What do you think?
Rate this book
The Advanced Genius Theory: Are They Out of Their Minds or Ahead of Their Time?
Admittedly, the Advanced Theory had unpretentious beginnings; Jason Hartley and Britt Bergman invented the concept in 1990 at a Columbia, South Carolina, Pizza Hut. From those fast-food ruminations, however, grew a great hypothesis, perhaps best expressed by Chuck Klosterman, who wrote the foreword for this book; "When a genius does something that appears idiotic, it does not necessarily mean he suddenly sucks. What it might mean is that he's doing something you cannot understand, because he has Advanced beyond you." With that insight, you can take the great leap forward into this provocative and (let's admit it) extremely entertaining paperback original. Editor's recommendation.
288 pages, Paperback
First published April 28, 2010
18 people are currently reading
1388 people want to read
About the author
Jason Hartley
5Ìýbooks11ÌýfollowersJason Hartley is a writer, musician, and online marketer based in Decatur, Georgia. Originally from Columbia, SC, Hartley's career has been as varied and unpredictable as some of the luminaries he writes about. His artistic and professional endeavors have taken him from the study of dance and choreography at the American Dance Festival, Dance Space Inc., and Movement Research, to professional catalog writing for the likes of Martha Stewart. Hartley also has written, performed, and recorded music professionally in Spigot, Toenut/Tyro, and Thank You Super among other bands. In his spare time, Jason has always been a writer--of nonfiction, novels, and short humor. His writing has been published in Esquire, Spin.com, VH1's Best Week Ever blog, and on his own website, advancedtheory.blogspot.com. He currently maintains a fulltime job as an online marketer at 360i--that is of course, when he is not working on his writing.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
February 7, 2012
A college bull session strung out to book length. It's, to use it's own terms, highly Overt. The thesis is sheer, 100% BS, but entertaining nonetheless. And the conclusion that we're better off looking for reasons to like, rather than reasons to dismiss, is good however you get to it.
October 13, 2010
It wasn't until I read the Klosterman foreward that I remembered his Esquire column on Advanced Theory. The column was confusing so it's helpful having the theory explained here by one of the pizza-fueled creators (so I won't try and explain it myself). The book is a fun pop-culture read and zips through many notable musicians, filmmakers, actors, and artists of the later half of the 20th Century.
It seems like disagreeing with the (sometimes arbitrary) theory is part of the fun considering it is designed to encourage debate about people whose greatness (or fall from greatness) is generally not debated. The theory is very artist-friendly, almost to a fault due to the fact that it ascribes artistic vision to almost every endeavor and ignores greed. I think there's a weird balance that a lot of these artists fall into where they're artists with an advanced goal/mission but they also need to keep up their rich dude hobbies that their overt period have afforded them.
All in all this was a good read and probably the most enjoyable book I've won through first reads. Jason has a funny voice and presents some concise minibios here in service of his theory. He also signed the free book I won (pretty overt move though).
It seems like disagreeing with the (sometimes arbitrary) theory is part of the fun considering it is designed to encourage debate about people whose greatness (or fall from greatness) is generally not debated. The theory is very artist-friendly, almost to a fault due to the fact that it ascribes artistic vision to almost every endeavor and ignores greed. I think there's a weird balance that a lot of these artists fall into where they're artists with an advanced goal/mission but they also need to keep up their rich dude hobbies that their overt period have afforded them.
All in all this was a good read and probably the most enjoyable book I've won through first reads. Jason has a funny voice and presents some concise minibios here in service of his theory. He also signed the free book I won (pretty overt move though).
March 12, 2011
The author excludes women from his theory with the exception of two where on the bubble of being advanced. In all other places, women were either trivial supports for men or completely ignored in the following realms: stage, screen, writers, fine artists, & sports. The author uses the ignorance excuse for music (advancement might be just more of a male thing), but he fails to give any excuses for why women were not considered in the other realms. As such, his theory is flawed and incomplete.
June 13, 2018
The book was definitely an interesting read, however I found it somewhat frustrating that the arguments seemed to be based on the authors personal tastes. The refusal to examine female artists as advanced because he simply didn’t like very many of them (with the exception of Madonna) was a bit of a disappointment, however I can appreciate that he wasn’t going to put an artist up for debate if he didn’t have enough of a formed opinion on them. Now that I’ve finished the book, I can make my own arguments.
I really would have liked to see the inclusion of Frank Zappa for debate, and was surprised to see his name not mentioned once.
While I often didn’t agree with the authors opinions regarding Advanced Vs. Overt, I did enjoy the ability to stop/think/make up my own mental argument for or against the one presented. He made me think, and I always like that in a book.
I’ve also learned that I’m likely very, very overt.
I really would have liked to see the inclusion of Frank Zappa for debate, and was surprised to see his name not mentioned once.
While I often didn’t agree with the authors opinions regarding Advanced Vs. Overt, I did enjoy the ability to stop/think/make up my own mental argument for or against the one presented. He made me think, and I always like that in a book.
I’ve also learned that I’m likely very, very overt.
August 22, 2010
This a fun book in which Hartley uses a few criteria to determine artistic geniuses, mostly in the world of music. The criteria: (1) You must have done great work for more than fifteen years. (2) You must have alienated your original fans. (3) You must be completely unironic. (4)You must be unpredictable. (5) You must "lose it". Spectacularly.
Hartley picks out Lou Reed and Bob Dylan as prime examples of advanced geniuses. It's amusing to see what other artists Harley chooses, and how he justifies the picks. I was particularly impressed to see Hartley buck the usual critical trend and explain why Paul McCartney and not John Lennon was "the Most Advanced Beatle", and "while the Rolling Stones are generally credited with being the bad boys of rock 'n' roll and the Beatles are seen as the cute, harmless ones, this is all wrong."
Hartley picks out Lou Reed and Bob Dylan as prime examples of advanced geniuses. It's amusing to see what other artists Harley chooses, and how he justifies the picks. I was particularly impressed to see Hartley buck the usual critical trend and explain why Paul McCartney and not John Lennon was "the Most Advanced Beatle", and "while the Rolling Stones are generally credited with being the bad boys of rock 'n' roll and the Beatles are seen as the cute, harmless ones, this is all wrong."
December 31, 2012
What if Brian Wilson's lost rap track, "Smart Girls," isn't awful, but just so brilliant beyond our grasp that we are below and cannot accept it? Jason Hartley's The Advanced Genius Theory: Are They Out of Their Minds or Ahead of Their Time? covers this and many other similar pop culture queries. While I absolutely do not agree with these sentiments, this was a really fun read.
December 28, 2017
The more time that passes since I read this book, the more I start to disagree with it. I REFUSE to believe Lou Reed's "Original Wrapper" is not god awful compared to, say, "Sister Ray." I don't think he's so advanced I just do get it, it's just awful. Hahaha.
The book doesn't take itself deadly serious, so there is plenty of room to disagree with the writer. The premise is, mainly, that there are certain kind of genius artists (the book focuses mainly on musicians of the 20th century, but other people in other mediums are also covered) who seem to "lose it" or go mainstream or whatever, but what's really happened is that they have "advanced" to a place that is far ahead of us in time our hive-mindedness to correctly perceive. Jason Hartley gives as the best examples Bob Dylan and Lou Reed. I love Lou Reed, can't stand Bob Dylan, so I was already both agreeing with and hating everything in the book, but in a very fun, visceral, engaging way. The entire theory apparently was created when two friends were eating pizza I think in college and were just talking about how people once so great became so bad.
The general theory: someone starts out as "overt," which means they are purposely trying something new and innovative because it's new and innovative, then they find success, then they do something that really pisses off their original fan base and ruins their success, then years later are usually seen to have made a "comeback." There are lots of other things in there, a propensity for female backup singers and Caribbean or world rhythms (the best do it!, he says), finding religion at some point, doing Vegas shows (which Jason Hartley calls the "most advanced city," my old home of Austin, Texas was called the "most overt," hahaha.). When he mentions something found in James Brown's second autobiography, he notes that it's very advanced to have two autobiographies, hahahahaha. Of the standards set out, it seems to me that Prince was the most obviously candidate for the title of "advanced." I've been a huge, rabid Prince fan almost my entire life, and even I was completely flabbergasted by some of the artistic and career decisions Prince made in the ten years between 1993 and 2003. And just as predicted will generally happen, that's when Prince made his "comeback."
I read this book in one day, I just loved loved loved it. It reminded me of long music conversations I used to have with my friends (in Austin, haha), and the book is written in that engaging, conversational way.
By the way, I think the book was written before Lou Reed did the Lulu album with Metallica, in 2012 I think. THAT is EXACTLY the kind of thing Jason Hartley's theory would have us expect the Advanced to do.
I would like to suggest to him that Glenn Danzig is advanced. He made a techno album and two classical albums, one based on Paradise Lost for Christ's sake. Maybe Dave Mustaine, who really pissed his fans off with a pop album, and also found religion, and made a comeback, but Dave is still in a band, so he's not eligible. Donald Fagen, like Elton John, never went far enough off his perceived trajectory to be advanced, though uber talented. I think Robert Smith is the same way, we was way too consistent to be advanced. Devin Townsend? He's got gigantic bands and tons of back up singers and pissed off metalheads when he started making pop and acoustic records. Hmmm. I think Devin Townsend is for fucking sure Advanced.
The book doesn't take itself deadly serious, so there is plenty of room to disagree with the writer. The premise is, mainly, that there are certain kind of genius artists (the book focuses mainly on musicians of the 20th century, but other people in other mediums are also covered) who seem to "lose it" or go mainstream or whatever, but what's really happened is that they have "advanced" to a place that is far ahead of us in time our hive-mindedness to correctly perceive. Jason Hartley gives as the best examples Bob Dylan and Lou Reed. I love Lou Reed, can't stand Bob Dylan, so I was already both agreeing with and hating everything in the book, but in a very fun, visceral, engaging way. The entire theory apparently was created when two friends were eating pizza I think in college and were just talking about how people once so great became so bad.
The general theory: someone starts out as "overt," which means they are purposely trying something new and innovative because it's new and innovative, then they find success, then they do something that really pisses off their original fan base and ruins their success, then years later are usually seen to have made a "comeback." There are lots of other things in there, a propensity for female backup singers and Caribbean or world rhythms (the best do it!, he says), finding religion at some point, doing Vegas shows (which Jason Hartley calls the "most advanced city," my old home of Austin, Texas was called the "most overt," hahaha.). When he mentions something found in James Brown's second autobiography, he notes that it's very advanced to have two autobiographies, hahahahaha. Of the standards set out, it seems to me that Prince was the most obviously candidate for the title of "advanced." I've been a huge, rabid Prince fan almost my entire life, and even I was completely flabbergasted by some of the artistic and career decisions Prince made in the ten years between 1993 and 2003. And just as predicted will generally happen, that's when Prince made his "comeback."
I read this book in one day, I just loved loved loved it. It reminded me of long music conversations I used to have with my friends (in Austin, haha), and the book is written in that engaging, conversational way.
By the way, I think the book was written before Lou Reed did the Lulu album with Metallica, in 2012 I think. THAT is EXACTLY the kind of thing Jason Hartley's theory would have us expect the Advanced to do.
I would like to suggest to him that Glenn Danzig is advanced. He made a techno album and two classical albums, one based on Paradise Lost for Christ's sake. Maybe Dave Mustaine, who really pissed his fans off with a pop album, and also found religion, and made a comeback, but Dave is still in a band, so he's not eligible. Donald Fagen, like Elton John, never went far enough off his perceived trajectory to be advanced, though uber talented. I think Robert Smith is the same way, we was way too consistent to be advanced. Devin Townsend? He's got gigantic bands and tons of back up singers and pissed off metalheads when he started making pop and acoustic records. Hmmm. I think Devin Townsend is for fucking sure Advanced.
October 10, 2020
I love the advanced genius theory for two reasons: 1) it was unscientifically created by two guys eating pizza and 2) it is inevitable and applicable to everything in the universe, but mainly to artistic pursuits.
What is advancement exactly? Well, you know it when you see it. Right now the best example is Kanye West (which this 2010 book correctly predicted, by the way) minus the manic episodes. When people start shaking their head and writing social media posts about how you lost the plot and that you're not the artist they love anymore, you have entered advancement. For example Yeezus is REALLY advanced. The Life of Pablo is not as advancee as Yeezus, but its cover art is.
Advancement is a public's personality rejection of the image their audience have built of them and their struggle to movie beyond. Before they can be advanced, they necessarily have to be overt. They need to spend at least 15 years (accoring to Hartley, I think it's less) crafting that image through niche, controlled output before they can break free of it. It's a form of freedom that you can acces only when you're on top of the world.
Advancement is everywhere, you just need to see it for what it is.
What is advancement exactly? Well, you know it when you see it. Right now the best example is Kanye West (which this 2010 book correctly predicted, by the way) minus the manic episodes. When people start shaking their head and writing social media posts about how you lost the plot and that you're not the artist they love anymore, you have entered advancement. For example Yeezus is REALLY advanced. The Life of Pablo is not as advancee as Yeezus, but its cover art is.
Advancement is a public's personality rejection of the image their audience have built of them and their struggle to movie beyond. Before they can be advanced, they necessarily have to be overt. They need to spend at least 15 years (accoring to Hartley, I think it's less) crafting that image through niche, controlled output before they can break free of it. It's a form of freedom that you can acces only when you're on top of the world.
Advancement is everywhere, you just need to see it for what it is.
January 3, 2024
Reading this book was an odd experience. At its core it's a joke - someone tries to build a complex way of framing an approach to art from a half-baked argument they had one night when they were drunk. I don't really think even the author takes his arguments very seriously. It's a meandering, indulgent, one-star read.
But then, out of nowhere, some parts of this really resonate at a deep level. Like this line: "Advanced Artists seek out a personal truth (the only truth that is really possible) and get closer to it than Overt Artists because they look everywhere instead of limiting themselves to theÌýplaces that reinforce their pre-conceptions of what the truth should be." There's a lot to unpack there, and this could easily be a five-star read if there was more of it. But the problem is you have to wade through stuff like "leather is the most Advanced fabric" to get there. It's also severely dated and suffers from reading it 13 years after it was published.
In the end I think it's mostly a joke and can't really recommend it. But hey, life is mostly a joke. Just take the parts that mean something, the pieces that resonate, and keep moving on. Or, if you prefer, Advancing (sorry). 2.5/5 stars.
But then, out of nowhere, some parts of this really resonate at a deep level. Like this line: "Advanced Artists seek out a personal truth (the only truth that is really possible) and get closer to it than Overt Artists because they look everywhere instead of limiting themselves to theÌýplaces that reinforce their pre-conceptions of what the truth should be." There's a lot to unpack there, and this could easily be a five-star read if there was more of it. But the problem is you have to wade through stuff like "leather is the most Advanced fabric" to get there. It's also severely dated and suffers from reading it 13 years after it was published.
In the end I think it's mostly a joke and can't really recommend it. But hey, life is mostly a joke. Just take the parts that mean something, the pieces that resonate, and keep moving on. Or, if you prefer, Advancing (sorry). 2.5/5 stars.
February 2, 2020
Absolutely ridiculous. Completely pointless. Does not solve world hunger or make you a better person (or maybe it will?). Those are all reasons this book was fun.
Imagine you’re at a college party and you’re drinking and talking with a fellow nerd about music/film/books/whatever. You come up with a ridiculous theory that helps explain how you can like all the crappy records your favorite artist has released. It’s kind of a joke. Yet you develop the theory for 15 years. Then you write a 252 page book and get it published. All on the basis of absolutely nothing but a desire to like the unlikeable.
That’s this book.
Funny. Stupid. Contradictory. Pointless. Probably more true than most people would like to admit. It’s all of these and more.
I was going to give it 3 stars. But then that felt overt. I decided the book may be Advanced so I gave it an extra star for being so awesomely dumb.
Imagine you’re at a college party and you’re drinking and talking with a fellow nerd about music/film/books/whatever. You come up with a ridiculous theory that helps explain how you can like all the crappy records your favorite artist has released. It’s kind of a joke. Yet you develop the theory for 15 years. Then you write a 252 page book and get it published. All on the basis of absolutely nothing but a desire to like the unlikeable.
That’s this book.
Funny. Stupid. Contradictory. Pointless. Probably more true than most people would like to admit. It’s all of these and more.
I was going to give it 3 stars. But then that felt overt. I decided the book may be Advanced so I gave it an extra star for being so awesomely dumb.
March 29, 2025
As a stoner I love stoner theories. Those questions or scenarios you propose to your friends that don’t really have an answer but you can spend hours talking about.
That’s what this book is. A friend who won’t shut up but you’re fine if they keep talking.
Incredibly fun to read this and contemplate what’s advanced or what is overt. You’ll definitely learn something new too. Who knew about “Bowie Bonds�?
As soon as I finished this I put it on my bookshelf so I can always have it at arms length.
That’s what this book is. A friend who won’t shut up but you’re fine if they keep talking.
Incredibly fun to read this and contemplate what’s advanced or what is overt. You’ll definitely learn something new too. Who knew about “Bowie Bonds�?
As soon as I finished this I put it on my bookshelf so I can always have it at arms length.
May 22, 2023
Couldn't even bring myself to finish this. Literally felt like reading a blog by pretentious college guys who were trying to prove their tastes are superior to the rest of the world. So many factors and biases were ignored.
Want to read
May 14, 2021The writting is really excellent.
April 22, 2022
I had a blast reading this. Cant recommend it enough to pop culture nerds. Really makes you think and appreciate art in a completely different and more encompassing way.
May 5, 2015
This was a tough book to read as I was very interested in a theory that purported to examine why geniuses often do things which are confusing to the public at large. Unfortunately, it's one long opinion on who the most Advanced (author's capitalization) artists of recent generations are, mostly focusing on rock and roll musicians. Hartley is dismissive of critics (though he is one) and his criteria for Advancement, muddily explained early, often fails as his actual criteria for Advancing someone. His "theory" can't be used to make predictions (even within his selections!), which means it fails a basic tenet of scientific philosophy.
Although Hartley's obvious interest/knowledge centers on rock artists, he ventures into other areas, such as fine arts and politics. The author himself sums it up best, saying "I'll stick to just a few that I feel strongly about, knowing well that there will be somebody who knows more than I do who can demolish everything I write." One wonders, if he knows this, why he bothered to write the book at all, as it suffers greatly from its lack of inclusiveness.
I could go into a long explanation of the logical errors he makes. Suffice to say, this is NOT a book for those familiar with Giftedness, twice exceptional Giftedness, Occam's Razor, intersectionality, confirmation bias, the backfire effect, congruence bias, outcome bias, and several other common biases that people (understandably) present when they don't examine their own "evidence" for fallacies or alternate explanations. My reading progress log gives some specifics.
One problem I must mention: the whole book (and opinion-theory) is terribly misogynistic. Hartley claims that women "don't aspire to Advancement" without providing any evidence whatsoever. First, one must have a better definition of a principle to aspire to it; and secondly, it's more likely that he didn't look at enough evidence than that 50% of the population simply doesn't fit his opinion. As if that wasn't enough, there are numerous comments throughout the book dismissing the morally corrupt behavior of many of these male examples, much of it with women (and sometimes girls) as victims. Objectifying and stereotyping half the population doesn't sound "Advanced" to me.
Towards the end of the book, Hartley states "your believing the Theory makes it true." I think it's pure opinion with pseudo-scientific support; based on the lack of evidence presented, so does the author. This topic should have been confined to his blog until it matured through some serious devotion to research and bias examination. Not recommended.
(I received this book for free through the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ First Reads program. The opinions expressed are my own.)
Although Hartley's obvious interest/knowledge centers on rock artists, he ventures into other areas, such as fine arts and politics. The author himself sums it up best, saying "I'll stick to just a few that I feel strongly about, knowing well that there will be somebody who knows more than I do who can demolish everything I write." One wonders, if he knows this, why he bothered to write the book at all, as it suffers greatly from its lack of inclusiveness.
I could go into a long explanation of the logical errors he makes. Suffice to say, this is NOT a book for those familiar with Giftedness, twice exceptional Giftedness, Occam's Razor, intersectionality, confirmation bias, the backfire effect, congruence bias, outcome bias, and several other common biases that people (understandably) present when they don't examine their own "evidence" for fallacies or alternate explanations. My reading progress log gives some specifics.
One problem I must mention: the whole book (and opinion-theory) is terribly misogynistic. Hartley claims that women "don't aspire to Advancement" without providing any evidence whatsoever. First, one must have a better definition of a principle to aspire to it; and secondly, it's more likely that he didn't look at enough evidence than that 50% of the population simply doesn't fit his opinion. As if that wasn't enough, there are numerous comments throughout the book dismissing the morally corrupt behavior of many of these male examples, much of it with women (and sometimes girls) as victims. Objectifying and stereotyping half the population doesn't sound "Advanced" to me.
Towards the end of the book, Hartley states "your believing the Theory makes it true." I think it's pure opinion with pseudo-scientific support; based on the lack of evidence presented, so does the author. This topic should have been confined to his blog until it matured through some serious devotion to research and bias examination. Not recommended.
(I received this book for free through the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ First Reads program. The opinions expressed are my own.)
September 2, 2011
This book is a fun and interesting read, especially for those who are interested in pop culture...ok, it is geared ONLY toward those who like pop culture (and maybe those who kinda like philosophy). Hartley is a good writer and his voice is so appealing in this book that it feels like he is a good friend, one whose opinions count and can be trusted.
I do think that there's some value in this theory, one that essentially labels artists as either Overt or Advanced. I like that he presents an anti-elitist and pro-populist read on pop culture. In other words, the critically acclaimed pop artists are generally Overt; Hartley argues that when an artist becomes Advanced the critics turn their backs on him or her (though it seems to me that it's the other way around--Hartley really only qualifies someone for advancement IF the critics dislike him/her.)
I like Hartley's contrary voice here, a pop culture enthusiast who is willing to argue against the (mostly) arbitrary designations of entertainment critics.
My only two issues with the book (and these are not Hartley's fault by any means, just my own opinion): For good or for bad, anyone who reads this book is likely a Chuck Klosterman fan in some capacity. It was Klosterman, after all, whose seminal article essentially allowed this book to happen, so there's no getting away from the comparisons. I ultimately find Klosterman's writing style more satisfying and witty than Hartley's (though Hartley's, perhaps, is more "real" and less critical than Klosterman's...does that make Hartley Advanced and Klosterman Overt?).
Also, nowhere does Hartley claim his classifications of some artists as Advanced and others as Overt as being objective. He does set up a useful typology of how one can be classified as Advanced, after all. And yet, after reading the book for a while, it does become apparent that really one becomes Advanced simply for being one of Hartley's favorite artists, and not really because he/she meets all the criteria that Hartley sets forth in the book.
Overall, a fun read.
I do think that there's some value in this theory, one that essentially labels artists as either Overt or Advanced. I like that he presents an anti-elitist and pro-populist read on pop culture. In other words, the critically acclaimed pop artists are generally Overt; Hartley argues that when an artist becomes Advanced the critics turn their backs on him or her (though it seems to me that it's the other way around--Hartley really only qualifies someone for advancement IF the critics dislike him/her.)
I like Hartley's contrary voice here, a pop culture enthusiast who is willing to argue against the (mostly) arbitrary designations of entertainment critics.
My only two issues with the book (and these are not Hartley's fault by any means, just my own opinion): For good or for bad, anyone who reads this book is likely a Chuck Klosterman fan in some capacity. It was Klosterman, after all, whose seminal article essentially allowed this book to happen, so there's no getting away from the comparisons. I ultimately find Klosterman's writing style more satisfying and witty than Hartley's (though Hartley's, perhaps, is more "real" and less critical than Klosterman's...does that make Hartley Advanced and Klosterman Overt?).
Also, nowhere does Hartley claim his classifications of some artists as Advanced and others as Overt as being objective. He does set up a useful typology of how one can be classified as Advanced, after all. And yet, after reading the book for a while, it does become apparent that really one becomes Advanced simply for being one of Hartley's favorite artists, and not really because he/she meets all the criteria that Hartley sets forth in the book.
Overall, a fun read.
March 25, 2021
Despite its claims otherwise, it's hard not to see this "theory" as being ironic. Still, the bit about Foo Fighters being the "Mike & The Mechanics of grunge" made me lol. For some reason the book strikes me as just a tad bit dated, even though it was only published in 2010.
As has been addressed, there's a real deficit of women in this book, which Hartley chalks up to being a result of Advancement just kind of being a guy's thing, to paraphrase him. I'm surprised he didn't bring up Susan Sontag and Camille Paglia battling it out for Advancement in the 'Writers' chapter. Even more baffling, given the book's heavy emphasis on music, is a complete lack of mention of:
Liz Phair - by all definitions, completely Advanced by 2010
Bjork - on the Refined Overt side; if she put out a country-rock record made entirely of 808 beats and Eagles samples, she'd probably be Advanced
St. Vincent - I would say she was actually pretty Advanced when she first came out and may have possibly gotten more Overt with each record. (The recent influence of prolonged Refined Overt David Byrne doesn't help.) A slowcore album in the vein of Cowboy Junkies or going full-Grouper would put her back on or at least closer to the Advanced track.
Karen O - mentioned very passingly (and correctly) as Overt, though closer to Advancement as many of these '00s alt-rock people now are surprisingly —maybe because rock doesn't have the same purchase it did commercially or culturally, so you feel free to just do whatever
As has been addressed, there's a real deficit of women in this book, which Hartley chalks up to being a result of Advancement just kind of being a guy's thing, to paraphrase him. I'm surprised he didn't bring up Susan Sontag and Camille Paglia battling it out for Advancement in the 'Writers' chapter. Even more baffling, given the book's heavy emphasis on music, is a complete lack of mention of:
Liz Phair - by all definitions, completely Advanced by 2010
Bjork - on the Refined Overt side; if she put out a country-rock record made entirely of 808 beats and Eagles samples, she'd probably be Advanced
St. Vincent - I would say she was actually pretty Advanced when she first came out and may have possibly gotten more Overt with each record. (The recent influence of prolonged Refined Overt David Byrne doesn't help.) A slowcore album in the vein of Cowboy Junkies or going full-Grouper would put her back on or at least closer to the Advanced track.
Karen O - mentioned very passingly (and correctly) as Overt, though closer to Advancement as many of these '00s alt-rock people now are surprisingly —maybe because rock doesn't have the same purchase it did commercially or culturally, so you feel free to just do whatever
January 13, 2012
Fun. An ideal book for the bookcase in the loo, if I could bring myself to have one.
Remember the movie "High Fidelity"? Where John Cusack and Jack Black were forever naming top 5 lists? I'm sure they're "overt", in the language of this book, but the book itself feels a bit like that movie. A guy has come up with a theory that justifies his continuing to have faith in his heroes whose later work is...well, unappreciated, perhaps. He argues that Dylan, Lou Reed, etc have continued to be innovative and brilliant, but that we no longer appreciate them because they're ahead of our time, or we're at the wrong stage of life to appreciate their new work.
Enjoyable, largely because the focus is on openly liking what you like, rather than finding reasons to dismiss or sneer at larger-than-life characters who refuse to go away when their fans think they should.
I've known plenty of people who espouse theories as unprovable as Hartley's when in the pub, but none who've taken the time to develop them as fully as this.
Remember the movie "High Fidelity"? Where John Cusack and Jack Black were forever naming top 5 lists? I'm sure they're "overt", in the language of this book, but the book itself feels a bit like that movie. A guy has come up with a theory that justifies his continuing to have faith in his heroes whose later work is...well, unappreciated, perhaps. He argues that Dylan, Lou Reed, etc have continued to be innovative and brilliant, but that we no longer appreciate them because they're ahead of our time, or we're at the wrong stage of life to appreciate their new work.
Enjoyable, largely because the focus is on openly liking what you like, rather than finding reasons to dismiss or sneer at larger-than-life characters who refuse to go away when their fans think they should.
I've known plenty of people who espouse theories as unprovable as Hartley's when in the pub, but none who've taken the time to develop them as fully as this.
December 22, 2015
This was a fun book. I was engaged, aside from a few bits of incorrect info imparted (Clover backed up Elvis Costello on My Aim Is True and the Chicago Bears have never worn black uniforms). Still, the Advanced Theory is a fun concept to use in discussions with friends about, most often, musicians. There seems to be a cheekiness to it all that I really appreciate. And Hartley does cop to his own biases - Costello is most likely Advanced, but he can't say for certain due to his own "lukewarm reaction to 60% of his music", he doesn't have many female artists from which to glean any sort of Advancement occurring (aside from Madonna). I'd highly recommend this to people who like to have in-depth conversations about a musician's or filmmaker's merits for fun. It is fun and smart.
Also, I've been a vegetarian for 14 years. My bookmark is a postcard from Red Mill Burgers here in Seattle featuring their famous Bacon Pile. This is a clear sign that I'm Overt. To understand what I mean, read this book.
Also, I've been a vegetarian for 14 years. My bookmark is a postcard from Red Mill Burgers here in Seattle featuring their famous Bacon Pile. This is a clear sign that I'm Overt. To understand what I mean, read this book.
July 12, 2011
This is a very fun book. It is not to be taken seriously. First book in a long time that literally had me laughing out loud every several sentences.
I suspect there are lots of others who could enjoy this book a lot more than I was capable of. I don't know nearly as much as I perhaps should about musicians and bands, and certainly not movie directors/producers and athletes. So there are a lot of references that went right over my head. But I love books and music and movies and sporting events, and I loved the Advanced Genius Theory about the people who create all of them.
Mostly I loved the Theory that lets us enjoy all of the iterations of all of these things, without having to take the art, artist, or ourselves so dadgum seriously.
I suspect there are lots of others who could enjoy this book a lot more than I was capable of. I don't know nearly as much as I perhaps should about musicians and bands, and certainly not movie directors/producers and athletes. So there are a lot of references that went right over my head. But I love books and music and movies and sporting events, and I loved the Advanced Genius Theory about the people who create all of them.
Mostly I loved the Theory that lets us enjoy all of the iterations of all of these things, without having to take the art, artist, or ourselves so dadgum seriously.
September 20, 2010
This was one of the best written books I've seen in a very long time. The author has a very distinctive almost conversational tone to his writing. Controversial yes but isn't that what art is supposed to be? Anyone who loves music is going to take something away from reading it. Since finishing the book I have re-listened to some of my favorites artists that on first listen did not seem particularly interesting. I know now that was because I was expecting the same music I had enjoyed for years. After the re-listen I have incorporated many discarded songs into my Itunes.
Thanks. Can't wait to see what you come out with next.
Thanks. Can't wait to see what you come out with next.
April 13, 2014
This was a tremendously frustrating book, but by the end I was glad to have read it. Think of a bird pecking oats out of horse manure. The oats are bits of critical insight, some of them genuinely useful. The manure would be the Advanced Genius Theory, which posits that some artists are too brilliant to produce poor work. The idea that everything's good and it's just a matter of how much is liberating; the details of the Theory are dopey, arbitrary, and intrusive. The author's comment that he didn't read much modern fiction because of his preference for the classics was phrased in a way that seemed like an illustration of the Overt position that he's supposedly refuting. Oh, well.
September 25, 2014
"...those of us who believe in Advancement don't unquestioningly embrace our idols, they have to earn our respect first. And once that is earned, we don't just abandon the relationship when they do something we don't understand, we try to understand it."
The theory is that when an artistic genius alienates their fan-base and is considered "past their prime," the truth may be that they are actually ahead of their time and still producing quality work. The two strongest cases given for this theory are Bob Dylan and Lou Reed. If that means nothing to you, then this book is probably not for you. I'd recommend it to someone in their late 30s to early 50s that is a big fan of pop culture.
The theory is that when an artistic genius alienates their fan-base and is considered "past their prime," the truth may be that they are actually ahead of their time and still producing quality work. The two strongest cases given for this theory are Bob Dylan and Lou Reed. If that means nothing to you, then this book is probably not for you. I'd recommend it to someone in their late 30s to early 50s that is a big fan of pop culture.
September 16, 2010
This book has an interesting topic and premise, however I found it difficult to fully embrace it's message as it seemed the author was really just trying to outsmart himself by presenting an intellectual topic.
I'd recommend this book more as one you pick up from time to time to read select pages or passages. I found reading it cover to cover to be more tedious, at least for my tastes and preferences in literature. I think it's best treated as a reference book that you can pick and choose what you read rather then taking on the whole body of work from beginning to end.
I'd recommend this book more as one you pick up from time to time to read select pages or passages. I found reading it cover to cover to be more tedious, at least for my tastes and preferences in literature. I think it's best treated as a reference book that you can pick and choose what you read rather then taking on the whole body of work from beginning to end.
March 9, 2012
I started to rate this book four stars just because I don't care for Lou Reed, and because I couldn't understand why Brian Eno was given attention while Bryan Ferry, who is clearly (or nearly) Advanced, wasn't. Then I realized I was being Overt. But part of the fun in Advanced Genius Theory is the potential for imagining debates about nominees. The creators of the Advanced Genius Theory have tapped into something important. And if I'm wrong and it's not important, it's still an entertaining and hilarious book. So, five stars.
September 27, 2010
This is an interesting book. The author gives criteria for different types of genius, explains why some people would not be so classified, and gives many examples. The main weakeness is that most of the examples are musicians. Since music can be very subjective, the reader may not agree with many of the examples. It seems to me that the author decided on a few people who were geniuses and then decided on the criteria and more examples. It is a book that makes a person think.
September 21, 2010
Never gave much thought to why I like music/or dislike some music, but after reading The Advanced Genius Theory...I look at music, actors, etc. in a whole different light. The author encourages the reader to listen/watch in a different context. I find myself going back & giving some music, especially, a second chance and hey, some artists now do have something to offer that I did not see before. Energizing!
May 9, 2011
I couldn't get through this book. The premise sounded really fun to me. I'm totally a pop-culture and media junkie, so books like this are usually right up my ally. I just couldn't get into it at all though. I didn't hate it while I was reading it, but I got bored after about 10 pages every time I sat down to read. Probably a great book for people with a vast bank of musical knowledge, but not for me. I would have preferred a magazine article on this topic instead.
June 1, 2011
Jason's theory -- on which he spends the first 50 pages explaining -- is less fun than his actual clever critiques of pop-culture icons. In fact, the parts about Bob Dylan and Lou Reed, the primary inspirations for the theory, are less interesting than his opinions of the Beatles (Paul is the most "Advanced"), Prince, Elvis and a one sentence mention of the Foo Fighters ("the Mike and the Mechanics of grunge"). That's the good stuff.
June 13, 2018
If you're ready to look at the works of some of your favorite artists who you think have lost it with fresh eyes, and look at most art with fresh eyes, this is a really fun book. Jason does a great job outlining the theory that begins as laughable and ends as something that, at its very least, is a blast to discuss with like minded friends. I won't go into any more detail here, but ask me about it and I promise an entertaining discussion.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.