What musicians will define the 20th century?
- Thread starter playaofthegame
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Dumpy
Yi-ha!!
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,231
- Likes
- 24
- Points
- 38
Keep in mind, that this question is a little unfair in that Mozart and Bach are remembered for their compositions, not their performances. That said, you really think those people will be remembered before Irving Berlin? Erik Satie? Pavaratti? Enrico Caruso? John Cage? Philip Glass? Vladimir Horowitz? Woody Guthrie? Hank Williams? Did the Eagles or Clapton define an entire genre of music for 50 years? Did they change the way other think about or listen to music? Will their compositions be played by high school bands 200 years from now? I think those are the questions that you have to ask yourself.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,946
- Points
- 113
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jan 7 2008, 06:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Keep in mind, that this question is a little unfair in that Mozart and Bach are remembered for their compositions, not their performances. That said, you really think those people will be remembered before Irving Berlin? Erik Satie? Pavaratti? Enrico Caruso? John Cage? Philip Glass? Vladimir Horowitz? Woody Guthrie? Hank Williams? Did the Eagles or Clapton define an entire genre of music for 50 years? Did they change the way other think about or listen to music? Will their compositions be played by high school bands 200 years from now? I think those are the questions that you have to ask yourself.</div>
Most bands do cover music. Few end up writing their own tunes and make a career of playing those. So yeah, based upon all the music I've seen covered by bands here in Vegas at all the various stages in the hotels and casinos, Elton John, Clapton, the Eagles, etc., will continue to be covered for decades to come. There's also an oldies station on the radio in every city and town I've been in, keeping the music current and out there in front of new generations of listeners.
My best definition of "Classical" music is music that is over 100 years old.
Given that Elton John was making records in the late 1960s or early 1970s, he's already proven that he appeals to multiple generations of people and that his music is popular for half the required time. And still going. True for every band I mentioned - the Stones sell out sports stadiums to this day.
Another test is the transition of the bands' music through various formats. When music moved to CDs, some of the music on vinyl didn't make the transition. Now music is becoming digital (MP3, etc.) and there's going to be some more music that won't make it. All the music from all the bands I listed has made multiple such transitions.
As well, I consider the wealth of classical music (Mozart, etc.), and there's LOTS of it that is still played in orchestras, string quartets, and by pianists by lesser known names. So that music has survived; no reason to think much of the music made since the advent of the LP is going to be totally forgotten.
There are other genres that I didn't mention at all. It's hard to believe that Country and Western is going to disappear, and there are lots of talent there that has survived the test of time and generations. Willie Nelson, for one.
Most bands do cover music. Few end up writing their own tunes and make a career of playing those. So yeah, based upon all the music I've seen covered by bands here in Vegas at all the various stages in the hotels and casinos, Elton John, Clapton, the Eagles, etc., will continue to be covered for decades to come. There's also an oldies station on the radio in every city and town I've been in, keeping the music current and out there in front of new generations of listeners.
My best definition of "Classical" music is music that is over 100 years old.
Given that Elton John was making records in the late 1960s or early 1970s, he's already proven that he appeals to multiple generations of people and that his music is popular for half the required time. And still going. True for every band I mentioned - the Stones sell out sports stadiums to this day.
Another test is the transition of the bands' music through various formats. When music moved to CDs, some of the music on vinyl didn't make the transition. Now music is becoming digital (MP3, etc.) and there's going to be some more music that won't make it. All the music from all the bands I listed has made multiple such transitions.
As well, I consider the wealth of classical music (Mozart, etc.), and there's LOTS of it that is still played in orchestras, string quartets, and by pianists by lesser known names. So that music has survived; no reason to think much of the music made since the advent of the LP is going to be totally forgotten.
There are other genres that I didn't mention at all. It's hard to believe that Country and Western is going to disappear, and there are lots of talent there that has survived the test of time and generations. Willie Nelson, for one.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,946
- Points
- 113
To add to my previous post...
When they teach about music in schools in the future, they're going to talk about the Beatles making Rock and Roll music popular among the masses, as well as being the first of the great British Invasion bands. The depth of their fame was, and still is, astounding.
Before Dylan, there was a movement called Beat or Beatniks. It was primarily a movement of poets and poetry. They "played" venues that most bands today play - cafes and bars and that sort of place. Their performances consisted of reading of poetry. Over time, they looked to add to their shows and it started with drums for rhythm. Dylan was a Beatnik who moved the whole movement into the mainstream by adding folk guitar and harmonica and ultimately full rock-style bands. Though his music might be classified as folk... His impact on modern music cannot be denied, as he brought an emphasis on spirituality and meaning and emphasis to lyrics that has transcended genre. I would argue that Rap and Hip-Hop are all about lyrics and Dylan taken to the extreme.
Clapton made the guitar a lead instrument and the guitarist a star.
Elton John and Paul McCartney were knighted by the queen of England, they won't be forgotten.
When Lennon was killed, there were vigils held for him around the world; the closest thing to it I've seen since are the death of a pope or Princess Di.
When they teach about music in schools in the future, they're going to talk about the Beatles making Rock and Roll music popular among the masses, as well as being the first of the great British Invasion bands. The depth of their fame was, and still is, astounding.
Before Dylan, there was a movement called Beat or Beatniks. It was primarily a movement of poets and poetry. They "played" venues that most bands today play - cafes and bars and that sort of place. Their performances consisted of reading of poetry. Over time, they looked to add to their shows and it started with drums for rhythm. Dylan was a Beatnik who moved the whole movement into the mainstream by adding folk guitar and harmonica and ultimately full rock-style bands. Though his music might be classified as folk... His impact on modern music cannot be denied, as he brought an emphasis on spirituality and meaning and emphasis to lyrics that has transcended genre. I would argue that Rap and Hip-Hop are all about lyrics and Dylan taken to the extreme.
Clapton made the guitar a lead instrument and the guitarist a star.
Elton John and Paul McCartney were knighted by the queen of England, they won't be forgotten.
When Lennon was killed, there were vigils held for him around the world; the closest thing to it I've seen since are the death of a pope or Princess Di.
Dumpy
Yi-ha!!
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,231
- Likes
- 24
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 7 2008, 12:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>To add to my previous post...
When they teach about music in schools in the future, they're going to talk about the Beatles making Rock and Roll music popular among the masses, as well as being the first of the great British Invasion bands. The depth of their fame was, and still is, astounding.
Before Dylan, there was a movement called Beat or Beatniks. It was primarily a movement of poets and poetry. They "played" venues that most bands today play - cafes and bars and that sort of place. Their performances consisted of reading of poetry. Over time, they looked to add to their shows and it started with drums for rhythm. Dylan was a Beatnik who moved the whole movement into the mainstream by adding folk guitar and harmonica and ultimately full rock-style bands. Though his music might be classified as folk... His impact on modern music cannot be denied, as he brought an emphasis on spirituality and meaning and emphasis to lyrics that has transcended genre. I would argue that Rap and Hip-Hop are all about lyrics and Dylan taken to the extreme.
Clapton made the guitar a lead instrument and the guitarist a star.
Elton John and Paul McCartney were knighted by the queen of England, they won't be forgotten.
When Lennon was killed, there were vigils held for him around the world; the closest thing to it I've seen since are the death of a pope or Princess Di.</div>
Your response is too genre-specific. Of course they will all be remembered, since this century witnessed the rise of recorded music, but I really don't think they'll be held in the same regard as Bach, beethoven, and Mozart, which was the thrust of the question. Again, I could name jazz musicians that have been "remembered" for 80 or 90 years already, but just haven't had the same impact on the development of music. Obviously, we can all interpret the question however we want, and there's nothing wrong with your answer--you've named the most influential rock msusicians of their time--but I don't see them as genre-defining or influencing generations of musicans that came or will come after them. I don't think being popular is enough by itself. I wouldn't put Frank Sinatra or Streisand on the list, for example. Do they belong on the list more than, say Beverly Sills? Enrico Caruso? Pavaratti? With regard to country music: Hank Williams? Johnny Cash? Willie nelson? Patsy Cline? Waylon Jennings? Buck Owens? With regard to jazz: Louis Armstrong? Miles Davis? John Coltrane? Duke Ellington? Count Basie? Charlie Parker? Keith Jarrett? Monk? With regard to folk music: Woody Guthrie? Joan Baez? Classical music: Igor Stravinsky? Strauss? Rachmaninoff? Isaac Stern? Dmitri Shostakovich? Boris Tchaikovsky? Claude DeBussy? Gustav Mahler? Vladimir Horowitz? New age: Phillip Glass? John Cage? What about Leonard bernstein? Charles ives? Aaron Copland? George Gershwin? How about composers like Stephen Sondheim? John Williams? Richard Rogers? Andrew Lloyd Webber? How about the blues/R&B? Robert Johnson? Ray Charles? Aretha Franklin? Muddy Waters? What about world music? Paco DeLucia? Julio Iglesias? Dozens of artists I've never heard of?
There are just too many genres to limit yourself to rock. What we listen to today is very different from what popular tastes were like 50, 75, and 100 years ago. If you go under the assumption that people--other than a small niche of listeners--aren't going to be listenting to the same music we listen to today, then you have to limit yourself to artists that transcended their genre, artists that others aspire to imitate, or will play thier songs, or who have changed the future of music (which is why the Beach Boys should probably be on your list, by the way). The reason I'd put Louie Armstrong on the list is that he effectively created the modern instrumental solo. No one really listens to his music any more, but he influenced multiple genres with his development of musical style. I just can't feel the same about, say, the Eagles. Good music, yes. Beethoven-like? No way.
By the way, I'm pretty sure that Glass and Cage's music will be studied 300 years from now.
When they teach about music in schools in the future, they're going to talk about the Beatles making Rock and Roll music popular among the masses, as well as being the first of the great British Invasion bands. The depth of their fame was, and still is, astounding.
Before Dylan, there was a movement called Beat or Beatniks. It was primarily a movement of poets and poetry. They "played" venues that most bands today play - cafes and bars and that sort of place. Their performances consisted of reading of poetry. Over time, they looked to add to their shows and it started with drums for rhythm. Dylan was a Beatnik who moved the whole movement into the mainstream by adding folk guitar and harmonica and ultimately full rock-style bands. Though his music might be classified as folk... His impact on modern music cannot be denied, as he brought an emphasis on spirituality and meaning and emphasis to lyrics that has transcended genre. I would argue that Rap and Hip-Hop are all about lyrics and Dylan taken to the extreme.
Clapton made the guitar a lead instrument and the guitarist a star.
Elton John and Paul McCartney were knighted by the queen of England, they won't be forgotten.
When Lennon was killed, there were vigils held for him around the world; the closest thing to it I've seen since are the death of a pope or Princess Di.</div>
Your response is too genre-specific. Of course they will all be remembered, since this century witnessed the rise of recorded music, but I really don't think they'll be held in the same regard as Bach, beethoven, and Mozart, which was the thrust of the question. Again, I could name jazz musicians that have been "remembered" for 80 or 90 years already, but just haven't had the same impact on the development of music. Obviously, we can all interpret the question however we want, and there's nothing wrong with your answer--you've named the most influential rock msusicians of their time--but I don't see them as genre-defining or influencing generations of musicans that came or will come after them. I don't think being popular is enough by itself. I wouldn't put Frank Sinatra or Streisand on the list, for example. Do they belong on the list more than, say Beverly Sills? Enrico Caruso? Pavaratti? With regard to country music: Hank Williams? Johnny Cash? Willie nelson? Patsy Cline? Waylon Jennings? Buck Owens? With regard to jazz: Louis Armstrong? Miles Davis? John Coltrane? Duke Ellington? Count Basie? Charlie Parker? Keith Jarrett? Monk? With regard to folk music: Woody Guthrie? Joan Baez? Classical music: Igor Stravinsky? Strauss? Rachmaninoff? Isaac Stern? Dmitri Shostakovich? Boris Tchaikovsky? Claude DeBussy? Gustav Mahler? Vladimir Horowitz? New age: Phillip Glass? John Cage? What about Leonard bernstein? Charles ives? Aaron Copland? George Gershwin? How about composers like Stephen Sondheim? John Williams? Richard Rogers? Andrew Lloyd Webber? How about the blues/R&B? Robert Johnson? Ray Charles? Aretha Franklin? Muddy Waters? What about world music? Paco DeLucia? Julio Iglesias? Dozens of artists I've never heard of?
There are just too many genres to limit yourself to rock. What we listen to today is very different from what popular tastes were like 50, 75, and 100 years ago. If you go under the assumption that people--other than a small niche of listeners--aren't going to be listenting to the same music we listen to today, then you have to limit yourself to artists that transcended their genre, artists that others aspire to imitate, or will play thier songs, or who have changed the future of music (which is why the Beach Boys should probably be on your list, by the way). The reason I'd put Louie Armstrong on the list is that he effectively created the modern instrumental solo. No one really listens to his music any more, but he influenced multiple genres with his development of musical style. I just can't feel the same about, say, the Eagles. Good music, yes. Beethoven-like? No way.
By the way, I'm pretty sure that Glass and Cage's music will be studied 300 years from now.
Similar threads
