:smack:
We have much much less information about the music from the early 18th century…
Carry on.
I’ll start building my list now, which naturally is a list of Western composers — because we presume (somewhat stupidly) that Western civilization won’t be crowded out by Indian and Chinese culture by the year 2406.
Igor Stravinsky. Rite of Spring (1906) is still being performed and interpreted a century after its release. It can survive another three centuries, easily, particularly because it was a musical turning point. Nothing like getting into the history books by having a riot at your premiere.
Gustav Holst. The Planets Suite (1916) is a hugely popular symphony, particularly Mars and Jupiter. It’s one of the most-performed symphonies in the U.S. today.
Giacomo Puccini. La bohème, (1896), Madama Butterfly (1904), Tosca (1900). What’s not to remember?
How about Arnold Schoenberg? As the spiritual father of 12-tone theory, he’s probably going to be talked about by musicologists in 300 years, but I suspect he won’t be listened to much by the average person. I’ll go with Scott Joplin instead: Maple Leaf Rag (1899), The Entertainer (1901). He barely edges out Rachmaninoff for this spot.
John Williams. By dint of being the composer for a number of very popular films, many of which will probably endure, he’ll probably be on somebody’s list somewhere. After all: Superman, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars. Some movie buffs (ahem, my brother) might suggest Elmer Bernstein, but Williams’ stuff is pretty hummable. I predict that once those themes go into the public domain, they’ll be used as generic “adventure music” for movie trailers and dog food commercials.
I’d say Giuseppe Verdi here, because he died in 1901 and was technically alive, but he didn’t do any composition in the 20th century that would be likely to count. (If we count his voluminous 19th-century stuff, then he’s in like Flynn.) Antonin Dvořák, probably out for the same reason. Ditto Gilbert and Sullivan.
The Beatles. I don’t think they were as revolutionary as Elvis Presley, but Elvis had songwriters. Also, Presley’s biggest revolution in music wasn’t the music but the presentation. It doesn’t hurt that the Beatles have one of the most-often covered pop songs of all time (“Yesterday”).
I was gonna say Rogers and Hammerstein Carousel, South Pacific, The Sound of Music, but since two of those musicals center around World War II in some way, I’m not positive they’ll still be around in 300 years.
Patty and Mildred Hill. “Happy Birthday To You” (probably written about 1895, published early 20th century). That song ain’t going anywhere for a while. It may not be the height of musical genius, but hey, people are still gonna be singing it. What more can a composer ask for?
Johnny Marks. Will achieve similar ubiquitous immortality for the goofy song “Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer.”
John Philips Sousa. 'Nuff said.
I think the safe answer is that ALL of them will be remembered, barring a disaster of dinosaur-killer proportions, because they’ll all exist in print and on recordings in archives.
Played? Listened to by that masses? The smart money is on none of them. There might well exist some societal knowledge of 20th century music due to its position as the music that existing when recording technology matured but by and large people of the 24th century will be listening to 24th century music and consider our stuff ‘quaint’ or ‘old’ or ‘ludicrously dated’ or somesuch.
Look at current trends. Recording technology is 100 years old. Good quality recordings exist of performers in the 1920s-1950s. Yet I’d say not one in a hundred could tell you a song the Ink Spots recorded. Or name more than one Glenn Miller song.
Hell, just speaking of the Beatles and Elvis I’d wager more than half already couldn’t name 5 songs that aren’t one their respective ‘Greatest Hits’ collections. It’s been 40-50 years and already the memory is fading for those who weren’t there when it was big.
So they’ll be known by experts and some audiophile historian types. But Rock and Roll is born to die, baby. Count on it.
To quote Calvin Coolidge, “You lose.”
What are you saying there, Ike? That you can? So can I. But do you honestly think that if I went outside and quizzed a few hundred random people on the street they’d be able to? I don’t see it happening.
I’ve got to agree about Souza. Maybe Jerry Goldsmith for his movie scores.
Charlie Parker? I hope so. I’ve got a sinking feeling that music 300 years from now will be all electronic, with few, if any live musicans. Sad.
I’ll echo John Williams.
I’m with GorillaMan. In 300 years, I really, really doubt any 20th century artists will be household names.
Where did the OP say that the composer’s name had to be recognized? It said “referenced and/or listened to.”
Seriously, name a composer who wrote around the time of 1706, 300 years ago. You could probably name just one: Johann Sebastian Bach. Probably one in five hundred people on the street could name “Toccata and Fugue in D Minor” by name. But play those first nine notes…
I’d wager that someone on my top 10 will be “referenced and/or listened to” in 300 years. Household name? I agree — most musicians today will probably not be known by name.
Right. The OP didn’t ask which of today’s musicians will be household names. woodstockbirdybird’s stated criteria is for the musician to be recognized, referenced and/or listened to.
Your argument goes something like this: If you ask 100 random people (say, on the street down at the corner) to list 10 composers from 300 years ago, sure, you’ll draw a lot of blank stares. Therefore, the music is unreconizable.
Let’s use a different sample. If you ask 100 random people in a university to list 10 composers from 300 years ago, you’ll get a lot of responses (and more than a few responses with more than 10 names!)
This isn’t strictly an academic following, either. Ask 100 random people in the music industry. Or professional artists. Or booksellers. Or advertisers. Or business executives. Or people who’ve taken music lessons. Or lurkers on the SDMB. A significant portion of these people will give you names of composers and compositions.
For lack of a better term, let’s call these folks “smart people.” (It’s painting with a very broad brush, I know, but bear with me.) Smart people recognize, refer to and listen to 300-year-old music not only because it’s academically interesting, but because they enjoy it, too. 300-year-old music has a real and tangible cultural significance in part because of smart people.
So you take those names of composers that smart people give you, and bring along recordings of their music, and play them to the 100 random people on the street down at the corner, and I guarantee you that a significant number of street-corner people will recognize some of the names, and some of the music. Because they listened to it before, or saw a reference to it in a show or at a concert.
There was a whole school of music thought that was wildly popular in Europe back then. It was smack dab in the middle of the Baroque period. Recognize the word? How about some names? Handel, Bach, Vivaldi, Pachelbel, to name a few. I guarantee you that each of these composers has had music in at least one commercial and at least one big-budget movie in the past 10 years. Their music is listened to, and enjoyed, 300 years after their composition. All on the basis of primitive pen-and-paper-based recordings (i.e. scores.) Think of how much more they’d be listened to if they had 20[sup]th[/sup] century recording techniques.
Barring some massive global failure in infrastructure, 300 years from now we will find plenty of people who readily recognize and enjoy music from this century, and it will be music that we recognize today.
Another factor is movies. Any time a period piece is made, songs from the era will be dredged up and sometimes re-popularized.
Other musicians whose work may be remembered:
Chuck Berry
Hank Williams
And from the world of bluegrass, Bill Monroe, Lester Flatt, Earl Scruggs
And does Scott Joplin count? His work bridged the 19th and 20th centuries. (There’s a good example of what I’m talking about. His music was reintroduced to the public consciousness in the 70s when it was used as the soundtrack for the movie The Sting
Surely some Big Band musicians will be remembered:
Glenn Miller
Duke Ellington
Benny Goodman
Jon – you’re probably right. I live in a ridiculously literate neighborhood of a ridiculously literate city, and so I tend to give my neighbors the benefit of the doubt, but even here I might get blank stares when I mention the Ink Spots. I rescind my comment.
I cannot stand his work personally, but I have to agree with the sentiment. Much like Shakespeare is still being produced 400 years later, I think that Lloyd Weber will be also. He appeals to enough of the people enough of the time to make his work a commercial success for a very long time.
I think Subway Prophet nailed it though, except that the artists he describes are all composers who tended to write for the court and upper class audiences, more comparable to the Gershwins, Lloyd Weber, and other Broadway/musical composers that aim for a similar audience (though definitely broader than the Baroque era, tickets to a Broadway show are still pretty steep, and their audience reflects it.)
I dont know of anyone outside of musicologists who could say what ‘popular’ music was in 1706 - what were the Top Forty drinking songs and ballads sung at the public houses that are equivalent to the songs on the jukebox or worse, karaoke machine, at the local bar today? I dont have the foggiest clue (except that I would probably like 'em - I love me a good drinking song - but thats another thread.)
AP
I haven’t seen any mention of Frank Zappa here yet. I really don’t know if he will be viewed as a sort of perverted version of Stravinsky by then, or forgotten completely. But I think some of his compositions are at least worthy of study.
Definetely the Beatles. They changed music in ways so significant that theyll be listened to if only for historical reasons. I think that as the rock era passes they’ll be a convenient representative of rock music to future generations.
Prince, maybe, but its a stretch. I want to think he will be, but that’s just because I’m a huge fan. I don’t think his fame will persist that long. He’s already becoming less well-known as the generation that originally listened to him gets older. Can’t say that same about the Beatles; I’m in college right now and everyone listens to them.
Definetely Michael Jackson, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd and Elvis. Im not sure about Madonna.
One group I would add to the list is Kraftwerk, an incredibly influential band that shaped what electronic music is today.
If I had to pick one piece from the century that would still make sense to the average listener in 2300, this is it.
It’s not a symphony, and widespread popularity means nothing. (It’s fun to play, and fun to listen to, but that’s not the point)
Agreed. And I’ve spent far too long in the role of musicologist, dealing with centuries-old composers, to claim otherwise. (Doesn’t mean it’s not good music, but that’s a different thread)
At this point I stop reading. Sorry if I’m patronising, but did you realise we were talking about long-term relevance, not drivel from Spielberg?
Fantastic suggestion! Possibly our best chance of a tune from our era surviving into 2300.
No he won’t.
I really hope that people are interested in the way 20th-century performers approached pieces. There’s enough to ensure that noboy ever claims that there’s “one true way”. Maybe Rattle isn’t essential, but it’s impossible to say that recordings of, say, Mengelberg, are not relevant.
<Sports Night>
“It took two people to write that song???”
</SN>
The Imperial March from Star Wars will survive. Probably also the Star Wars theme. They’re outstanding pieces of music in their own rights. The same can be said for the Indiana Jones theme.
Really? Elaborate, remembering you need to demonstrate influence which has a three-century influence
Now we’re talking! Kraftwerk makes sense as an argument for 2300.