<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 7 2008, 12:05 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The beatles first and foremost.
Elvis, definately.
Dylan
Sinatra and several others from the rat pack
In no particular order:
The Who
The Stones
Led Zeppelin
Michael Jackson
The Eagles
Pink Floyd
Black Sabbath
Elton John
James Brown
Hendrix
Clapton
Rod Stewart
Aerosmith
Rush
Yes
(nobody who started post 1980, FWIW)
There were a lot of super groups pre-1980 who continued beyond 1980. Their music will always be remembered, and will technically become classical music, by definition. The question is ultimately which ones will be considered as Beethoven/Mozart types and which ones will be remembered like the lesser classical composers are.
My choices above are based upon one of two factors. First is if they radically changed music and continued to influence it going forward. Second is simply a large number of albums/cds in multiple decades.</div>
See, I don't think these bands "radically changed music." If you are making a list of the rock bands or artists that are most likely to be remembered 100 years from now, they may be on that list, but (if not for the rock-and-roll HOF) I think that outside of a small niche of people that will listen to their albums, no one will remember much about them. You have to think that part of the answer has to be: How likely is it that people will go to hear these artists' music performed 100 years from now? How likely is it that their music will become "standards? and covered by other bands?" How likely is it that musicians 100 years from now will cite these bands as major influences, or that critics will cite the similarities between them and then-current bands? How often will you read about them in the newspaper? Did they create a new genre, or did they contribute drastically to its popularity (in relation to other bands of their era?) I think they all fail on those criteria. Elton John probably has the best chance, because I wouldn't be surprised if his music continues to be performed regularly. But most of the others have pretty unique sounds, and, while great acts and very talented, will end up little more than a footnote in the march of musical progress. There are many 18th and 19th century musucians and composers who are remembered and whose music is still performed, but they are no Beethoven or Bach or Mozart. These are musicians who, when people hear their name, will think, "oh, yeah, I've heard of him," without knowing why or ever hearing their music. Like, say Schumann or Verdi. I mean, I could name dozens of jazz musicians from 60, 70, or even 80 years ago, but I wouldn't consider them to be in the spirit of the question. 100 years from now, you're not going to turn on the radio and hear the DJ say, "That was X-splat performing "Tom Sawyer." You're not going to hear "Roundabout" as the background to a commercial.
To ask the question another way: If Beethoven or Mozart came back to life for one day, and you had a chance to play ten albums for them so they could see the direction music has taken since their death, would you toss in a Rod Stewart CD? Come on. I'd play a Keith Jarrett CD--who I believe is the most influential and original musician alive today, who arguably created a new genre of music singlhandedly, but who I wouldn't consider for this list, because I think he'll just be remembered as a footnote, as once he's gone, no one will expound on his work.
(Let me add that I have albums by most of these groups, and listen to them often. If you want to make a list of most influencial rock bands, I'd probably have many of the same names. Of course, you forgot Queen, which is unforgivable.)
