Genius vs. Brilliant
While chatting with a musician the other night, I found myself in the middle of what’s probably the most oft-repeated pop music argument of the last 50 years, namely, who was the more talented Beatle: Paul or John? This gentleman had been riffing on artists whom he considered “geniuses” vs. merely “brilliant.” I offered up names, and he would declare which category he believed they fell into. It was only a matter of time before we were going to hit Lennon-McCartney.
He deemed Lennon a genius, but McCartney as “just” brilliant. His knock against McCartney (a common one) was Paul’s lack of substance. But he said Lennon, like all geniuses, actually “changed the world.”
I happen to think they were both geniuses, and they both changed the world. To me, in his prime, Paul’s formal musical innovations were just as revolutionary and world-changing as Dylan’s lyrics, Picasso’s visual distortions or Frank Lloyd Wright’s inspired designs. What Paul lacked in “message” was more than made up for by the extraordinary packages in which his songs were delivered.
But taking a step back, the whole “genius vs. brilliant” construct is a fascinating one, and can be applied to any imaginable field or category, from U.S. Presidents to athletes to scientists—and even to marketing.
When I think of genius advertising, two examples immediately come to mind: the Volkswagen ads from the 1960s, and Apple’s “1984” Super Bowl spot that launched the Mac. I would consider both of those to be “Lennonesque” examples, meaning their power derived as much from their substance (i.e., the brilliance of the products themselves) as the creativity of the ads. But there are far more McCartneyesque genius ads throughout history—like the “Mikey” Life Cereal commercial , or Burger King’s “Whopper Virgins” campaign . The conceptual innovations of these spots “changed the world” of advertising creativity, even if the products they were selling, like Paul’s lyrics, were banal at best.
What kind of ads, then, would fall into the “brilliant” category? I’d say the ones that shine brightly for a moment, then disappear just as quickly, not leaving much trace on the culture or the ad industry. (The Jerry Seinfeld American Express and Pets.com sock puppet spots from a few years ago come to mind.)
What’s your take? Is it absurd to ever apply the term “genius” to advertising in the first place?
Comments
@Adam: It seems the ideal ad combines brilliant and effective. For instance, the VW "Lemon" ad worked because it illustrated that buying a cheap car didn't mean you had to skimp on quality control. As opposed to other ads that are great to watch but five seconds later, you can't remember what they were promoting.
I would add Bill Watterson's "Calvin and Hobbes" and Charles Shultz's "Peanuts" as genius...then say Berkeley Breathed's "Bloom County" as brilliant...although this is all a bit ameobic...Breathed had genius moments and days...and Watterson and Schultz had droopy days. So I guess Genius is not substantially consistent...merely waxing and waning.
Leave a Comment