Pono seems totally irrelevant

[mayhem13]

 

I really don't understand why this has turned into such a heated discussion.

 

But when you and your contemporaries are gone, there is simply no reason to believe that a lot of this very commercial, very cynically produced music is going to be revered by people 75 years from now.

 

This is why it's a heated discussion George. I don't think you realize what you're typing lately. You've insulted almost every contemporary artist and music listener as being irrelevant, cynical, commercial or worse.

 

It's time to start editing yourself. Stream of thought isn't coming across as you may have intended.....and please don't tell us that we all misunderstand you, my comprehension and those here at CA is just fine.

[DarrenMc]

... mediocre? The one that J.S. Bach walked 250 miles to hear? .... Being forgotten and being mediocre often don't have too strong a correlation I'm afraid.

 

My apologies, I was not trying to imply those composers were mediocre. (I know nothing about them and would not presume to pass judgement). I do think that Aerosmith will be forgotten by all but musicologists, by reason of mediocrity. (And I *am* familiar with them).

[maelob]

Wow i guess a lot of people in this forum would have called Beethoven outrageous, rioted on Stravinsky's Firebird opening, called Warhol sacrilegious , hated Elvis and the Beatles etc. what else? Lol

[TimArruda]

This is why it's a heated discussion George. I don't think you realize what you're typing lately. You've insulted almost every contemporary artist and music listener as being irrelevant, cynical, commercial or worse.

 

It's time to start editing yourself. Stream of thought isn't coming across as you may have intended.....and please don't tell us that we all misunderstand you, my comprehension and those here at CA is just fine.

 

+1

 

Earlier in this thread George, your tone was significantly different than it is now. It is disingenuous to make these kind of statements earlier in the thread, and then feign ignorance as to how the thread became heated.

 

I certainly hope that's not true. In fact I suspect that much of it will die with the generation that spawned it only to be replaced by the next generation's abominable "music". I can't see, for instance, many people still listening to the Rolling Stones' music two hundred years from now, the way millions of people the world over still listen to Beethoven. That's too depressing for me to even contemplate.

 

Do you understand the difference between entertainment and art? The Beatles, Chuck Berry et al are entertainment, and Bach's Brandenburg Concerto #2 if F is art.

 

I simply refuse to believe that 20th and 21st century popular music, produced so cynically, and commercially, and being totally devoid of any content any thinking human being would want as an example of his time on this earth, could possibly, ultimately be canonized for the ages. Many of us might love it, might consider it important, but I cannot believe that future generations will see it as anything other than an aberration. I could be wrong, but I certainly hope I'm not. We live in the "Golden Age of Garbage" and it will be best forgotten by the future like the bell-bottom trousers and disco of the 1970's.

[mav52]

This is why it's a heated discussion George. I don't think you realize what you're typing lately. You've insulted almost every contemporary artist and music listener as being irrelevant, cynical, commercial or worse.

 

It's time to start editing yourself. Stream of thought isn't coming across as you may have intended.....and please don't tell us that we all misunderstand you, my comprehension and those here at CA is just fine.

 

+1. A lot of times George pretty much gets it right, but this time he takes the red pill and goes into wonderland as he is now able to predict the outcome of a future society and how people 200 years from now will comprehend art and music.

[phusis]

Sorry, but I can't substitute a legal definition of pornography for art. I believe sometimes the greatest art of all is the kind you don't know when you see it...

 

Best,

John

 

I very much agree with this sentiment, John..

[orgel]

Wow i guess a lot of people in this forum would have called Beethoven outrageous, rioted on Stravinsky's Firebird opening, called Warhol sacrilegious , hated Elvis and the Beatles etc. what else? Lol

 

The riot — actually more of a near riot — was for Rite of Spring (Le Sacre du Printemps). Even though I think it's time to give George a break, I can't help but wonder whether he would have given it a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. Certainly, at the time, a number of folks thought it was garbage. Puccini, for one, was not impressed.

 

--David

[DarrenMc]

+1

Earlier in this thread George, your tone was significantly different than it is now. It is disingenuous to make these kind of statements earlier in the thread, and then feign ignorance as to how the thread became heated.

 

+1

[maelob]

(null)

 

Oops wrong performance, thanks for the correction lol

[wgscott]

It's good to have a variety of options.

[wwaldmanfan]

If ever ANYTHING should be forgotten, these are IT! And your example is mild, apparently, compared to some of them.

 

 

A small sampling of turn-of-the-century "coon" sheet music. Unabashedly racist to the max, but an important part of American cultural history that should never be forgotten...for many reasons.

[InfernoSTi]

For me, two experiences make art into magical moments.

 

The first is a sense of discovery. When I'm not familiar with something to the degree that I don't understand it intuitively yet I'm drawn in and appreciate the work. I love growing as a person beyond what I am both familiar and comfortable with. Hearing Bill Evans for the first time was like magic yet I wasn't "into" jazz at all and had been bored by it. To me, he has a magic that has allowed me to appreciate other works of jazz that I had previously not enjoyed. This one artist changed my perspective profoundly. The same experience is had with classical composers, novels, paintings, photography, theater, etc.

 

Second is seeing the world from another person's perspective. Art allows us to not simply see the world based on our personal experiences (social, geographical, temporal) but to see it from another person's perspective. We can live through their lives for just a moment. This lets us experience more directly the world from the past or from another culture, etc. This connection to other people is uniquely human and is the same as with scientific knowledge being passed on but it is for our emotions and thoughts, which is the other side of being human. This is what civilization is based on, in fact.

 

Both of these require that art, at least at times, push the comfort zone of what is familiar and what is old and transcend the current paradigms and norms and definitions and show us something new and magical or show us the world from another person's eyes, particularly the perspective of those who would otherwise have no (loud, popular, or powerful) voice.

 

This is why I have said the best definition of art is to have no definition of art. It is also why I have said the greatest art can be the kind you don't know when you see it. One role of art is to expand our human experience and to do so you have to push the envelope of what we already know.

 

Best,

John

[gmgraves]

The riot — actually more of a near riot — was for Rite of Spring (Le Sacre du Printemps). Even though I think it's time to give George a break, I can't help but wonder whether he would have given it a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. Certainly, at the time, a number of folks thought it was garbage. Puccini, for one, was not impressed.

 

--David

 

Who knows the answer to that question? certainly not me, but it is beside the point. I'm discussing what music will be remembered by society in the future, the rest of you seem to be hitting all around that point - mostly by taking me to task because I don't like the pop music of the last 60 years or so and that opinion seems to insult you.

[gmgraves]

Of course. However, you're ignoring survivorship bias. The examples of classical music "you know" happen to be the ones that stood the test of time. No pop music from the second half of the 20th century has yet been exposed to the test of time, so none can be said to have passed it. Most of today's pop music will be forgotten, of course. But some of it will be remembered, just as Beethoven is. You appeared to be saying that no popular music of the second half of the 20th century will be remembered. (Certainly, if the Beatles will be forgotten as you claim, then everything else from the last 50 years will be too, as the Beatles would be considered "rock music most likely to last"). You also mentioned "the Great American Songbook" as an example of something which has lasted. I think you might be overstating the degree to which this is the case.

 

Of course some of it will be remembered, but whether or not it will be still listened to and performed is another matter. This is taste of course, but personally, I find the music of the Beach Boys to be far more original and innovative than anything the Beatles produced (although they did compose a couple of nice tunes - like 'Norwegian Wood'; but even that, while it's a nice tune, it has what are, IMHO, banal lyrics). But even that is not saying much, again, IMO.

 

As for the "Dark Ages", I suspect that your definition of that term and mine will differ substantially, so I'll leave it at that.

 

Perhaps, but it's a slippery slope and this society has very tenuous grasp on it!

[gmgraves]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14017[/ATTACH]

 

A small sampling of turn-of-the-century "coon" sheet music. Unabashedly racist to the max, but an important part of American cultural history that should never be forgotten...for many reasons.

 

 

Well, forgotten is one thing. No we should not forget that it once existed, but performed and heard is something else again. It's like a minstrel show. Yeah, they were once very common, but would you honestly want to attend one in this day and age? I didn't think so. Neither would I.

[Audio_ELF]

Who knows the answer to that question? certainly not me, but it is beside the point. I'm discussing what music will be remembered by society in the future, the rest of you seem to be hitting all around that point - mostly by taking me to task because I don't like the pop music of the last 60 years or so and that opinion seems to insult you.

I may be mistaken but I think what people are saying is that "great art" is only acknowledged in retrospect. Will the music of the Beatles and the Stones be remembered in 2 centuries time? Well only time will tell and (I suspect) if we could look forward 200 years and see what IS remembered we may be surprised...

 

The point I and (I think) others have been trying to make is that at the time of creation no one (probably) thought Bach and Mozart would endure either.

 

Eloise

[orgel]

Who knows the answer to that question? certainly not me, but it is beside the point. I'm discussing what music will be remembered by society in the future, the rest of you seem to be hitting all around that point - mostly by taking me to task because I don't like the pop music of the last 60 years or so and that opinion seems to insult you.

 

Not me. I'm no longer especially enamored of pop music, and I haven't listened to much of it in the last 15–20 years.

 

I'm just trying to make two related points, and I'll try to state them as clearly as I can:

 

1. One can't possibly know what music will be remembered and/or well regarded 100 or 200 years from now, and

 

2. What's remembered or well regarded in 100 years mostly won't be the same after another 100 years.

 

That's it. Not trying to make a case for Queen's immortality or anything remotely like that.

 

--David

[realhifi]

This thread has certainly become contentious. The thing I find fascinating about the argument for the "art" of classical vs. the "vulgarity" of the popular music of the time is the simple question; how many people go to classical music performances vs. popular music concerts and how many times has classical music been pronounced dead only to get yet another infusion of public funds in order to keep it going in the face of the "awful" popular music of the times?

 

PS. Speaking of music that will be remembered; how many know a Bach Cantata and how many can whistle Hey Jude?

[StephenJK]

Then why not start another thread?

 

The title can be "What music do you listen to today will be played hundreds of years from now?"

[maelob]

We need an art and music history professor to weigh in on the matter.

[accwai]

[...] Speaking of music that will be remembered; how many know a Bach Cantata and how many can whistle Hey Jude?

 

Probably most in the west would know a few melodies from Bach cantatas. The question is whether they know those are Bach cantatas...

[realhifi]

Probably most in the west would know a few melodies from Bach cantatas. The question is whether they know those are Bach cantatas...

 

Good point.

[gmgraves]

Not me. I'm no longer especially enamored of pop music, and I haven't listened to much of it in the last 15–20 years.

 

I'm just trying to make two related points, and I'll try to state them as clearly as I can:

 

1. One can't possibly know what music will be remembered and/or well regarded 100 or 200 years from now, and

 

2. What's remembered or well regarded in 100 years mostly won't be the same after another 100 years.

 

That's it. Not trying to make a case for Queen's immortality or anything remotely like that.

 

--David

 

 

I agree. But one can certainly use the past to make an educated guess about the future. And that's all any of us can do; make a guess. That rock, rap, and other kinds of pop music from the second half of the 20th century won't make the cut is merely my guess.

[gmgraves]

This thread has certainly become contentious. The thing I find fascinating about the argument for the "art" of classical vs. the "vulgarity" of the popular music of the time is the simple question; how many people go to classical music performances vs. popular music concerts and how many times has classical music been pronounced dead only to get yet another infusion of public funds in order to keep it going in the face of the "awful" popular music of the times?

 

PS. Speaking of music that will be remembered; how many know a Bach Cantata and how many can whistle Hey Jude?

 

The answer there is that there is no accounting for bad taste. And many people can easily whistle "Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring" or "That Sheep May Safely Graze" among others.

 

And still you don't seem to get the concept here: popularity doesn't count. I suspect that Jolson singing "Mammy" was very popular in 1927. Who can whistle or hum it today? Not many I'd wager. This would be especially true of people under 50.

[Allan F]

I really don't understand why this has turned into such a heated discussion. I know that many of you love pop music almost to the exclusion of everything else. Nobody is denying you access to that music or trying to enjoin you from listening to it. But when you and your contemporaries are gone, there is simply no reason to believe that a lot of this very commercial, very cynically produced music is going to be revered by people 75 years from now.

 

Use of phrases like "very cynically produced music" only serve to emphasize your personal bias and provide no independent evidence to support your thesis. You, who openly admit your distaste for most most popular music, are certainly no position to judge what popular music will or will not live on. You may offer your opinion, of course, but there is no reason to believe that is equivalent to "no reason to believe".