Folk Genius?

Subject: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 24 May 05 - 04:06 PM

Just finished reading the Dave Van Ronk's book. Towards the end of the book, Dave muses over the talent that emerged during the 60s and concludes that the folkscene never produced a genius. JUST quality writers. He singles out Dylan and Joni Mitchell, in particular. Dave refers to Bach and Duke Ellington as examples of genius. What do we think about all that?

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 24 May 05 - 05:07 PM

Depends on what he means by "genius"?

Did he happen to eludidate?

If we had his criteria we could argue about that instead of posting our own nominations for folk genius.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 24 May 05 - 05:35 PM

If Dylan doesn't make the cut as a "genius," I'm not sure anyone else of his generation would. Maybe Dave knew The Bob too well, and too early, to ever see him as anything more than a very bright young con artist.

Dave knew Mississippi John Hurt pretty well, too, and doesn't mention his name, not even dismissively, in this discussion of "genius." John would fall into a different category of "folk artist" than Bob or Joni ~ less self-conscious, more "folk" or "naive" or "primitive" ~ but he is certainly as strong a candidate for "genius" status as any comparable artist of his peer group.

But Dave's criteria were, apparently, just really high. Nobody but Bach and the Duke, huh? Pretty esteemed company...

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 May 05 - 07:49 PM

For that era Burt Bacharacht

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 24 May 05 - 08:18 PM

Hell, Bob didn't even consider himself Folk. He just needed some songs to sing 'til his first good one came around.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Deskjet
Date: 25 May 05 - 04:14 AM

I've sometimes wondered about this one.I suppose I would place the concept of genius alongside that of revolutionary. To be a genius, one must also be a revolutionary. By revolutionary I mean the breaking of traditonal (tried and trusted) modes of expression, and the creation of new ones. In this context I would place the early Bowie in the genius category ahead of anything Bob Dylan has ever written.(But I'm with Bob!)

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Grab
Date: 25 May 05 - 07:19 AM

If Bach was a genius, I'd class Davey Graham (and maybe John Renbourn) well up there alongside. Definitely revolutionary.

I guess one problem is that it's difficult to point to a genius songwriter, because there's rarely a revolution in songwriting. Revolutions tend to happen in the music and prose/poetry fields, and songwriting merges them.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 25 May 05 - 07:44 AM

There are people who've done certain things with music/songwriting that have never been repeated, and never will.

Bob's one of 'em.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 May 05 - 07:52 AM

Frank Zappa!

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: English Jon
Date: 25 May 05 - 09:46 AM

Leon Rosselson?

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: farmerj
Date: 25 May 05 - 10:02 AM

I can imagine that Van Ronk was highly aware of Bob's musical indebtedness to people like Jack Elliott, Cisco and Woody, old recordings of blues and so on. If you pay a lot of attention to an artist's connections to existing streams of music, it can divert you from the unique way they create. I do think Bob is a genius, and I am stingy with that kind of judgment. But I grant "genius" the right to come from somewhere; I don't need "genius" to stand alone and entirely unique. There are many great Navajo weavers, e.g., but only one may be of the highest artistry and inventiveness. That person could be a genius, drawing on tradition.
--
Skip James over John Hurt any day, and I love John Hurt.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 25 May 05 - 10:05 AM

Woody Guthrie was a genius of a songwriter as was Ewan MacColl.

eric

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: alanabit
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:01 PM

This word "genius" is the problem. Obviously Dave Van Ronk could see Dylan's limitations as well as his sources and influences. On Dylan's side, he has produced a very large body of work, which many of us see as stunningly original. That is as a new type of songwriter though, because he penned popular songs which were more subtle and textured than anything which had preceded them. If you don't like him, he comes over as a pretentious show off.
Woody Guthrie had a lifestyle and an idealistic commitment, which made him exemplary in the eyes of many. His songs were much simpler than Dylan's and I see them as being far less ambitious. I felt quite up to writing a dissertation about Guthrie (which I admit was nothing special). However, I would not even have attempted to write about Dylan. You would have to know a whole lot about a whole lot of subjects to write anything about Dylan which was not superficial.
I don't really think that folk music lends itself to producing a genius. It is a field of human activity which tends to focus on participation and taking the best of many rather than picking out just a few of the best.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: jonm
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:24 PM

On the English folk scene, I would suggest Martin Carthy for recognition. It's only when you dig into the source recordings and books that you realise that all those versions of folk "standards" that have been repeatedly recorded are actually Carthy's versions - with tunes written or amended by him, additional verses written by him etc. Although not the most attractive singer, his guitar technique has spawned more imitators than Davey Graham and John Renbourn combined, and surely the number of imitators reflects your influence.

If we ignore the hand-on-the-ear-Arran-sweater-strumming-a-12-string-guitar stereotype of English folk music, the typical material and treatment you would consider would be Carthy. It's just that he created that stereotype as an original.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:37 PM

Girl from the North Country?
Fennario?

Brilliant writer yes, original, not totally, a genius, almost.
Giok

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:46 PM

Bob Dylan, yes. Nobody else connected with the folk revival in Britain, ireland or north America. And of actual traditional folk performers, none. Pretty much by definition. The folk create perfect music that reflects society. Genius creates revolutionary art that attacks and changes(though the art may be constructed from folk ingredients). Different things.
Genius always seems to be separated by a generation or so from the folk from which it springs. Dylan stood away from his folk background, as did Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington, the two shining examples of jazz geniuses. jazz was a folk music in New orleans in 1900, but the time Armstrong and Ellington had given it a bit of a going over in the 20's, it wasnt folk any more!

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:50 PM

"The hand-on-the-ear-Arran-sweater-strumming-a-12-string-guitar stereotype."
Martin Carthy invented THAT stereotype? Hardly think so.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:53 PM

Not a lot of English singers that I can think of with Arran sweaters and 12-string guitars. Especially ones with sufficient proficiency to play the guitar with a hand on one's ear.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 May 05 - 01:01 PM

You may be confusing him with either The Clancy Brothers and Tommy makes them, or Val Doonican.
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 25 May 05 - 02:01 PM

I can think of more Blues singers with 12-strings than Folk singers.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Nelson
Date: 25 May 05 - 02:15 PM

But betcha none have stylish Arran sweaters.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 May 05 - 02:51 PM

Pedant alert: ignoring how I may or may not have spelt the word in a previous post, they are in fact Aran sweaters. Arran is another place altogether.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 May 05 - 02:58 PM

don't leave it like that, where are the two aran/arrans then?

nearly all the people mentioned have given me a lot of pleasure with their music. its a sort of genius that decides to make people happy with music, rather then screw things up. if they all want to call themselves geniuses, thats cool with me.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 May 05 - 03:16 PM

The Isle of Arran, Scotland
The Aran Islands, Ireland
Giok.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Joe Moran
Date: 25 May 05 - 04:03 PM

Genius? Joni Mitchell fills all the criteria mentioned above. She was so different. She seemed to be composing songs using a radically different set of ideas than her predecessors. And her influence has been massive.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: fat B****rd
Date: 25 May 05 - 04:26 PM

Geniuses (Geniae ?) Charlie Parker, Django Reinhardt and all of the above.
There'll be a few more nominations hopefully.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 05 - 10:30 PM

Genius? A very overused word. Mozart, Beethoven we can discuss, but folk music and songwriting in the folk idiom is not the field for genius. For excellence, for brilliance, for many things certainly, but genius is given to so so few.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 May 05 - 02:07 AM

Actualy, the same genius that applies to Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, et all, can be applied to folk martists. The above composers started within a certain idiom which had standardised forms, and borrowed lots of ideas, indeed phrasings from other stuff, including folk tunes which they reworked.
So if they can be considered geniuses, surely we can't limit ourselves to a narrow definition.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 26 May 05 - 02:16 AM

I'll concede that Wolfgang is a genius & Bob isn't, if you like.

But so what?, as Hunter S. Thompson used to say. People are worth listening to or they aren't. Dylan & Joni Mitchell speak to me more than Mozart and I'd rather listen to them. Why should I listen to someone because he fits some definition?

A question like "Is he a genius?" is an intellectual excercise & the answer is of only academic interest and has nothing to do with the music.

The music don't give a good goddam who wrote or performed it.

clint

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 May 05 - 05:14 AM

It does too care who performs it! A rotten performance can ruin a good piece of music.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 May 05 - 07:58 AM

Folk is a genre like any other - and we have our brilliant talents. as well as those who have shone out and changed the world, like Bob Dylan & Joni Mitchell, I think of people like Andy irvine and Judy Small. To be in the company of a great musician and songwriter, to hear them perform a great work - is an irreplacable, magic experience. Like a poet or an artist - a great songwriter can use words and music to communicate   a powerful moment, idea or experience.

It does not take complexity to make a genius - yes, Bach's music is incomparable. But so is Andy Irvine's "Never Tire of the Road".

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Grab
Date: 26 May 05 - 08:22 AM

Chris, Dylan definitely did things with songwriting that hadn't been done before. But they'd been done before in other areas. Stream-of-consciousness writing was already well established in literature and poetry, so if Dylan hadn't done it then someone else likely would have.

Mind you, if another incredibly talent guitarist from the British tradition had gone touring Europe and North Africa, maybe they would also have come up with the same kind of stuff that Davey Graham would have. But it's doubtful - I think he was as original as Django or anyone like that.

Renbourn is more dubious - although he was talented, arranging old tunes for guitar had been done many times before (and often recorded better - Renbourn's recordings are often pretty ropey). Bert Jansch is another in the Renbourn vein - talented but not unique. Carthy is probably more deserving, in polishing and reconstructing a coherent whole from the enormous "back catalogue" of pre-Victorian English folk, which is a concept that might not necessarily have been done otherwise.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 May 05 - 09:54 AM

So Bert and John aren't geniuses.

I'll break the news to them gently....it could be a shock to them to find out at their time of life.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 May 05 - 11:34 AM

The whole argument that someone else might have is silly. Ther point is that THEY did.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 05 - 11:37 AM

we're all genius's if we choose to be

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Pete Peterson
Date: 26 May 05 - 01:34 PM

I think Deskjet has the major part of the answer: a genius has to be a revolutionary, to change the existing order. The term is way overused; in physics Newton would certainly head any list, but I'm not sure I'd put anybody from the 18th century on. . .in the 19th century you have Maxwell for sure. . .
   in music, Van Ronk had Bach and Ellington on his list. Like others, I'd add Mozart and Beethoven.
   In folk music, our reverence for tradition is inconsistent with genius. Genius involves creation, and good traditional music IMHO means that the area in which creation is allowed is so limited that the level of creation can't approach genius. Hazel Dickens both wrote and sang "It's hard to tell the singer from the song." She was right, and it precludes genius.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: jonm
Date: 26 May 05 - 01:35 PM

Thanks to Grab for echoing my sentiments on Carthy.

As a poor civil engineer (is that an oxymoron?) I was trying to contrast the Aran sweater brigade with the Carthy model, but people seemed to misinterpret that.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 26 May 05 - 01:43 PM

Not quite with the thread, but 18th century genius in mathematics: Leonhard Euler.

20th century genius in music: Igor Stravinsky

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Elijah Wald
Date: 26 May 05 - 07:32 PM

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Elijah Wald
Date: 26 May 05 - 07:48 PM

Actually, Dave never says in the book that Dylan wasn't a genius, or that Ellington and Bach were. The only person he names as a genius is Rev. Gary Davis.

What Dave believed was that the 1960s folk scene was thrilling and produced some excellent work, but that it was based on some very limiting artistic models, with the result that people like Dylan, brilliant as they were, were not pushed to the full extent of their abilities. They were allowed to get by with a lot of sloppy poetry and three-chord, repetitive melodies that would not have been tolerated in a scene with higher standards. And the result was that they created some superb work, but didn't maintain anything like the consistent level of an Ellington or a Bach.

Dave's favorite writer out of that crop was Joni Mitchell, because he thought she had done her homework and put more effort into polishing both words and music until they were as good as she could make them.

On the whole, he did not think his friends were in the same class with people like Harold Arlen, Cole Porter, Hoagy Carmichael... But that was not because they were less full of "genius." Dave didn't worry about genius or art; what he admired was someone who studied their craft and kept getting more expert at it -- as he did throughout his life. His motto -- one of many, actually -- was "Take care of the craft, and the art will take care of itself."

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 26 May 05 - 09:09 PM

"It does too care who performs it! A rotten performance can ruin a good piece of music."

I think we're arguing on the same side, Allen. Maybe I expressed myself badly or too obliquely. A rotten performance can indeed ruin a good piece of music, and if it does I'm not going to like it or play it on my CD even if a genius or two composed it.

All this Genius stuff is only good for Talking About music & has nothing to do with appreciating it or performing it.

A library where I worked had a great many shelves of commentary on Shakespeare. You can get all his extant works in one thick volume, and they're just as good (or bad) without knowing if he was thought to be a genius, or gay, or Bacon.

clint

grump, grump

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 27 May 05 - 09:08 AM

I think you're wrong Elijah! Dave did say that Bach and Ellington are/were geniuses and that Dylan wasn't. Unfortunately, I've leant my copy to a friend, and so I can't give page references.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Frankham
Date: 27 May 05 - 05:33 PM

Folk genius? Someone who captured the language of American people in song without formal training and by intuition. The one that comes to mind for me is Irving Berlin.

Just think of all the different types of memorable songs he wrote without the benefir of advanced musical instruction.

That's a folk genius.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 27 May 05 - 05:45 PM

Tunesmith:

Elijah Wald is the coauthor of Dave's book ~ and, because of Dave's untimely death, he wrote the final draft(s) by himself ~ so I think he knows what he wrote!

I just got the book and read it after I had begun following this thread, so when I got to the passage in question, it was easy for me to notice that the work "genius" is never used. The general idea that you recall is about right, though...

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 May 05 - 06:13 PM

a lot of these nominations are not very close to what is usually considered 'folk'.

The problem WITH folk, is that it is music of the common people, and very good, creative, visionary stuff usually goes beyond what the common people pay attention to. So, folk genius might be simply the ability to present the songs in such a way as to express the musical theme(s) in elegant and moving ways.

There are a number of musicians who have done amazingly well with that process: Martin Carthy, Peter Bellamy, Jeannie Robertson, Ewan MacColl, Eric Bogle, Bruce Phillips, maybe the likes of Johnny Cash and Jean Ritchie...etc....that sort. I never bothered to worry about whether they needed 'genius' applied to them, but some of them had special abilities to weave the story and tune in ways that made the commonplace seem magic...and that IS a sort of genius.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 27 May 05 - 06:31 PM

Just because various folk-art forms are simple should not preclude the possiblity that genius might blossom within their confines, regardless of DVR's opinion.

For example, I'm reminded of a Mudcat thread from a month or so ago, where someone discovered an old music-hall-type song with long and detailed lyrics about having one's grave kept "green," and proposed that this number was superior to, and must have preceded, the blues classic "One Kind Favor (See That My Grave Is Kept Clean)."

I didn't bother to respond at the time, but my opinion is that the succinct, understated blues lyric ~ whether composed by Blind Lemon Jefferson, who first recorded it, or by some unknown earlier artist ~ is far superior, and closer to "genius" than the wordier song. Just my opinion, of course, but I'm not alone in feeling that there is such a thing as "the poetry of the blues," that said poetry consists mainly in subtlety, implication, and understatement, and that the very best practitioners of this art can indeed be considered "geniuses."

(I also thought that it was at least as likely that the composer of the long-winded version might have heard the blues song first and then elaborated upon it, as that Blind Lemon heard the more convoluted lyric and "copied" it in simplified form.)

And, oh yeah, let me add one more name to the list of proposed muscial geniuses, a man who has often been described as a genius: Ray Charles.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 May 05 - 01:13 PM

I did enjoy the DVR book. I have only just finished it. Elijah Wald certainly has made a lovely tribute to the great man.

What makes the book so fascinating of course is the fact that Dave Van Ronk took his work very seriously and he obviously spent his life evaluating and re-evaluating - not just his own work, but also his place within the cultural landscape.

I don't really agree with one or two of his ideas, but they weren't the mindwaste from an idle pontificator - they were the ideas which he used every day of his working life.

They worked for him. I'm sure one or two of them will work for you and give you fresh insights, given the great vantage point that Van Ronk had on that folk world of the 1960's (where so many of us draw our inspiration from).

Dave Van Ronk's world isn't yours, but he was a literate, agile thinker who presented his music in an exciting and creative way.

I think any would be acoustic guitarist/singer /songwriter will find it a terrific read and immensely inspiring.

all the best

Big Al Whittle

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 May 05 - 02:32 PM

I think I'd add Pete Seeger to Bill D's list.

But "Genius" seems to imply virtuosity and "star quality" and individuality. The genius of folk music is in the "folk" - and I do think there is true genius in the folk process. I admire Van Ronk for many things - but when it comes to understanding folk music, I think Van Ronk just didn't get it. It's not about "stars" or individual "shining lights" or making money.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 May 05 - 03:27 PM

I don't think the genius thing is worth tuppence. Who knows who is a genius. Nobody in Van Gogh's lifetime would have thought of him as such. Would they have treated Oscar Wilde so shamefully if they had any idea of his true worth? James Joyce stayed in the game only because of a wealthy patron - the popular consensus of the time had him down as dirty minded and lazy.

Personally I doubt there would be many of the aspects of folk music that Dave Van Ronk didn't get. However he had no wealthy family in the background to support his project to be a professional entertainer in the folk/acoustic world. from the book, you can learn of some of the weird and wonderful projects he got involved with - many through financial necessity. Moreover his audiences don't seem to have been for the main part the respectful crowd that a Carthy or a Seeger seems to attract.

He had to think divergently to survive, and stay in the game. Of necessity he saw things somewhat differently from the sort of artist whose worth is recognised by the intelligentsia and whose work doesn't have to pitch in the marketplace in competition with every other pleb with a banjo.

al

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 05 - 08:25 PM

yep, Joe...you helped me say it..."virtuosity" and "star quality" are a couple of 'possible' aspects of genius, but genius is by its nature a subjective term.

and Pete Seeger is certainly one who could head the kind of list *I* would make. I saw him in 1961, and was awed by his ability to create the desire to participate and share in 'folk' music. That is, to do something other than be "sung at" in a concert hall. His brother Mike is a better instrumentalist, but Pete emphasizes the music. Even though you know a 'famous' performer is singing, it is the song that is the real star, and the ability to make THAT happen is truly a form of genius.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Hand-Pulled Boy
Date: 28 May 05 - 09:49 PM

Take it from me people become genuinely embarassed when someone walks up to them and says that they are a genius. However, buying them a pint is usually quite acceptable. It's just a matter of time now.......................................... !

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Penguin Egg
Date: 28 May 05 - 11:40 PM

Genius in music usually requires an original take on a particular form of music, to take it forward from what went before, and a high degree of technical ability to play it. Classical and Jazz fits this description, but folk and rock do not.

However, to continue my habit of contradicting myself, I am tempted to nominate Bert Jansch.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 29 May 05 - 01:32 PM

No? Folk as we know it today is nothing like what went on 100 years ago.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 05 - 03:09 PM

So, what have we got? A so-called 'folk' website and 53 responses to a question about 'folk geniuses' and ONE mention of Ewan MacColl - shame on you!!!
Ewan was the only genius, in any field, that I have ever met. A songwriter of enormous distinction and influence and an interpreter of traditional song without parallel. No-one could sing a ballad like Ewan - he was the Boss, as far as I'm concerned.
And while we're at it, no mention of Bert Lloyd, either - such short memories, such selectivity!
Nearly everyone who came after were influenced by Bert and Ewan - to let the memories of these two great men die would be an outrage!!!

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Alex Smothers.
Date: 29 May 05 - 06:29 PM

A folk called website it may be, but even folkies would not consider
McColl in the same breath as Beethoven, Mozart, et al.
There where and are many talents in folk music, the term genius does
not apply to any of them.
A genius is someone who creates something that nobody on this planet
could ever aspire to, the afforementioned composers, and many like them did this.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Elijah Wald
Date: 29 May 05 - 09:43 PM

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Elijah Wald
Date: 29 May 05 - 09:55 PM

Am I not being clear, or are people not reading clearly? Dave Van Ronk would never have argued that folk musicians were less brilliant than other musicians, much less that Blind Lemon Jefferson was less of a genius than a music hall composer. But he was not talking about folk musicians like Lemon Jefferson. He was talking about educated urban nightclub entertainers like Bob Dylan, and arguing that they limited their art by limiting themselves to the musical language of the rural south. He thought it was silly. Dylan studied Allen Ginsberg and Baudelaire along with Robert Johnson and Woody Guthrie when it came to writing lyrics, and Dave thought he would have been a better songwriter if he had also learned from Ellington and Ives.

Clearly, some very great songwriters worked within three chords -- but rarely by choice. Most "real" folk artists are remarkably adaptable -- I have heard everyone from Scottish ballad singers to old bluesmen do pop material when the folklorists weren't guiding them. Dylan had heard Kurt Weill and Irving Berlin, and cites them as an influence on his work, but he never bothered to learn how to score or harmonize at a more sophisticated level than what he could pick up by jamming with his buddies. To Dave, that was lazy, and limited what Dylan could accomplish. And that was the point we were making in that section of Dave's book.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 05 - 09:58 PM

OK.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 May 05 - 03:47 AM

I'm not sure Bob Dylan writes the way he does out of laziness. He writes that way cos that's what he does best.

I think maybe the view you are expounding Elijah; might, for the sake of argument, be called naive empiricism - more of some other ingredient will make it better.

A few years ago now, I did some tracks with a guy who was into what they call 'trance' music. he cooked up some stuff on his computer, and I was recording him - so I said, hey put some guitar over that...

he said, what sort of guitar?
and I said, well clean fender sound - something in the key of A...
Key of A....? I might as well have been speaking Japanese, didn't have a clue, so i said, okay I'll do it.

And I did it. And all I can say is there was diminishment ...instant diminishment and several takes later I realised I was up a blind alley.

Its more like cookery than anything else ...the ingredients have to blend.

And in his great period, Dylan got all the ingredients right. he wrote music that stirred our hearts and lyrics that people related to at the deepest and most personal level.

anyway that's what I think

all the best, and thanks for two great reads - Josh White and Dave Van Ronk. I don't know if writing two hugely fascinating books entitles you to be called a folk genius - but I wouldn't begrudge you the title, and neither should anybody else.

all the best

Big Al whittle

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 30 May 05 - 04:03 AM

That example's a bit like what Gary Moore discovered when wondering why this new electronic music didn't use guitars.
The answer is it won't work.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 05 - 09:03 AM

I suppose it's ultimately futile arguing about whether this or that artist was/is a genius or not but I do believe that some artists' achievement are overlooked or ignored because of prejudice whilst others are elevated above their station because of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' effect - some influential voice states that so-and-so is a genius and everyone else parrots that line for evermore.
I still think that MacColl was a genius because he developed such a deep understanding of the traditional musical idioms of the English speaking world that he was not only able to sing trad. songs with great authority but also able to write new songs in the traditional idiom. I'm in awe of him because his artistic vision spanned centuries and honoured the memory of countless country singers, ballad writers, playwrights, shanty men etc., etc. - and was not just about what happens to be 'cool' in this particular millisecond.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Elijah Wald
Date: 30 May 05 - 11:38 PM

I guess I'm still not being clear. Dave thought, and I think, that Dylan was without doubt the finest songwriter on the folk scene of the early 1960s. What Dave considered laziness was a feeling endemic to that scene, which was that great songs "came to you" and you didn't have to rewrite and rewrite, and study, and expand your musical knowledge.

That Dylan did incredible things within the basic limits of three-chord folk and rock musical forms is unquestionably true. However, Dylan himself writes in Chronicles that he created those songs when he had a spark of genius that he lost long ago, and that he can't write masterpieces like that anymore. People like Bach, Ellington, and Cole Porter did not have this problem. They not only had a spark of genius, they also had a thorough grounding in their craft, and thus never were stuck with the feeling that they had done their greatest work in their twenties.

And yes, I know there are probably people who think that the writing on "Time Out of Mind" is as great as the writing on "Freewheelin'" or "Highway 61." But I'm not one of them, nor was Dave, nor is Dylan himself.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 May 05 - 04:08 AM

Hmmm....

Paul Simon once wrote about the time he went to visit Hoagy Carmichael.

Paul asked him why did you stop writing?

Carmichael said, I never did. I write everyday, the music changed though.....

I thought the chronicles as far as I read was sort of sad. How Dylan spent time hanging round with musicians that he hoped would relight his spark. I see no laziness or lack of dedication in his approach - though I would agree he has never attained the heights of the 1960's.

Maybe that is why Dave wanted his memoirs centred round the 60's. It was music of a time and place - like Auden's poetry in the 1930's. The zeitgeist or whatever.

Auden went on writing another 30 years, but it was his privilege at that point in time to articulate the nightmares of a generation.

Anyway you were closer to the events as they happened so I guess you developed a feel for what is happening. I imagine you are right.

all the best

al

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Guy Wolff
Date: 31 May 05 - 09:50 PM

The things that Bach and Ellington have in commin in my mind are that what they did was complete onto themselves. Thats the gift given from someone creating completely from the moment they come out of and the magic in the air at that time ! .

             Its very hard for me to put meny on the same list as Bach because of the shear power of truthful human endevor that comes through on his breath of work .
         
          That said lots of people of those decades (48 =58 -68 )were complete onto themselves and not all of it could be called folk in my mind so this makes for a quandry on a list . I guess Woody Guthrie would be at the top of my folk list , And ascew I would add Skip James . A little later I would also add Martin Carthy and Ry Cooder in almost the same breath but for completely diferent reasons.

      Would the great Blind Blake and Lonny Johnson be pre-cersers?? Ha Sorry


                         All the best , Guy

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 10:41 AM

I think genius is a tricky word!!!! Clearly a genius is a person who creates a masterpiece not just once, but many times, so a one hit wonder   song, even if measured by dylans material was far better than dylans material, does not make the writer of that song a genius.

I think dylan did consistently create enough original material to warrent the title genius. The wealth of material he has produced is the subject of scholars. He is in fact the only song writer who has a place at my local library in both the music section and the poetry section.

When we all listen to dylan, as i am now for instance listening to chimes of freedom, you get the irratating feeling that it is beyond our, and by 'our' I mean those of us who write songs, but we get that feeling that songs like chimes of freedom, and the countless others by dylan are beyond the normal, or even the superhuman-norm of many great artists.

Dylans grasp for some of the greatest tunes that wrap around his lyrics so well, his voice like no other voice that seems possessed by the lyrics he sings at any given moment, and those lyrics, those lyrics that leave us silent wondering , "what just happened". I think only a genius can leave that trail of wonder behind him. Dylan is a genius, he is beyond the norm, and goes further than even the exceptional norm, and he has for decades consistently wrote melodies and lyrics that continue to astound. Not Dark Yet and Suger Baby spring to mind.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: johnross
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:26 PM

It's difficult to identify "genius" among folksingers, but I think it's possible to find a handful of traditional instrumentalists who deserve that description.

Just as the great jazz musicians took an established form and carried it to a new level -- I would add Bix Beiderbecke and John Coltrane to that list along with Louis Armstrong and Charlie Parker -- there are some "folk" musicians who have done the same thing. Certainly Bill Monroe, and arguably Muddy Waters, Jimmie Rodgers and some great fiddlers like Benny Thomasson. Each of them changed their type of music, leaving it different from what they started with and creating a new model for those who followed them. So did J.S. Bach and Phil Spector.

And using that defintion, Bob Dylan certainly qualifies. Certainly he was influenced by Guthrie, Ramblin' Jack, and others (including Van Ronk himself), but he carried the singer-songwriter genre to a new and different level. After the sixties, most new singer-songwriters were held up to the "Dylan standard."

I don't include the best of the 20th century bluesmen like Robert Johnson, Son House and John Hurt as geniuses, mainly because we don't know what their influences sounded like; we really can't tell whether Johnson, for example, was directly imitating somebody who came before who was never recorded. It's unlikely, but it is possible.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:43 PM

There was genius to some of the Beatles' work, also.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 01:02 AM

We DO know that RJ was very influenced by Son House, Lonnie Johnson, and Leroy Carr, and he DID imitate very aspects of their performance. He even 'borrowed' quite a few of their songs.
It all depends on who's interpretation you like the most.

I wouldn't call Robert a 'Genius'. He wasn't neccessarily an innovator.

As far as Bobby D., his early foray into Folk was not genius. His genius was not evident until the mid-'60's, when he started to put his poetry to music, and discovered his TRUE musical voice. It was then that he slowly left "the scene", and stopped mimicking Woody Guthrie.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Bob The Postman on vacation in Bath
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 10:15 AM

Dylan is a genius, arguably the most influential English language poet of the second half of the 20th century, and he did come out of the early 60s NY folk scene. But that doesn't necessarily make him a genius as a folk musician per se. It's the breadth, depth, and diversity of his lyricism that sets him apart.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 10:47 AM

This whole thread is about one man's opinion. The rest of you have opinions, too.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 10:52 AM

Suggesting that Dylan wasn't a genius with his music is nuts. So Dylan wasn't Ellington. Ellington wasn't Newton, either. Seems like we got apples and shellfish and beaujolais being compared. I suppose you can do it, but it takes some mental gymnastics.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 11:36 AM

"For example, I'm reminded of a Mudcat thread from a month or so ago, where someone discovered an old music-hall-type song with long and detailed lyrics about having one's grave kept "green," and proposed that this number was superior to, and must have preceded, the blues classic 'One Kind Favor (See That My Grave Is Kept Clean).'"

Hold on, Poppagator! I think I'm the individual you are refering to, and I definately did not say that "See That My Grave's Kept Green' was superior to Blind Lemon Jefferson's classic. In fact, I said quite the opposite. I did suggest that it was possible that Jefferson's song drew from the earlier parlor song. Here is what I wrote:

"I came across this while looking up something else. I think it's an excellent example of the degree to which recomposition of an original song can create a new (and in this case, better) song."

And you did respond, quite eloquently. I would have liked to have continued the discussion, but I couldn't find any relevant variants between the 1876 sheet music and Jefferson's recordings.

Back to this discussion: If Jefferson's song is related to the 1876 parlor song, it is a perfect illustration of folk genius at work. Out of commonplace or maudlin sources, something trancendent is created.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 12:07 PM

Now I realize that my language was probably unclear. The "new (and in this case, better) song" I referred to was Jefferson's composition. The "original song" I referred to was Gus William's parlor song. To rephrase (one last time, hopefully): If the 1876 song was Jefferson's source for "One Kind Favor", the relationship between the two illustrates how the folk process and the genius of individual performers can improve upon non-folk material.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 01:28 PM

Michael ~ my apologies.

I generally try to focus more on ideas than personalities in these discussions, with the inevitable result that I may occasionally give offense where none was intended.

In the case of that earlier discussion of the two "clean graves" songs, I did indeed read your remark about the "new (and in this case, better) song" in the opposite manner from what I now see that you intended, but I still refrained from going any further with the discussion at the time, because I didn't want to "make it personal" any more than I already had. However, my reaction was pretty strong and stayed alive in the back of my mind, which is why it resurfaced when I was reading this thread.

It looks like we both agree that either the "parlor song" or some "blues version" (either BLJ's song or some earlier variant) could have come first, and that it's interesting to speculate how either one might have served as the source for the other.

(I do encounter people who have no appreciation for understatement in general, and for the subtle read-between-the-lines "folk genius" of The Blues in particular. Seen in the harshest possible light, this attitude can be considered evidence of racism, or at least of an inability to appreciate a less linguistically oriented culture than one's own. I realize that most of those who take this attitiude do so quite innocently; hence my reluctance to have persued that earlier discussion any further than I did.)

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 01:56 PM

Poppagator-

Your point about 'reading between the lines' is an important dimension of folk genius. I think it was Woody Guthrie who said that any fool could get complicated, the trick was to say it simply and truthfully (I'm paraphrasing). The distinction between performance and text is important, too. A lot of folk and blues lyrics seem flat and uninspired on the printed page but come to life through an inspired performance.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 03:24 PM

We always get hung up on definitions, whether it's the definition of genius, or the definition of folk music. Imprecise terms such as these will always be applied differently by different individuals.

Elijah's comments (and Van Ronk's comments) about the "real" issue are more interesting, I think. If I'm following this correctly, Van Ronk seems to have believed that Dylan and others would have produced more consistently interesting work if they had had a better grounding in music theory, giving them the ability to move beyond the simple three-chord structures they usually worked in. Dylan has said the same thing himself -- I remember reading a comment he made to this effect when receiving an honorary doctorate of music from some institution or other -- and I think some of his work shows him straining against the limits of his musical craftmanship.

At the same time, there's something about the immediacy of the simple folk-based structures that makes them very compelling settings for the type of songs Dylan writes. Could you set a line like "the ghost of electricity howls in the bones of her face" (the line Ralph Gleason cited in a famous critique of his) to a Duke Ellington melody? Would it work as well? I don't know, truthfully; maybe that's something for our next folk genius to tackle. [The one person I can think of who comes closest to having both the lyrical and musical chops to pull something like this off is Elvis Costello. He's not someone who would be universally recognized as a folk artist, but it sounds like Van Ronk's comment was pushing for a more expansive musical pallette anyway.]

That, to me, is a far more interesting topic that our competing definitions of "genius".

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 03:40 PM

This angle on the debate also comes down to opinion: Many find Dylan's work "consistently interesting" despite his lack of musical training. To consider whether his work would have been somehow better or more interesting had he been better grounded in theory is to ask an unanswerable question.

In the end, comparing Dylan to Ellington is apples and oranges. Would anyone compare John Lee Hooker to Louis Armstrong?

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:13 AM

Yeah, it's all opinion; we'll never bring these discussions into the realm of undisputed fact (not sure why we'd want to, anyway). I agree that a Dylan/Ellington comparison is apples and oranges, and I also feel that there is much of interest in Dylan's later work, even if, on the whole, it falls somewhat short of the standards he set in the 60s.

But the question remains: could someone achieve the same depths and layers of meaning that Dylan did lyrically against a more sophisticated musical backdrop? Or, to speak more directly to Van Ronk's point, would additional musical education have enabled Dylan to produce more compelling work when the muse of his early days deserted him?

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 01:55 PM

I think that much of Dylan's later work is more sophisticated musically than his early stuff, even though the lyrics may be (arguably) a bit less inspired.

In other words, it may be almost as irrelevant to compare two songs from the same worter as it is to compare the work of one writer to another. Music, after all, is not a competitive sport; it may be an exaggeration (or wishful thinking) to employ the cliche "It's all good," but there is certainly no limit to the number of good, and even great, pieces that might be created.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: sixtieschick
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 02:51 PM

I think that that the dominance of public relations and advertising in our world has upped the ante on hyperbole to the point that we are becoming increasingly immune to mere words such as "talented." In order to capture our attention, people have to be called "geniuses," "brilliant" and other words that used to be reserved for the few who shone more brightly than the rest. Now we are becoming immune to such words because we see them so often attached to people with talent, but who are not heads and shoulders above the others.

The test of time generally separates the geniuses from those who enjoyed popularity during their time, but don't hold up quite so well in the long run. Even then, these are ultimately subjective evaluations.

M.

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 03:07 PM

Yeah, I agree that this isn't a competitive sport (thank God!).

Your point about Dylan's music getting more sophisticated over time is interesting; I'm not sure I agree (his backing musicians have often been more skilled in recent years, whether or not the underlying music has actually gotten more sophisticated), but it's at least arguable. Lyrically, I think most people would agree that his later work, as good as it sometimes is, fails to rise to the same impossibly high standard he set in the early days, although there have been some notable exceptions.

But if what you say is true -- that the musical sophistication went up while the lyrical brilliance went down -- it seems that might be relevant both to Van Ronk's point, and to my own. I wouldn't want to get too academic about any of this, but the question I posed was whether a simpler musical structure provides a better setting for lyrics like Dylan's. To put it another way, when you have a richly detailed painting, do you really want to put it in an ornate frame?

Subject: RE: Folk Genius?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 03:28 PM

I am in agreement with the above two posters (and certainly others on this thread).

As to the degree of 'complexity' one can develop in music, it makes mathematical sense that the more instruments you use the greater the range of 'theme and variation'. However, that does not diminish the beauty of songs like "Maggie" or "The October Winds" when they are done with just voice and guitar.

To me, genius could conceivably be defined as the creation that takes place within a set of parameters. Listening to people like Monk or Davis, we know that other than the 'structure' of the song (12 bar; 16 bar and the time--7/8 or 11/4, there are few boundaries. That of and by itself does not a genius make. A 'genius' performance maybe, but genius creators, maybe not.)

If we listen to the early music of someone like Stockhausen, we may not like what we hear, but therein one can find inspiration. I think the term 'genius' is thrown around loosely. Anyone sufficiently smart would rewrite most IQ tests before he/she finished--and by doing that never achieve measurable scores to be CALLED a genius.

I do not think that certain folks named are geniuses in either their music or their mentality; but, many others do, and I understand by that that they see/hear things in the music that I don't. Cool by me.

BM