Here's what an ACTUAL genius looks like!

[Observer_Is_Back]

"Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc."

A familiar debating strategy in these parts. Pull out all meanings a given word has ever possessed in its entire etymological history, and exploit whichever meaning allows one to cling to one's current attitude-set, thus evading larger-world implications. Parochialism rules. All hail online dictionaries!


"to belittle those who consider their favorite MDs as genius based on thier standards exposes an ignorance. "

I have no beef with "favorite" MDs. My intention is to situate frequent claims made for "genius" in a larger context of musical achievement.

[Observer_Is_Back]

kiru:

"prodigy as in prodigious means 'more'"

Thanks for the semantic assist, who would have known?

I and the article used the word in the sense most people use it by common consensus, to refer to a young person of startling talent and unusual achievements.

"Anybody is free to call anybody a genius, if there are more people calling one particular person as genius, only then it takes on a serious connotation. Ofcourse, when we were in the university, didn't we call one of few our smart classmates as genius ?."

No offense, but this is just sophistry. Twist the word "genius", resort to the subjective argument, talk of "genius" classmates and so on. To me this appears transparently like a flight away from engagement with the larger world. I wouldn't continue to call my smart classmate a genius after encountering the world-class brilliance of an Einstein. If I did so I'd be considered incapable of discrimination and judgement. I've no trouble seeing why you, on the other hand, would like to retain the ability to continue to refer to both the classmate and Einstein as geniuses.

[Observer_Is_Back]

eden, kr, kiru:

Seriously guys, ponder with me for a moment on this phenomenon: Why do we puff up our chests in pride when the international community stoops down to lift, embrace and exploit one of our proclaimed "geniuses"? Isn't it because we do accept a larger world of evaluative criteria, a world we hope for admittance into?

Why do we recoil in anger and despair when the outcome varies from indifference (IR's never-released symphony) to embarrassing contretemps (ARR's CBSO debacle)? Why are we baffled by this? Isn't it because we are prone to hastily declare our "classmates" as geniuses on the grounds that "anyone can call anyone a genius", in short because our estimation of artistic worth is restricted to regional, or at most national, boundaries?

Did you catch the contradiction in our attitudes? We acknowledge the lure of the larger world, yet wish to gain entry to it without expanding our notions of "genius". In other words, we desire, irrationally, to munch our cake, and stash it too. It cannot work.

[eden]

Observer_is_back,
When you say a specific person is the `ACTUAL' genius (and also challenging to be matched by another), it's only natural for one to look up the meaning of the word and try to understand what is `ACTUAL' and what is not It was definitely not a `debating strategy' as I'm never interested in spending time over debates of subjectivity.

To me 2 is numerically greater than 1 and first is positionally greater than second. Other than quantitative things like that and certain others which can be logically concluded (like effect has a cause), there's simply no point in spending time arguing. Especially with `vidhandA vAdhigaL', it'll be a sheer waste of time...Hence this will be my last posting on this subjective subject)

[kr]

I do not see a contradiction. When the international community expresses appreciation of our own, I get elated only because the spread of the awareness of our people's achievements beyond our own sphere and that evaluated by another set of standards, not necessarily superior but different, the achievements are seen as extraordinary. When you are talking about a place like US, such recognition also shows the achievement was able to breakthrough in a highly competitive environment with people with a different, not superior, set of preferences.

Now when such recognition is not there, it is not really contradicting that your original evaluation of a talent or achievements are still valid under your own set of standards. The non recognition from an international community could be either from lack of awareness, comprehension or just an effect of the difference in a set of preferences. Questioning the validity of your own evaluation based on the above again will be a product of ignorance.

On another note, reading the cbs.com article, if one has knowledge of marketing in the US, one could easily see the efforts of a PR agency around the article. You have to discount the article a little with that in mind.

[Observer_Is_Back]

eden:

"When you say a specific person is the `ACTUAL' genius (and also challenging to be matched by another), it's only natural for one to look up the meaning of the word and try to understand what is `ACTUAL' and what is not:-"

Not at all. It's obvious to anyone not attempting to justify parochialism that by "actual" genius I meant that Jay's MUSICAL achievements are significantly greater than anyone I know in India. And he has done all this at a much younger age in a musical realm much more complex, and rigorously criticized, than IFM. However I can see that you desire to opt out of the informal community for which this would be common sense. Don't let me stop you. I'm satisfied if some from that informal community have been alerted, and have more basis to make informed judgements.

[Observer_Is_Back]

kr:

"When the international community expresses appreciation of our own, I get elated only because the spread of the awareness of our people's achievements beyond our own sphere and that evaluated by another set of standards, not necessarily superior but different, the achievements are seen as extraordinary."

I notice an attempt here to resort to the subjectivity of personal/local musical preferences as some sort of impregnable last defense, and this might help you, conceivably, to counter assertions of Jay's musical superiority. Such a line of argument holds much more water when comparing Indian classical music with Western classical music, surely not when comparing IFM to WCM.

Be that as it may, the fact is that even removing differing musics and differing standards out of the picture, the achievements of Jay are quantitatively and "objectively" greater than anyone I know. I have no intention of persuading EVERYONE of seeing the obviousness of this, of course. Feel free to distance yourself from my use of the word genius if that helps you to hold onto whatever you believe.

"On another note, reading the cbs.com article, if one has knowledge of marketing in the US, one could easily see the efforts of a PR agency around the article. You have to discount the article a little with that in mind."

Interesting. So if US people talk about their geniuses it's just marketing, if they talk about ours it "shows the achievement was able to breakthrough in a highly competitive environment." CBS 60 minutes is very reputed, but that's not the only link I posted, there is also the Juilliard link, and I've read about this on several music blogs, none of which are financially motivated.

[Observer_Is_Back]

kr:

"I do not see a contradiction."

There IS a contradiction if we hail certain of our composers over certain others for "successfully" composing wannabe-symphonies and dabbling in sundry Western forms and genres, yet continue to regard them as geniuses in the face of Western indifference or scorn. To use Western standards when comparing, say ARR to Anu Malik, and then using Indian/local preferences when comparing ARR to Tan Dun is contradictory and dishonest.

"Questioning the validity of your own evaluation based on the above again will be a product of ignorance. "

So you never question the validity of your own evaluation? Clearly you've attained omniscience then. I, like most mortals, am constantly open to anything that'll inform the context of my listening experiences. If ARR toys with trance I change my evaluation based on the amount and variety of trance I've listened to, if IR is "inspired" by some WCM phrase I entertain only provisional evaluations subject to modification.

[Observer_Is_Back]

eden:

"When you say a specific person is the `ACTUAL' genius (and also challenging to be matched by another), it's only natural for one to look up the meaning of the word and try to understand what is `ACTUAL' and what is not"

Reading this I think you're saying, or pretending, that I said that Jay is THE ACTUAL GENIUS. I said nothing of the sort, I said here's what actual genius LOOKS LIKE. It was not intended as an invitation for music-listeners to worship THE NEW MESSIAH as a replacement for whoever was the old one. My intention was to raise the standards of the game, just as the Indian cricket team hires South African/Australian coaches to raise ITS level.

Looking up the meanings of words is a sterile exercise, my meaning is with me here, you'd be much better off asking me what I meant than scurrying off to the nearest dictionary and pulling linguistic rank on me, which is just transparently a way of avoiding the rigors of conversation and communication.

And indeed I see that you go on to sign off altogether, citing "subjective" grounds. If subjectivity is always the final answer then why even bother to participate in forums? Isn't it at least partly to see how well our subjectivity fares in the spotlight of rational discourse? There is a powerful, self-revelatory aspect to debate, and not everyone is comfortable with that.

To clarify, my use of "genius" is the one shared by many sensible music-lovers here and elsewhere. Though never formalized, I think I'd be safe to say that many of our intrinsic requirements of musical genius (as opposed to extrinsic ones like popularity, longevity, industry domination, remuneration) like complex, long-form compositions, speed, prolificity, youthfulness, versatility are all fulfilled by Jay, to a far greater degree than anyone I can think of in India. If you disagree, and would prefer to use a variant of "genius" that'll let you idolize whoever it is you idolize, feel free to do so.

Frankly, listing all possible meanings feels like a smokescreen created to intimidate and confuse the gullible, and I strongly urge posters here to avoid this tactic, and instead do their interlocutors the courtesy of asking them what they mean.

[Observer_Is_Back]

kr:

"The non recognition from an international community could be either from lack of awareness, comprehension or just an effect of the difference in a set of preferences."

And never because the music itself lacked quality? So if we're appreciated it's because the music was extraordinary, if we're criticized it's because of their lack of awareness? Rather convenient, don't you think, the way we're avoiding the challenges posed by differing preferences? I find this attitude to be complacent and passive. How can someone who employs this evasive tactic grasp the import of "differences", and create a thinking and a music that can marry those differences and transcend them?

""When the international community expresses appreciation of our own, I get elated only because the spread of the awareness of our people's achievements beyond our own sphere and that evaluated by another set of standards, not necessarily superior but different, the achievements are seen as extraordinary."

You emphasize "different, but not superior" quite a bit, understandably so, since that constitutes your subjective last stand. Yet, seriously, how different are these "standards"? We're talking about various kinds of pop musics, and variants of WCM after all, and all of those happen to enjoy worldwide currency. The separate sets of "Indian" and "Western" standards that you take recourse to are not impermeable black boxes. There is a great deal of cross-pollination going on everywhere in all directions, with the West-to-East direction being much more marked.

In short at this point we can't take refuge in our different-ness, certainly not in the genres that IR/ARR have chosen as their crossover platforms. If we continue doing so when will we get our Tan Dun, our Sakamoto and our Joe Hisaishi?