a musical debate digression

A young man the other day challenged me to name who, amongst modern musical artists, I would consider a genius.

To frame this, let's define our terms. How young of a man? Old enough to vote, not old enough to legally drink (a fine distinction in Morgantown, West Virginia, where underage drunkeness is considered both a rite of passage and a right under the US Constitution...)

And modern? Curious bend, there. By his definition Springsteen, Bowie and Prince are not "modern" artists. Which of course would also place The Beatles, Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones, Neil Young, Little Richard and Buddy Holly all in ancient days. Elvis Costello, likewise. Even Ani DiFranco or Moby are of enough of a vintage to be considered old wines by him. All individuals (or groups) I'd be tempted to give that laurel to.

His actual definition seemed to be anyone who had largely appeared on the scene since he had achieved puberty (say, since 1999). This makes it difficult, as the definition of "genius" (literally, a entity of such brilliance that it is capable of feats of a genii) in my sphere, implies a level of power that accomplishes immortality, which is difficult to predict on the basis of one or two views.

Ask me in ten years about this era and I'll be more capable of taking a stand. When I was his age I would have predicted a set of musicians as timeless that you can't even find in the remaindered bin...most likely. Time and experience are excellent teachers.