Have you ever wondered what it’s like to be
a genius? Have you ever wondered what it actually means to be a genius? What
rights does it give you? Like most
people, I decided that I was going to be a genius long before I decided what I
was going to be a genius about. I am still pondering on exactly what, although
I have the basics worked out. I have met many people who claim to have
genius-like talents: uber-intellegence; photographic memory; above and beyond a
normal ability to comprehend and maintain access to trivial facts:
inappropriate body odour and other things, but their claims have all crumbled
when put to a simple test on the subject matter.
I’ve been thinking about this for a few
reasons lately. Firstly, I have seen a few movies and read a few books lately
that deal with the understanding that genius is something more than humanity,
or something outside of it. It has me wondering why our culture is filled with
stories that externalises genius as a concept. Genius seems to be retold as an
externality to humanity. It is the work of God, Satan or some other factor. I
found myself re-watching the classic “Crossroads” the other night. There are
two competing versions of genius in that story.
Firstly, Robert Johnson’s abilities as a
musician, like that of Blind-Dog Fulton, when briefly talked about, were the
work of a deal with the devil. Albeit it wasn’t a spell or talent that was
given, they were given lessons from the devil, but nonetheless, it was
super-human. The obvious points that tend to get a bit lost in all this is that
the music for the movie was provided by the very talented and very human Steve Vai and Ry Cooder
who both learnt how to play guitar by skill and perseverance. But are they
geniuses? Can they take from wherever they want? Ry Cooder is particularly
interesting here as his work in ethnomusicology has been scorned for doing just
that – taking from a culture that he has no claim to. Secondly, the Blues, as a
concept of music does not stand out in the scheme of things. It can be placed on
a continuum between the Romantics, the Jazz era and the modern Rock era. While
it is outstanding music, it fits in perfectly in a spectrum of human history
and artistic development. No external forces were needed for it.
Interestingly, in ‘Crossroads’ it is in
Eugene’s return to classical music, a very Mozart inspired song by Steve Vai - “Eugene’s Trick Bag” that defeats Jack
Butler. This is interesting because Mozart is another case in point about a man
who history tends to regard as not possessing or actually having the talent
that he was credited with. He was possessed by the angels or the like, and his talent
was devoid of, and removed from that bratty young man who apparently died penniless
from syphilis in his thirties.
The second feature is that the film’s plot sticks closely to the
main character wanting to find a supposedly lost and unheard-of, 30th
song of Robert Johnson’s, so that the main character could blast his way into
the blues scene by taking something that was not his and combining it with his
genius to get showered in glory. What if he had done this? The character has a
clear musical genius – young and capable of out-playing the devil, or so it
would seem. Could a genius take an unknown blues song and, using outstanding musical
skill (to the point of genius) turn it into a new work of art that he alone
gets credit for?
The more savvy of our lot here will be
thinking ‘mmm...musicians who take obscure old blues tunes and, through their
genius, turn them into brilliant works of art...sounds like you’re talking
about Led Zeppelin, not Crossroads’. And you’re right I am.
There seems to have been a resurgence in
tall poppy bashing about Led Zeppelin lately. And they did take a fair bit, but
the question is, were they entitled to? This is probably more than one question
and more than one depth of appropriate appropriation. Songs like “Black Mountain Side” were
seemingly just taken and not improved upon at all from the original save for
the addition of drums; at one end of the spectrum. Songs like Stairway and How
Many More Times, where you really need to creatively listen to the supposed ‘original’
to hear any decent similarity at the other end of the spectrum.
Perhaps a response to the former end of the
spectrum, Black Mountain Side - would be ‘who cares’ – that’s not a very
ledded, Led Zep song, not like Dazed and
Confused. But have a listen to what people
claim is the original of that; the, Jake Holmes’s version. It
sounds like that stoner brother of the boring girl you went too far with when
you were a teenager, doesn’t it? He still scares you doesn’t he? And you still
don’t know if he ever knew and was just playing with your mind, or whether he
was that annoying and grumpy.
The baseline, the melody, the drums, the
lead guitar and almost all of the words (except for those three little words of
the title) were completely changed to create one of the greatest rock songs of
all time, the Led Zeppelin
version. But should it have still been credited? Should Jake Holmes have
gotten some dosh for his song? What about old blues songs like ‘You Shook Me’
or “The Hunter” that were recorded by an artist or two, but were traditional
blues songs; why should Led Zep have credited them when that meant giving them
money for something they themselves took from somewhere else. Surely all art
stands on the shoulders of the giants who came before.
Shakespeare is another case in point. There
is yet another movie which I fell asleep in this week, ‘Anonymous’ which
presented another weird take on why Shakespeare wasn’t actually responsible for
Shakespearean plays and verse. At least it’s not Francis Bacon credited in this
dog of a film, but it presents a reason as to why Shakespeare is so far removed
from normal, that genius itself is so far removed from normal: possession and insanity
of some kind. The author (who is not Shakespeare, himself is possessed and
keeps writing “merely because it is the only way the voices stop” or something
like that (I am sorry for the inaccuracy, but I fell asleep for half the movie,
and was half asleep for the rest). So
again, Shakespeare the person is divorced from Shakespeare the genius due to
the genius coming from either insanity or supernatural voices/beings.
But what is the reason? Well, maybe it
gives us some comfort knowing that genius is beyond our reach and beyond our
control. We then don’t have to compete with it or excuse our lack of genius. If
Shakespeare the genius is a spirit, a ghost or possessed man of some kind, I
can feel at ease not being as good of a writer.
Hell, I can even not put a full
stop at the end of this sentence
Maybe I can even put an emoticon in here, J ...lol
But returning to the first point; can a
genius take from society without acknowledgement? Can a band like Les Zeppelin
simply take old blues songs and give them a new look and claim to be their
authors? The answer I guess would have to be yes, but that depends on how much
the appropriating artist has given to the song and how cool the artist is. I
think that this is a big consideration –
how cool is the appropriating artists in comparison to the artist whose work
has been appropriated and other relative standing between the two points of
view. If Vanilla Ice were cooler than David Bowie (I know, it’s hard to image
that, for two reasons; firstly, it’s freaken Bowie we’re talking about here,
and secondly, it’s freaken Vanilla Ice we’re talking about here). But what
about the Culture Club and the Violent Femmes (albeit the Femmes did credit
their work)? They were so much cooler, but is it removed enough? What about Jeff Buckley’s version of
Hallelujah; is it removed enough from the original Leonard Cohen to be
considered a work of art in and of itself? On the question of coolness and
talent, this is probably an unfair question given Buckley is one of the most
talented singers ever, whereas Cohen sounds like Darth Vader would the morning
after he’d been to a AC/DC concert.
On top of all this, I have been reading
some more of one of my favourite authors, George Orwell’s Decline of the English Murder. And yes, I know, I know, I am that
tragically daggy (well, actually I’m not that person, because I actually do
read his stuff and don’t go around telling everyone that I do, and to prove it,
for those who doubt, I think Nineteen Eighty Four was one of the worst books he
ever wrote). But he had a decent swing at Salvador Dali on this point (as well
as calling him a fraud and a coward). Dali, in the eyes of Orwell, could be
admired as an artist and spat upon as a man. Further, that it is not the case
that Dali could say or do anything at all, so long as it was said artistically.
For Orwell, we could still openly spit on the man while enjoying his work. I am not so sure that this is a correct point,
but Orwell makes a good point.
“[T]he first thing we demand of a wall is that it shall stand up. If
it stands up, it is a good wall, and the question of what purpose it serves is
separable from that. And yet, even the best wall in the world deserves to be
pulled down if it surrounds a concentration camp. ‘This is a good book or a
good picture, and it ought to be burned by the public hangman.’ Unless one can
say that, one is shrinking the implications of the fact that an artist is also
a citizen and a human being,”[1]
Apart from the general freedom of the
artist, surely there has to be a line, a point in which someone has created a
completely new piece of art from a vague appropriation, but that should not
mean crediting the appropriated any more than just recognising them in the continuum
of human progression in the arts.
Take a listen to John Coltrane playing “My Favourite Things” At
the start, the melody is recognisably appropriated from ‘The Sound of Music’
and Rogers and Hammerstein ought to be credited. The rhythm, phrasing, orchestration,
the very feel of the song is completely removed though. However, by the time
the song gets to the end, there is no similarity to the original work of art.
Somewhere along the way, it became a new composition...but where and exactly
what?
So
is it mere recognisability? Does Patti Smith owe anything to Van Morrison apart
from a tongue in cheek ‘that’s how it’s
done Chad’ type comment for her version of the old Van
Morrison tune? Or is it in the concept
as an atom? Does Aerosmith owe a debt to the Yardbirds for their concept “if
you can judge a wise man by the colour of his skin, then mister you’re a better man than I’? Do they owe a
debt to the Kinks for their concept Lola/Dude looks like a lady?
Or is it more appropriate to say that we
should stop externalising greatness. We should be thankful that there is so
much talent and creativity and beauty in our world, and stop cutting down tall
poppies.
This
post’s lame joke: Why do violin players put a handkerchief
on their shoulder before they start playing?
Because a Violin doesn’t have a spit valve
on it.
This
post’s inappropriate over share: When I am editing my writing lately, and I’ve
done this for a while, I have this kooky need to not delete everything from a
word that I am changing. It’s as though changing all the letters of a word will
mean bad writing, bad consequences or something and the more of the original word
that I keep, the better the writing will be.... and by the way, I know you’re
thinking “and this post is what you’ve come up with...dude”.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.