i say yes. other opinions?

if we are talking Disney movies, maybe

any man who can sit down and write two songs in thirty minutes and have one win the Oscar and the other get nominated would get my vote for a musical genius, without all the other amazing accomplishments that he's done

Very talented...yes.

A genius...no. Mozart was a genius. Beethoven was a genius.

Elton John is just an extremely talented piano player and a very good lyricist. He's worked very hard to be as good as he is at what he does.

fair enough. what about stevie wonder-- i think he's a musical genius too

Elton John is a genius. I love you for saying he is!

I have seen him in concert a few times. He is wonderful every time and also plays for his audience for hours. Definitely a show to see if you ever have a chance.

cocos:

ever heard "Goodbye Yellowbrick Road" or "Philadelhia Freedom" or "Bennie and the Jets" or "Rocket Man"? Does your musical knowledge go back further than Matchbox 20?

Mozart and Beethoven are what I would call Prodigies. A genius is defined as: A person of extraordinary intellect and talent. that would qualify Elton John as a genius.

I think the other guy (bernie I think) has alot to do with Elton 'genius'. His older stuff are really great songs but he jumped the shark along time ago... thats why he is making appearences on American Idol.

Not...
I think "Original Sin" says enough for his new stuff. That song is great!

While Bernie Taupin is responsible for much of the lyrical success of the duo, Elton is a musical genius. His writing and performing abilities at their peak are some of the best ever. Truly an extraordinary talent.

quote:

---

Initially marketed as a singer/songwriter, John soon revealed he could craft Beatlesque pop and pound out rockers with equal aplomb. He could dip into soul, disco, and country, as well as classic pop balladry and even progressive rock. His versatility, combined with his effortless melodic skills, dynamic charisma, and flamboyant stage shows made him the most popular recording artist of the '70s. Unlike many pop stars, John was able to sustain his popularity, charting a Top 40 single every single year from 1970 to 1996.

---

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=UIDCASS70311101404051768&sql=Bdm7zefekhgf8

quote:

---

A multifaceted talent, John excels as both a ballad-oriented singer/songwriter and a flamboyant rock and roll star. He is also a first-rate musician who elevated the role of piano in a medium theretofore dominated by guitars.

---

http://www.rockhall.com/hof/inductee.asp?id=132

Wonder is in the same league and worthy of the monikor "musical genius."

quote:

---

Stevie Wonder is a much-beloved American icon and an indisputable genius not only of R&B but popular music in general.

---

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=UIDCASS70311101404051768&sql=Bomkbu32gan7k

elton john is very talented. stevie wonder is pretty good as well. but i don't consider either to be a genius.

Elton John is talented at writing to the lowest common denominator. He can certainly entertain, but little of his music will truly stand the test of time.

"a very good lyricist"

Hah, Bernie Taupin wrote all the good lyrics.

No such thing as a genius in the top 40. In a few hundred years, today's groups will be long forgotten and their music will be considered nothing more than quaint folk music.

quote:

---

No such thing as a genius in the top 40. In a few hundred years, today's groups will be long forgotten and their music will be considered nothing more than quaint folk music.

---

I wonder what people would consider Lennon/McCartney if this statement is true.

They will be a footnote somewhere. Nothing more.

^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fool. Legendary arists like that continue to be popular with each and every generation even though they haven't made any new music in 30+ years. I don't see why they will ever be a "footnote" in music history.

"Hey hey, my my. Rock and roll will never die."

Fool. I'm talking 200-300+ years, not 30. Just like most songs that included the word "groovy" are now punch lines, people will snicker at our vernacular and not care about today's "worldly" topics after a couple centuries. Even if a song here or there lasts, most probably won't be listening to the original version and probably wouldn't even care who wrote it. Who authored "Dixie" or "I've Been Working on the Railroad"? I sure as hell don't know off the top of my head.

The Amazing Kreskin is in our presence.

Do you think it might change though w/ the accessibility and the better archiving of this music? That is, music in the 1800's and before was not recorded, so it was simply played, thus its less important to know who wrote it or sang it, as long as you could play it. music now is recorded and we have living histories of music much more than 100+ years ago.

Listen to Funeral for a Friend, then decide.
BTW, it will be an easy decision, EJ is awesome !

Stevie > Elton.

Elton was cool in the 70's and all, but he's gone way too pop and has lost some image. Stevie is a musical genius. He was a pioneer in the funk music of the 70's.

BTW, in 300 years I think the Beatles will still be talked about. They revolutionized music, and are easily the most influental artists of the last 100 years. Elton John and Stevie Wonder will probably be forgotten though.

Mozart is instantly recognizable to nearly every culture throughout the world today, and yet that was written in the 1700's. Just like the recording technology of the 60's was an improvement over that of the 1800's method of writing sheet music, the quality of recordings in the 60's was quite crappy in comparison to today. And with the continuous improvement of technology people will probably not be satisfied with mere stereo audio in 200 years. Nobody will care about Vietnam anymore, the hype and marketing that make today's pop stars will look stupid.

quote:

---

In a few hundred years, today's groups will be long forgotten and their music will be considered nothing more than quaint folk music.

---

That's the most intelligent music comment I've ever read on this board.

Name one of the most popular artist of the 1890's. You can't, because they have long since been forgotten, as will Elvis, The Beatles, Guns and Roses, Metallica, and all the more recent groups. I love all those folks, but their music will not stand the test of time, except on the oldies station. Elton John would be included in that group.

Now, if you take the music of Copland or Gershwin, that's another story. While they didn't revolutionize music like Mozart and Beethoven, they did create music that is recognized as unique (and Gershwin turned out Rhapsody in Blue in 2 weeks). Jazz was the last real revolutionary thing that happened in music (even though scholars would recognize the minimalist movement as being revolutionary, I don't consider doing less as being more).

2 Pac, Snoop, Sean John (I don't really even know why anyone ever considered him to be anything but a coattail rider..guy just takes old music and writes poems to be spoken over them), and all the rest of these (artists) will be forgotten very shortly as all pop artists are.

Just ask your parents about who was popular in their day and you'll soon discover that you've never heard of most of them.

I have a degree in Music, I know what I'm talking about. The most memorable music from the 20th century will undoubtedly be the great film scores. Just as opera has endured, so will film scores.

In response to the "prodigy" comment. Beethoven never really did anything in his youth that was that great. His best stuff came when he was a young adult, so I wouldn't consider him a progidy. Mozart was just a freak so you can call him a prodigy, genius, or whatever, the man had serious game. Bach was a a great composer but not a very original artist. Somewhat of a tight ass to boot, but then again that was Baroque music.

quote:

---

BTW, in 300 years I think the Beatles will still be talked about. They revolutionized music, and are easily the most influental artists of the last 100 years.

---

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

WAKE UP!!! The Beatles aren't played TODAY! They're talked about because they were popular during the time of people that are still alive, but you don't see people listening to old Beatles albums and going "Wow!".

"They Revolutionized music.."??? How? They talked with a British accent and they figured out how to plug in an amp. If that's all it took, Jimmy Hendrix has them beat by a mile. Implementing new technology is NOT musical genius. The Beatles used the same musical conventions that Mozart first created all those years ago. Real original.

Most influential of the lst 100 years? You really need to expand your playlist. Listen to Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, John Phillip Sousa, Copland, Gershwin, and some of the other artists of the century. Those folks are still being played in commercials, music halls, and homes all over the country. God, there's been sooooo many more infuential people than the Beatles.

Try to expand your mind by exploring different types of music. Not just hearing it as you drive down the road, but really listen. Get a set of headphones, get in a comfortable chair, turn everything in the house off and really listen. Revolutionary music isn't just catchy, it's got depth to it. You could listen 20 times and hear new things everytime.

Pop music is the Nerds and Sweetarts of the music world. Fun, but no substance. The artists mentioned above are the meat and potatoes of the music world. People that have grown up and refined their tastes usually know that meat and potatoes are better for you than candy. Same is true in music.

quote:

---

His writing and performing abilities at their peak are some of the best ever. Truly an extraordinary talent.

---

Listen to Van Cliburn's performances and tell me who was more talented. Being an entertainer makes you talented, not a genius.

BTW, I don't consider Van Cliburn to be a genius either.

quote:

---

Name one of the most popular artist of the 1890's. You can't, because they have long since been forgotten, as will Elvis, The Beatles, Guns and Roses, Metallica, and all the more recent groups.

---

How many of those popular artists of the 1890's were recorded for future generations to hear? What about people like Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc.?

quote:

---

I have a degree in Music, I know what I'm talking about.

---

So a degree in music qualifies you to state beyond a shadow of a doubt what will be popular 300 years from now? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

quote:

---

WAKE UP!!! The Beatles aren't played TODAY! They're talked about because they were popular during the time of people that are still alive, but you don't see people listening to old Beatles albums and going "Wow!".

---

Couldn't disagree more. I still hear the Beatles on the radio. Not as much as I'd like, but then I think Dallas radio sucks. And I've seen young people be blown away by Beatles albums after hearing them for the first time. There is a qualifier, though. To be blown away by an old Beatles album, one must be able to recognize musical genius.

quote:

---

"They Revolutionized music.."??? How? They talked with a British accent and they figured out how to plug in an amp. If that's all it took, Jimmy Hendrix has them beat by a mile.

---

Spoken like someone who's never heard "Revolver" or "Rubber Soul". They wrote music that no one had ever heard before them. And the Beatles were out long before Jimi Hendrix. In fact, he was hugely influenced by them. Within a few days of its release, Hendrix was playing the song "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" live in concert because he was so blown away by it.

quote:

---

God, there's been sooooo many more infuential people than the Beatles.

---

Not in rock music, there hasn't. Those other people you mentioned are incredible artists, but in a different category of music.

quote:

---

Pop music is the Nerds and Sweetarts of the music world. Fun, but no substance. The artists mentioned above are the meat and potatoes of the music world. People that have grown up and refined their tastes usually know that meat and potatoes are better for you than candy. Same is true in music.

---

Now you're showing your true colors. You are a musical snob. If it's not classical or jazz, it must be worthless, right Thurston Howell III?

aTmAg- The point I was trying to make, but you so obviously missed, was that with there being easy access to music from 30+ years ago new generations continue to be turned onto it. I see no reason why it won't continue into the future. I was at the Paul McCartney show a few years ago and I figured I was going to be one of the younger ones there (I am 30). I was way wrong. At least 1/3 of the crowd was younger than me and I watched kids as young as 10 years old sing along to those songs as much as their parents or I did. What's to think that they won't pass along their love of the Beatles to their kids? I see my nephew slowly figuring out that his father's musical collection is pretty badass. Instead of wanting to buy the new Staind or Disturbed CD, he keeps borrowing my brother-in-law's Doors or Pink Floyd CD's. There's a quality of music there that kids aren't getting today and they will recognize it if given the chance.

quote:

---

You are a musical snob.

---

If that means that I have studied the history of music and have more of idea about what has been remembered and why, then yes, I am.

You're showing your true colors as well. Uneducated. Your notions have just about as much validitiy as someone coming on here and saying that Merle Haggard, George Jones, and Hank Williams were musical geniuses.

[This message has been edited by Kramer (edited 4/10/2004 6:38p).]

quote:

---

If that means that I have studied the history of music and have more of idea about what has been remembered and why, then yes, I am.

---

Yes, and we all know why classical music from the 1700's has survived while the rock music from that era hasn't, right? Rock music has been around for 40 years and shows no signs of going away. If anything, support for classical music is dwindling. I think that is a shame because I love classical music too.

quote:

---

You're showing your true colors as well. Uneducated.

---

Why? Because I don't have a degree in music? Oh well, add me to the list of people without 'em because that really makes a difference when discussing popular music, doesn't it? I might not have a degree in classical music, but I did work in the field for many years. I think I have some idea of what I am talking about and, unlike you, my mind isn't closed.

quote:

---

WAKE UP!!! The Beatles aren't played TODAY! They're talked about because they were popular during the time of people that are still alive, but you don't see people listening to old Beatles albums and going "Wow!".

---

This has to be the worst argument ever. You argue the Beatles aren't important because they aren't played today? First of all, they are played today. All the time. You just listened to the wrong stations. They aren't played on pop stations, but then again neither is Mozart or Bach... Which brings me to my second point. If the Beatles aren't important because they aren't on the radio, then neither is Mozart, Bach, etc. I don't remember the last time I've heard them on the radio.

You tell me to open up and listen to other kinds of music, when clearly you're stuck in your own musical world. Rock hasn't been around nearly as long as classical music. To say it won't be around in 300 years is absurd. It remains one of the most popular forms of music across the world, and shows no signs of dying soon. People were probably making the same argument you are about Jazz in its infancy... Heck, a lot of people probably thought Mozart was just some Johnny come lately.

TimAg92,

There is no reason to take this personally. I'm not a Beatles fan, but I'll admit that my favorite bands (U2 and Zeppelin) will suffer the same fate as well. As long as you like it, why care if people 300 years from now will too? Listen to your CD's/albums/8-tracks and enjoy them for yourself. The same thing goes for Beethoven/Mozart. Don't listen to them because they are considered to be genius and have been around for 300 years, listen to them if you like them.

I think that the crappiness of today's music (Britney Spears, N' Sync, etc.) has given you the mistaken impression that music 30 years ago was somehow genius. Television has turned the music industry into a marketing competition instead of one in which the best music wins. I assume we all know that when Britney Spears hits 200lbs, she won't be selling anymore. In reality, the music that most 10 year olds grow up listening to will suck. Pink Floyd really is better than that crap. But that doesn't mean that any of these groups will take a place next to Beethoven or Mozart in history.

quote:

---

Listen to Van Cliburn's performances and tell me who was more talented. Being an entertainer makes you talented, not a genius.

---

Elton wrote the music to those songs and new how to craft them around his vocal abilities to create incredible sounds. Why continue to ignore the genius he brought to the table?

This seems to be an argument about what level deserves the "genius" label. Perhaps my level of genius is higher than you guys. In my book, genius is reserved for the Newtons, Einsteins, Da Vincis, Thomas Jeffersons, Mozarts, etc. of the world. Not the Oprahs, Madonnas, Picassos, Houdinis, Jimi Hendri, and Sam Walton's of the world. Chances are the top %1 of the last 50 years don't compare with the top %1 of all time. Its not like were talking track or basketball here.

You're right that the entire 1% of the last 50 years doesn't compare with the entire 1% of all time. But certainly there will be a couple from the last 50 years who will compare. It seems like some of you are saying just because something it recent it can't possibly compare.

aTmAg- I think our definitions of genius are different. Does Jimi Hendrix belong right next to Albert Einstein? Of course not, I don't think anyone would argue that. But when it comes to guitar playing, songwriting, etc., I believe Hendrix is a genius (I wouldn't put Elton in this category). It is a different kind of genius. And I'm not taking this personally (despite what it seems- I just like to argue), but I do disagree with your assessment of the future. By the way, Zeppelin is my all-time favorite band. They are musical geniuses.