I just kind of arbitrarily picked 300 years from now, as it seemed a suitable amount of time to allow many artists to be forgotten.
If I had to pick 10 musicians/singers from the 20th Century I think will be remembered (well, referenced and/or listened to) in 2300, this would be my list (not necessarily my favorites, but those who will stand the test of time) (and I’m going mostly with popular music, since I’m not a Classical afficianado):
The Beatles
Louis Armstrong
Elvis Presley
Miles Davis
James Brown
Billie Holiday
The Clash
Prince
John Coltrane
Madonna
There are some (The Velvet Underground, Parliament/Funkadelic, The Ramones, Aretha Franklin) that I think should be on the list but probably wouldn’t be, realistically; and some (The Rolling Stones, U2, Pink Floyd) that, while massively popular and that I’m sure a lot of people would pick, but don’t really have the staying power to make it into the top 10. Your thoughts?
Damn. That last (declarative) sentence was poorly worded (changed it around at the last minute and didn’t properly delete the previous version), but you get the drift.
I’d add Outkast to the list. Gotta represent the last big pop music revolution, and Outkast, while not even close to being one of the first, is definitely at or near the height of the genre (IMHO).
“Die happy”? My love doesn’t kill, baby. It sustains.
Yeah, I kinda couldn’t decide on the rap/hip-hop - I personally would have picked Public Enemy, De La Soul or The beastie Boys, but I think history might give it to Run-DMC or maybe some of the Sugarhill Records crew for being the innovators, so I just figured James Brown could stand in as proto-hip hop.
I like Outkast, but I think they’d be included in 21st century music, and I think it’s too early to speculate about such recent acts.
I kind of doubt any popular music from the 20th century will still be listened to 300 years from now, at least not by your average person. (Musicologists and hardcore music buffs will undoubtedly be familiar with some of it, just as there’s somebody interested in every kind of music that’s ever been made.) Very few people today bother to listen to popular music from 300 years ago; not many people today even listen to classical stuff from that long ago. (Vivaldi and Bach are the earliest most classical listeners go, and even the bulk of their stuff is less than 300 years old.) So I don’t know that there’s much reason to believe pop music from the last century will survive for long in the mass consciousness – tastes change, lyrics become outdated, and even the language the lyrics were written in can evolve in 300 years.
Heck very few people even listen to pop music from eighty years ago.
The fundamental difference is that music from the 20th century, especially the latter half, has been recorded for posterity in a way never possible before.
Madonna and Elvis will be of historical interest for their phenomenal status in popular culture, but not for their music. Prince? Outkast? Not a chance.
Hip hop - I suspect the genre will be remembered, but no individual group or groups will be considered as standard-bearers. Except possibly for ones still to come, of course.
Definitely true, but in the long run will it really matter? We have tons of recordings of artists from the first half of the 20th century, but not many people listen to them today either, because tastes have changed too much. (Al Jolson, anyone? Glenn Miller?) Just imagine how it will be in 300 years, when there are three centuries worth of recorded music to choose from!
Do you mean musicians, or composers? Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, Geo. M. Cohan, Betty Comden, Andrew Lloyd Weber, the Gershwins, Rodgers & Hammerstein, have all pretty much become classics and will stay so for a good long time.
Andrew Lloyd Webber? You mean Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, CATS and Phantom of the Opera will only be a footnote?
Not bloody likely. In My (Arrogant) Opinion, there will never be a time ever again when somebody somewhere will not be doing a Lloyd Webber production.
Thanks for describing my own personal Hell, Annie.
Because of the creation of recorded music, how about the longevity of performers of “art music”?
Will 2300 people still listen to Glenn Gould’s piano, Wanda Landowska’s harpsichord, Fritz Kreisler’s violin? Eugen Jochum conducting Bruckner or Simon Rattle conducting Mahler?
Or do you think performance standards will only improve or evolve, and no one will care about 20th century interpretations?
I opened this to suggest Glen Miller, and the Gershwins. Maybe John Williams as well. I know you said musicians, and these guys are technically composers, but still.
GorillaMan, you made the excellent point that this century’s performers have the benefit of recorded performances, then you make the assertion that none of them stand a chance of being remembered 300 years from now. Care to elaborate?
We have much much less recorded about the music from the early 18th century, and with that we’ve sustained an enormous volume of after-the-fact recorded performances and interpretations. Indeed, we’ve based a large amount of our knowledge of musical theory and appreciation on these composers. Based on that alone, it would not surprise me to find that, 300 years from now, some common household names from today are held in revered awe.
Of course, I say this only so I can justify my fantasy of whistling the Star Wars Theme while jetting across the solar system in my warp shuttle 300 years from now.
