It’s impossible to tell. Bach was almost forgotten after all.
-
Perhaps a better question would have been “What, if any, popular musical artist of the 20th century will be remembered fondly in 200 years?” I chose the title I did because I thought it would be more interesting.
-
I’m aware of “serious” music. In this thread, I am more interested in the answer to the question as I rephrased it.
-
I’m aware of this problem with the question. Again, please refer to the question as I rephrased it.
Apparently a more specific thread title would have headed off some of these criticisms. I suppose I was trying to be too cute with the title. My apologies.
That’s an interesting take on it. I wonder, if this happened, would Lennon’s more “serious” perspective be admired or mocked? Conversely, would McCartney’s more light-hearted view be regarded as self-awareness and therefore more highly regarded?
The latter is my 21st century take on it. YMMV
Though it’s as a vocalist rather than for composition, Michael Jackson fits the bill. He was signed to a label (as the star of the Jackson 5) when he was 9 or so and he released two hit records in his thirties.
My first thought when I read the thread title was Stevie Wonder, but Like DrCube and Sampiro beat me to it.
I think a case could be made for Miles Davis, besides being a great musician and composer, he is also in large part responsible for creating several radical changes in jazz.
Philip Glass, of course.
Exactly. All we can do is guess. I nominate George Gershwin. Or The Beatles. Art Tatum.
But for all we know the 20th Century music most revered 300 years from now will be Iron Butterfly, or The Chipmunks. Or (God forbid) Yoko.
- We’re assuming that your great, great, great grandchild is listening to music, the way we (or Mozart) listen to music. Other than as a music historian or a degree dissertation, I doubt that our distant descendants will simply listen to music, without engaging other senses.
Besides, Mozart was unique. Literally.
Binaural beats will probably be the new ‘Mozart’ music since we are all becoming like robots lol
If we stick to the question as Cephkiller rephrased it (thus leaving aside modern and contemporary classical composers), I’d say The Beatles
You’re kidding, right?
There are litterally dozens of 20th and 21st century composers whose works dwarf his stuttering elevator muzak. Even Arvo Pärt is more interesting.
Absolutely. Many artists/musicians/authors suffer the vagaries of fads and fashions. Just because a musician is unpopular today does not mean he will remain unpopular in decades or centuries to come.
Hmmm, I’m not sure about that.
It is true that some composers, including Bach, were rediscovered after decades of neglect, but usually it’s rather unlikely. And in the case of Bach, that neglect was relative: Mozart knew about his music and so did Beethoven.
Think about it: there have been thousands of composers since the Middle Ages. How many of these are played on a regular basis? 10-15% perhaps. 20% at most. The classical era lasted roughly from 1750 to 1800. Everybody knows about Mozart and Beethoven. A lot of people have heard of Haydn. And after that? Unless you’re interested in classical music, chances are the names Abel, Cimarosa, Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Hoffmeister, Paisiello, Boccherini, Gossec, Méhul will not ring any bells. Yet, all of them were excellent composers. Just not great enough to be remembered by the general public.
The ratio is even worse for popular songwriters (except now were talking about hundreds of thousands of people).
The thing is, once a composer has been forgotten, he will remain so. And usually for perfectly valid reasons (good but not great or innovative body of works for example). Some will be remembered by niche specialists and scholars. Only an extremely select few will get a second chance.
Hey, a thousand years from now, John Cage’s 4’33" will still be getting play.
For sure.
But will people remember who wrote it 
?
In terms of who will be discussed in a few hundred years, I would really argue for Louis Armstrong. As we discussed in a recent thread where ThelmaLou asked about Armstrong’s contributions to jazz:
The innovation of jazz was a major rule change in music - it changed how rhythm was understood and played. Any discussion of the evolution of music would point to this as a pivotal period, an important musical genre (jazz), with Armstrong as one of the most prominent creators and leaders. Per that thread, he is Bach-like in his position.
As others have stated, Bach had fallen out of the mainstream, but was known by music people. Armstrong is certainly that well known and understood for his place by most semi-pro and pro musicians I know.
I honestly think that the evolution of Rock n’ Roll out of Rn’B, country, gospel and the blues will be seen as that: an evolution. Elvis marked the birth of the Teenager as an important cultural demographic more than the music shifted in a huge way from where it was going. But The Beatles - as the embodiment of the emergence of the studio as its own musical tool and the pop single and album as its medium - that was revolutionary in a Bach and Armstrong sorta way.
All IMHO as I noodle this through, of course.
You make some good points, but in a somewhat confrontational manner, which (IMHO) isn’t necessary.
I thought about the question, and I agree that it’s apples/oranges. For one thing, most pop music is, by design, ephemeral. It’s a product of time and place and loses some of its impact outside of that context (of course, there are exceptions, and the Beatles have been mentioned often enough in this thread).*
That’s not a putdown of pop music, it’s just an observation of what pop music is supposed to be.
As to what composers in the classical field will be remembered like Mozart, well, way too soon to tell, I think. Certainly too soon for me to tell, anyway.
- I wonder if Schoenberg/Webern/Berg will be thought of as the classical equivalents of the Beatles? Doing classical music in an entirely new way, just like the Beatles did with pop?
Elliot smith - don’t laugh, I am 100% serious.
All IMHO of course.
To the extent that the study of any genre involves how it emerged, how it’s rules evolved, then how those rules get broken, twelve-tone approaches will need to be covered. But unless they demonstrate much greater popularity, or ending up influencing future genres in a far more significant way, they will not dominate the conversation.
Similar to Free Jazz - important, rule-breaking niche, but Ornette Coleman will not be a dominant part of the conversation vs. Louis Armstrong when it comes to jazz. that is NO slam on Mr. C - just trying to frame what I am seeing in the big picture.
I don’t think it’ll be just one performer or band that’ll be remembered. There’ll be a music period defined that will basically encompass the latter half of the 20th century, and there will be 5-6 salient acts, in much the same way that Bach, Beethoven, Vivaldi, Handel and Mozart were all more or less contemporaries.
To that end, I’d think that the Beatles/McCartney, Michael Jackson, Elvis, Ray Charles and maybe the Rolling Stones will be the acts that endure like that.