Awhile ago, I was reading a brief article about Penn Jillette, the abrasive loudmouth who makes up half of the magic-for-people-who-hate-magic duo Penn and Teller (he's the one who talks). In discussing his supposed intellectualism, the article talked about his idea of how all artists can be classified in one of three categories: "those who had genuine skill, those who had genuine passion, and those rarefied geniuses who had both."
Normally the mere sound of Penn Jillette's voice makes me want to hurl him off of a cliff, but this was an intriguing idea to me, and the more I thought about it, the more it made sense to me. So I've decided to make a list of some of the artists that I think belong in each of the three categories. And since music is the type of art that I'm most qualified to talk about, that's what I'll focus on.
First, a couple caveats: if an artist is classified in the "genuine passion" category, it doesn't mean that the artist lacks skill. It simply means that they don't have the natural, God-given talent of, say, a Paul McCartney or Charlie Parker. And likewise for those in the "genuine skill" category. Basically, if somebody leans toward one side or the other, I'm likely to put them there.
Genuine Skill:
- Miles Davis
- Duke Ellington
- Johannes Brahms
- Elton John
- Bob Dylan
- Tortoise
- Jimi Hendrix
- Todd Rundgren
Genuine Passion:
- John Lennon
- U2
- Kurt Cobain
- James Brown
- Marvin Gaye
- Elliott Smith
- Bjork
- The Flaming Lips
Both:
- Beethoven
- John Coltrane
- Brian Wilson
- Charles Ives
- Stevie Wonder
Now, the interesting part: I want to know if you agree or disagree. Or if you have any names to add to any category that I didn't include. Or if you think the entire concept is crap. I have it set so that you don't have to have a blogger account to comment on my page, so by all means, contribute!
3 comments:
I may be simply biased by my obsession with all things involving the Beatles, but John Lennon falls into BOTH for me and I definitely agree with Paul McCartney being the skilled artist. Any passion that comes through in his music is a result of his genuine skill rather than a magical transcendence of feeling per John Lennon.
Also, I feel like Bob Dylan is a part of the Both category and I would also add George Harrison to the BOTH category but I think I'm just getting very biased again. Also, a good person to add to BOTH is Neil Young. The dude is unparalleled. Of course, this whole idea is rather warped, since we could probably agree on a few things, but generally we'd have some dissent...once again bringing the subjectivity of art into the mix.
I'm willing to reconsider Dylan and Lennon, but George Harrison is an interesting case for me. His solo stuff in particular is so inconsistent, yet occasionally brilliant, that I never know what to make of it. It's like he knew he had an extraordinary gift, but just didn't really care that much. So I have no idea where he fits in this thing.
I'm willing to put Neil Young in BOTH, but we'll have to overlook some of the stuff he did in the 1980's, which is ok because I'm already doing that for Brian Wilson and Stevie Wonder.
The only glaring mistake I think I made is Miles Davis, who probably belongs in either category other than the one I put him in.
i would agreee, though i find it interesting to point out that for the most part, i only know most of the artists in the skill and passion lists and i'm barely familiar with just beethoven in the both list. hahaha F YOU MUSIC APPRECIATION!
Post a Comment