creativity those second-raters had, and seriously undermined the first-raters

This is certainly true for many song-writers. That Beach Boys singer is another good example.

But I think my original point extends beyond those who loose their talent through drug abuse. As just a single example (and I could name many more) - although Paul McCartney tried marijuana in the Beetles-days, I don't think he ever became a regular user, and unlike John Lennon, got married, had children and lived a fairly respectable ordinary lifestyle .. and yet whatever song-writing ability he had has long ago dried up. It lasted for a while, through the seventies - Band on the Run and Moll of Kintyre, etc. - the songs he has written recently fall far, far below the standard that you would expect from someone who co-wrote Sergeant Pepper. And there are many other examples in pop music, of stars unblemished by serious drug use, whose talent dries up with age in the same way. There seems to be something about pop music that it is the product of youthful energy, whereas the ability to write classical music just gets better and better as the composer matures.

Could one imagine Beethoven, Wagner or Bach using any drugs more than an occasional glass of shnapps or wine, and producing outputs like that? Impossible.

Apparently Wagner was addicted to snuff! But seriously though, you are quite correct.

However, it is interesting to ponder whether Berlioz would have continued composing, if he had decided continually to repeat the experience of overdosing on opium - an experience which allegedly inspired his Symphonie Fantastique.

[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited January 23, 2004).]

**Steppenwolf** · 01-23-2004, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by urtextmeister:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Wagner's intention was to go back to making the text the driving force behind the music (a movement that seems to have been intermittently renewed since the beginning of the 17th century) instead of the other way around. This might explain why moments in the operas do not seem to have value as music alone. Earlier composers such as Handel and Mozart got the talking out of the way with recits and did more bending of the words to fit their glorious music.

This is partly true, but partly incorrect.

Wagner went through a 'phase' of believing that the words to an opera should be the most important element, with the music just emphasising the meaning of the words, the tone in which they are uttered. The music, according to this view, should just be a commentary on the words, giving them emotional expression. This sort of idea is similiar to recitatives in traditional opera.

Wagner had this idea in the late 1840s, and he wrote a book about the idea, called Opera and Drama. The first of the Ring dramas - Das Rheingold - reflects this method of writing. However, he later changed his mind completely. A few years later he came under the influence of the mystic philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who included discussions of music in his writings. Schopenhauer took the opposite view, that the music is the most important part. Wagner was eventually won over to this idea, so in the later Wagner operas, there is much more emphasis on the music. In fact, Wagner came around to saying the exact opposite of what he originally argued for - that the words and the drama were just commentaries on pure, musical ideas. He wrote, for instance, that the whole drama of Tristan und Isolde came into his mind AFTER the inspiration for the music itself.

**urtextmeister** · 01-23-2004, 01:23 PM

This is interesting about Wagner's evolution in his attitude toward text/music. Also interesting that when most people think of their favorite Wagner selections, they are orchestral selections without text--overtures, interludes from the operas. Not true about other opera composers like Puccini, Bizet, etc.
The application of "genius" to a pop star is problematic. In most cases I believe pop stars possess average talent and creative evergy. It is the marketing, promotion and savvy of the industry that makes them a household word. You could almost say that the producers behind the artists are sometimes the real geniuses. The show, American Idol is a good example (a fairly big deal in this country). Without the studio production, all of those contestants sound very ordinary. I believe they can take almost anyone and almost any song and make it into something we can't live without.

Traditionally, I think the term genius is applied to those in the classical fields that require discipline and some amount of "learning." The peasant out in the field noodling on a flute is not a genius, but Beethoven, inspired by that sound and immortalizing it in the Pastoral symphony is. Can the same be said for pop music--rock and roll, heavy metal, etc,--types of music that have been around barely fifty years?

Maybe Beyond Within could comment?

**Amalie** · 01-23-2004, 02:28 PM

The secret of genius is to carry the 'spirit' of the 'child' into old age, which means never losing your enthusiasm.

~ Aldous Huxley ~

[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited January 23, 2004).]

**Chaszz** · 01-23-2004, 02:33 PM

Steppenwolf wrote : "But I think my original point extends beyond those who loose their talent through drug abuse. As just a single example (and I could name many more) - although Paul McCartney tried marijuana in the Beetles-days, I don't think he ever became a regular user, and unlike John Lennon, got married, had children and lived a fairly respectable ordinary lifestyle .. and yet whatever song-writing ability he had has long ago dried up. It lasted for a while, through the seventies - Band on the Run and Moll of Kintyre, etc. - the songs he has written recently fall far, far below the standard that you would expect from someone who co-wrote Sergeant Pepper. And there are many other examples in pop music, of stars unblemished by serious drug use, whose talent dries up with age in the same way. There seems to be something about pop music that it is the product of youthful energy, whereas the ability to write classical music just gets better and better as the composer matures."

Paul McCartney's settled family-oriented lifestyle is not incompatible with a fairly regular use of marijuana as a recreational drug. As for the others you mention, I think it is difficult to know whether or not they've used marijuana regularly. As I've said, I believe that in spite of its relativiely benign reputation, this drug can sap creativity when used fairly regularly over a period of time. Yet any rock composer who uses it this way would not be noticeable as a 'serious' drug user the way one who used the 'harder' drugs would be.

Urtextmeister wrote:
"Traditionally, I think the term genius is applied to those in the classical fields that require discipline and some amount of "learning." The peasant out in the field noodling on a flute is not a genius, but Beethoven, inspired by that sound and immortalizing it in the Pastoral symphony is. Can the same be said for pop music--rock and roll, heavy metal, etc,--types of music that have been around barely fifty years?"

Try a hundred years. As I said yesterday, although jazz is generally unappreciated by posters on this board, between 1900 and about 1960 or 1970 there was a great deal of high-quality art music produced in this pop-based form. And to my mind at least two improvisors who fully deserve the name genius, Armstrong and Parker. You just gotta take me on faith with jazz, guys; and not judge it by whatever indifferent stuff you've happened to hear, or by the fact that you may not like the sound of it upon relatively light acquaintance. Think of yourselves as your friends who know classical music thru the first four notes of B's 5th, a little Liberace, and the Lone Ranger theme. I've been experiencing the arts for a long time, and I know genius when I see or hear it. These two are the real thing, but neither lasted artistically past his late thirties, and indeed Parker was dead by that time because of drugs.

Armstrong is to me a good example of the results of regular marijuana use. The trumpet solos he recorded in the 1920s and 30s (not afterwards) are on the high level of variation-form music by the great classical composers. They are not peasant-noodling-on-the-pipes, but contain music of great emotional and formal power, as well as a use of rhythm for emotional and formal ends which was unknown to the classical composers (and is also unknown to rock musicians). These solos are restricted by the 3-minute recording span of those years. As a live improvisor he was known to play and improvise for 20 or 25 minutes at a time. As an artistic influence during this early period he almost singlehandedly put jazz on the map and can be thought of as a combination of Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, the Beatles, the Stones, Bob Dylan and one or two others, all rolled into one.

Rock is more recent and will need time to achieve some historical perspective. But some of the high creativity that has been exhibited I think goes way beyond what a canny record producer can accomplish thru artifice. To my particular taste, I think Bob Dylan before 1975 was on a very high level, and descended to the plains thru marijuana use, and perhaps other drugs, also. I recommend the albums "Blood on the Tracks" of 1974, or "New Morning" of about 1970, to anyone who may like rock but not be appreciative of earlier, non-protest music by Dylan.

I agree that pop-based music such as rock, jazz, soul (not mentioned here yet), etc. is in a shorter form than classical music. I don't think there is anything inherent in this that prevents it from being great. Shorter pieces by the classical composers are great: short-form variations are great, as in many of Beethoven's variations and in some of his piano sonata adagios; in Bach's Chaconne and Passacaglia; in Brahms' two great sets of variations on themes by Handel and Haydn. Shakespeare's sonnets, a huge amount of other great short lyrical poetry by many poets from Sappho onwards, the Canterbury Tales of Chaucer, the Decameron of Bocaccio, the sketches of Rembrandt and Watteau, well, I could go on and on about short forms. They are a fine outlet for genius.

The problem is what is it about pop-based music in our times that leads to artistic burnout? This is not an across-the-board contemporary phenomenon. I like the work of several living architects, writers of novels, and filmmakers who are getting older and older but still producing art of very high quality. The American writer Philip Roth is burning with a bright flame in his seventies, producing a great novel almost every year or two. Why not these pop musicians?

I once again suggest the reason is not the shortness of the form or the times we live in, but that they are using marijuana and/or other drugs habitually, and thereby losing long-term contact with their own creative wellsprings.

[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited January 23, 2004).]

**Steppenwolf** · 01-23-2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Chaszz:
You just gotta take me on faith with jazz, guys; and not judge it by whatever indifferent stuff you've happened to hear, or by the fact that you may not like the sound of it upon relatively light acquaintance. Think of yourselves as your friends who know classical music thru the first four notes of B's 5th, a little Liberace, and the Lone Ranger theme.

And, don't forget, Vivaldi's Four Seasons!

I have long believed that there would be a lot of merit in jazz music, if only I were to get into it. I have never dismissed it. One day I must explore the genre.

I have found, in classical music at least, you and I, Charles, seem to have a remarkably similar taste - your tastes are more similar to mine than any other single poster I can think of.

So your recomendation of jazz is an endorsement I would listen to.

I agree that there are examples of greatness, perhaps flickers of genius, in rock and pop music, although I would tentatively add that these examples come from the 60s - 80s. There is very little in the last 10 years of merit, in my opinion (I could be wrong!).

However, I am a little perplexed by your liking of Bob Dylan. Recently, not knowing much about him, I borrowed a CD of his from someone I know. Perhaps this particular CD was a bad example of what he is capable of, but it seemed to me to consist of nothing but repetitious, tune-less strumming of a few cords on the guitar, delivered to a rambling dialogue of lyrics designed, so it seemed to me, to be cryptic, so cryptic that arty types can read into them all sorts of profound hidden meanings that were probably not actually intended. What is the big deal with this guy?

**Steppenwolf** · 01-23-2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Amalie:
The secret of genius is to carry the 'spirit' of the 'child' into old age, which means never losing your enthusiasm.

~ Aldous Huxley ~

Many a genius, it has been observed, exhibits a child-like character. The depiction of Mozart in the film Amadeus was not just Hollywood exageration - apparently he really had a strong child-like aspect to his character. The same was said of Goethe.

**Chaszz** · 01-23-2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
And, don't forget, Vivaldi's Four Seasons!

I have long believed that there would be a lot of merit in jazz music, if only I were to get into it. I have never dismissed it. One day I must explore the genre.

I have found, in classical music at least, you and I, Charles, seem to have a remarkably similar taste - your tastes are more similar to mine than any other single poster I can think of.

So your recomendation of jazz is an endorsement I would listen to.

I agree that there are examples of greatness, perhaps flickers of genius, in rock and pop music, although I would tentatively add that these examples come from the 60s - 80s. There is very little in the last 10 years of merit, in my opinion (I could be wrong!).

However, I am a little perplexed by your liking of Bob Dylan. Recently, not knowing much about him, I borrowed a CD of his from someone I know. Perhaps this particular CD was a bad example of what he is capable of, but it seemed to me to consist of nothing but repetitious, tune-less strumming of a few cords on the guitar, delivered to a rambling dialogue of lyrics designed, so it seemed to me, to be cryptic, so cryptic that arty types can read into them all sorts of profound hidden meanings that were probably not actually intended. What is the big deal with this guy?

Mike, I suggest "Blood on the Tracks". Certainly not anything of the last 27 or 28 years.

**Amalie** · 01-23-2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
Many a genius, it has been observed, exhibits a child-like character. The depiction of Mozart in the film Amadeus was not just Hollywood exageration - apparently he really had a strong child-like aspect to his character. The same was said of Goethe.

The same has also been said about Beethoven.
The Retention of certain childlike qualities as an adult is one of the recognized characteristics of persons of genius. Beethoven's childlike simplicity, so evident in his letters, is described by Dr. Alois Weissenbach; "His character corresponds with the splendour of his talent. I never saw a more childlike mind in union with so much power and pride. He has an innate impulse tawards all that is good and beautiful, which is far superior to all training."

[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited January 23, 2004).]

Announcement

What exactly is "Musical Genius"?

What exactly is "Musical Genius"?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment