[Drugmachine]

Observer_is_back & vijayr,
Nice links and observations.

However, the term Genius is not limited to only this person of superior musical talent. Please check the following from dictionary.com (it also has many other definitions like IQ of 140 etc.):
---------------------------------------------------------
Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


genius

n 1: someone who has exceptional intellectual ability and originality; "Mozart was a child genius"; "he's smart but he's no Einstein" [syn: mastermind, brain, Einstein] 2: unusual mental ability [syn: brilliance] 3: someone who is dazzlingly skilled in any field [syn: ace, adept, champion, sensation, maven, mavin, virtuoso, hotshot, star, superstar, whiz, whizz, wizard, wiz] 4: exceptional creative ability [syn: wizardry] 5: a natural talent; "he has a flair for mathematics"; "he has a genius for interior decorating" [syn: flair]
-----------------------------------------------------------

By these definitions, there may be 100's of genius personalities right now in Chennai

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

eden, now what is considered "exceptional" is the question

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

"If anyone in India has matched this, I'd sure love to know about him/her."

WHY SA RAJKUMAR matches perfect what..........

[S.T.D.]

This article should make some of us posters here re-think when we loosely use terms like "genius" to describe TFM MDs

[Fegasderty]

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?

[Slonopotam845]

I was informed that many of the MDs like Karthik Raja write the scores only from their brain - though at so young age .....

[Beerinkol]

Karthik Raja????Music in his brains......obviously music shuld be in his blood(cos of IR) but i doubt music in his brains.....I feel IR is the only MD in TFM to have music in his body.....

[S.T.D.]

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.

[Drugmachine]

Yes, this kid is a 'child prodigy'. (prodigy as in prodigious means 'more' ) I dont think he can be called a 'genius'. Even his professor, Sam Adler, was a child prodigy. Not all child prodigies turn into a 'genius' later on. Einstein is considered by many as quintessence of a genius, but I dont think he was a 'child prodigy'. Above all, the quoted articles themselves, only say, the child has the POSSIBILITY of becoming a Bach or Beethoven or a master composer of that caliber.
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 ?.

[Beerinkol]

kr:

"As stated, your opinion differs from my mine - which to me is fine. However, the reason I started a response in the first place was a veiled belttling of opinions who might hold thier favorite MDs as geniuses because it may not agree with someone else's evaluation of the same."

As I already said my intention is to enlarge the scope of the term genius. Let's not get into belittling of opinions and the like, you're belittling my opinions as much as I'm yours. This exaggerated sensitivity about one's opinions is ridiculous. I've no fanatical investment in my opinions, I aim to observe the real world and constantly re-evaluate my thoughts.

Regarding you disagreeing with me, of course you already indicated that several times. That fact does not necessarily cause me sleepless nights. My links were posted for a certain community who share similar ideas about genius.

"With regard to the 60 miniutes and shows like that, I have first hand experience of how to place stories, manipulate them etc. If you think you hear facts in these shows, i could only hope you get a chance to learn how these things work, With regard to the website of Jullian"

This one is funny, having carried out the usual strategy of attacking and questioning your opponent's source, you throw in the phrase "not really a objective source" for good measure. What would constitute an "objective source"? Any opinion, award, article can always be refuted as the writer's subjective opinion, or the reporter's biased take, or the site's marketing tactic. The opinion of posterity might possibly qualify as an "objective source", but we'll all be long gone by then. In the meantime, no one is stopping you from declaring the achievements of your idol as world-class genius, and the achievements of all others as mere marketing.

[doctorzlo]

kr:

"On point c, I have two thoughts - why is that the only standard for determining a genius? Why i it wrong to classify as standards for a genius - the quantity of indian folk composed, or carnatic music composed or number of film scores in a year or the versataility of excellence in all forms of music? Why is it that if someone has not composed 5 symphonies by the age 12 that he is a not a genius?"

I've already described the criteria I've used. If some Indian composer has composed an equivalent amount of folk/carnatic at that age growing up in a non-musical family, please name him, I'll anoint him a genius and sing his glories.

"So, to call them that they are not worthy of a genius, you do not have the data points as to how many symphonies our guys would have composed if they had just concentrated on that form. "

So what about the fans who claim genius precisely on the grounds that the composers they idolize have incorporated Western forms? If instead they emphasized the pure Carnatic/folk component they could've avoided these odious comparisons, but of course they can't really afford to do that since in that realm they can't compete with the seriousness of the real Indian classical masters.

Sure you can establish a pure film composing genre where you can exult in your own standards, but you've thereby lost the opportunity of claiming parity with masters of WCM and ICM. The music will always strike the international audiences you court as filmi and light. Indeed the TIS project certainly demonstrates the truth of this observation in its efforts to present itself on the same level as WCM/ICM masters and not the usual filmi fluff.

[Peptobismol]

vijayr:

Precisely my intention in posting the links! You have my congratulations for catching my drift.

You'll also notice how the "re-thinking" that you speak of is already causing grief to NERUPPU, whose psychological investment in one or the other TFM "genius" is no doubt jeopardized by this contact with the real world. See how it has forced him into the absurd position of claiming that the arrival of perhaps the most brilliant young composer in the last 200 years is "boring".

[Ifroham4]

All this is fine. But if a Deva fan comes around and tells you that Deva is a "genius" I would like to see all your reactions.

Coming back to the main focus of this topic

"If anyone in India has matched this, I'd sure love to know about him/her."

Observer, I think there have been quite a few prodigies like Ravi Kiran and so on who have been critically acclaimed by many. Whether they have "matched" what you have posted is a matter of thorough musical debate. ICM has more to do with performance/improvisations and the emphasis is more on the performer than the composer(in contrast with WCM). So a direct comparison with WCM prodigies might not be very valid.

[Drugmachine]

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.

[Paul Bunyan]

"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.

[NeroASERCH]

There cannot be a single defintion of what is considered 'exceptional' as it differs from individuals.

While Observer is back intention to point out that the attached links demonstrates how he evaluates genius is acceptable, an intention to belittle those who consider their favorite MDs as genius based on thier standards exposes an ignorance.

Aferall, genius is an adjective rather than a degree conferred by an institution based on thier established set of standards.

[Drugmachine]

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.

[Lt_Apple]

The entire online classical community is abuzz about this prodigy, and Mr.NERUPPU finds this to be not "itneresting"(sic) enough. Why even venture into threads that don't engage your attention I wonder? Feel free to discuss deeply compelling topics like Sarath Kumar movies or whatever.

[Fegasderty]

Mohan:

Welcome to the forum, and to this debate.

You say: "Fine this 12 year old is a Child prodigy, may be he has had the exposure to this kiand of Music from birth , why birth, may be whilst in his mothers womb."

None of the reports on the boy indicate he heard WCM during his gestation. Even if he did, don't you agree that millions of kids experience some sort of music or the other in the womb, yet few become musicians, fewer still become geniuses?

"Please consider ur thoughts being out of the ring, I mean take a nuetral platform and analyse , may it may throw a new dimension to ur thought process."

What is "neutrality", Mohan, in your opinion? Why do I strike you as being biased? Biased in favor of what? I'm not an adherent of any one composer unlike most of the other participants here. I also expressed my willingness to accept an Indian genius at the level of Jay, so I can't be biased for the West or against India.

"Yes this what we say " Evolution ", of life, species, genus, and what not. It also applies to contemporary music."

So you're saying that evolution is leading to a higher order of genius today? Well, the article about Jay compares him with Mozart, Mendelssohn and Saint-Sans, it doesn't say he surpasses those past masters. In any case, evolution doesn't move this fast unless some dramatic mutation or climate shift has taken place. Have you heard of punctuated equilibrium?

[Paul Bunyan]

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.