Mozart was history’s most musical genius ever. I think he would be giddy over the advances made in music, and the whole rock genre. He would probably master it in about 12 minutes.
Once read an SF story (maybe in ‘Dangerous Visions’?) where people were opening tunnels to alternate Earths and raiding them for oil. One opened to Mozart’s time, and the protagonist introduced Wolfgang to modern music and instruments. He then tried to get him to finish the Requiem, but he had no interest in ‘old music’ at that point.
I suppose so. Who is today’s Mozart, though?
That’s a semi-serious question, actually. My guess is that it’s someone I haven’t even heard of, and who makes music that is so good that it sounds like horrible noise to me. And now those of you who know about these things rightly think that I’m an ignorant brute.
Mozart was the James Joyce of classical music - whatever genre he tried, he produced a masterwork. I would nominate the Beatles or Prince, but I would have no defense against accusations of fanboy wanking ;).
F’rinstance? :dubious: 
I’ll just leave this here. 
Who knows? It’s faded into history like most bad art. They didn’t have Youtube and digital storage media back then. But music with popular appeal and little artistic merit (a subjective argument, to be sure) has always been around.
Beethoven also anticipated the Modern era in music.
Damn it, beaten to it.
Oh, I know Wolfie was a kinky little bastard - that stuff is hilarious! But dammit, the choral group singing and asking you to lick their collective asses are still formally trained ass-lickers.
I would be fascinated to hear how a classical composer would regard Aretha, Ella, Sinatra or Tony Bennet. Marion Anderson or Paul Robeson might be off-putting to them because gasp they were Black, but they were brilliant classically trained singers. Aretha and Ella are clearly, obviously brilliant, but sing non-classical styles.
To be honest, I have no idea why I posted that link, or what I thought the relevance was to your post. I’ve been trying to come up with a post-hoc explanation, but I think I’ll just quote the immortal words of Jeremy Clarkson: “It’s late, and I’m drunk.”
HAHAHAHA! That’s what I came here to say.
Well, Bach did say this: Johann Sebastian Bach - Wikiquote
Robert Silverberg wrote “Gianni”, a story about using a time machine to bring Pergolesi into the present just before his death at age 26. They cure him of all his diseases, and he, shall we say, adapts. It appeared in Playboy in 1982, and you can find it with some Googling.
One of the great things about the SDMB, that keeps me hanging around, are things like this. Thanks!
I think what would amaze them most would be a modern steel-frame concert grand piano, and the kind of music that could not have been played on its predecessors. It’s not just that the instruments got better; they enabled later composers to create new forms of music. Even in pop music . . . you can’t play Hendrix on a lute.
They would be astounded at the lifestyles and celebrity afforded you by a successful career in music. Especially Bach.
And Schubert, who died in poverty and relative anonymity.
This.
Popular music existed in their days, yet they chose to write something different and, actually, much more complex. There’s absolutely no reason to think they’d be enthusiatic about rock or modern pop. Harmonically and melodically, these genres would have very little appeal to them: they’d just be way too simplistic. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t use a modern pop melody (they did occasionally use popular melodies of their times) but I bet it would only be as a basis for much more ambitious and complex works.
Now, they’d probably be fascinated by advances in technology (recording, electric instruments) and they’d probably incorporate them in their work. Composers are often interested in new sounds or combinations of sounds (reportedly, Brahms was delighted to hear a banjo towards the very end of his life), so they’d certainly give them a try.
However, I’m really uneasy with the concept of “musical progress”. What does that mean exactly ? That today’s music is better / more complex / more advanced than what came before ? Put that way, I think it’s grossly wrong.
In terms of technology, certainly. But technology =/= artistic quality. You can have amazing tools and still do a crap job.
In terms of rythym, it’s debatable. Certainly, today’s music is a lot more heavily syncopated than classical music. Is that more advanced ? On the other end, you could argue that having drums everywhere is actually a regression: are 21th century people so musically-impaired that they need a bang on every single beat to feel the pulse of a musical piece ?
Harmonically, well the less controversial thing I’ll say is that it’s different. Put Pérotin, Beethoven, Ferneyhough and, say, Dylan together and I don’t think they could meaningfully collaborate, at least before a very long period of observation and tons of explanations. These musicians follow different rules (yes, even the most revolutionary rock / pop musicians follow rules and patterns, even if unconsciously) and, perhaps most importantly, have completely different goals.
As for “fairly rigid rules and musical structures”, well I’m not sure that classical music is the most rigid of these genres. Take just about any work by Bach and see, for instances, how it often modulates, venturing not infrequently into some pretty remote territories. An awful lot of rock and pop songs stay boringly in the same key from start to finish. And when you find a modulation, it’s usually a rather “tame” and expected one.
Or take musical forms. Yes, symphonies, sonatas and concertos have a given structure. But, lots of composers started experimenting with those structures pretty much right away, litterally exploding them within years of their invention - Beethoven being an obvious example. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of rock and pop song are also very rigidly structured: Verse 1 - Chorus - Verse 2 - Chorus - Bridge - Guitar solo / rap bit - Chorus. Of course, some rock and pop musicians have broken this canvas but I think people vastly underestimate the number of classical musicians who did the exact same thing, centuries before. They weren’t as constrained as implied here and, conversly, modern pop musicians aren’t as free and as revolutionary as they believe.
I wonder if they would be surprised that their music is still around. I think that Shakespeare would be dumbfounded that his plays are still produced.
And speaking of Mozart, I’d love to have him watch Amadeus and point out all the inaccuracies in it.