Poll: does exist a genre of music "more objective" than another?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Stefano G., Apr 15, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter

    In... for example 500 years, will people of the future still listen to Pink Floyd or to Led Zeppelin or to the Beatles or to John Coltrane or to Mozart or to Beethoven?

    In short: is there a music genre (at least among those known up to now) that will survive over time? or does every style of music only reflect the society which it is generated from?

    So far, classical music (and opera, too) is proving to be quite long-lived, in the sense that it is still played and heard after some centuries since his birth, but in the future will the facts remain so?
     
  2. Jackson

    Jackson Senior Member

    Location:
    MA, USA
    I think in 500 years people will still be listening to Mozart, Beethoven, The Beatles and Coltrane, possibly Floyd and Zeppelin as well, hopefully by then no 0ne will be listening to Bon Jovi and KISS.;)

    The last option makes sense.
     
    Stefano G. likes this.
  3. Rfreeman

    Rfreeman Senior Member

    Location:
    Lawrenceville, NJ
    We clearly need an "only music that features one or more of The Beatles will survive" option
     
    Stefano G. likes this.
  4. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter


    :doh:
     
  5. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter

    ....the real question is: what should have a piece of music (of any genre of music it is...) in order to survive through the generations? what is it that makes it "objective"? a philosophical and / or psychological topic, maybe .... o_O
     
  6. ghostnotes

    ghostnotes Wish you were here.

    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Anything written I-V-vi-IV, or some combination thereof.
     
    Stefano G. likes this.
  7. OneStepBeyond

    OneStepBeyond Senior Member

    Location:
    North Wales, UK
    Some composers were overlooked in their day, as compared to modern times- so it's hard to say who will still be favoured in 500 years.

    I'd think that Bach and Beethoven stand the fairest chance of being remembered as they have stood the test of time (and I like a lot of what I know and own by them- that helps. :D) More recent popular (whether popular jazz, rock 'n' roll and all that followed) is a lot harder to speculate on, I'd think as there are some wonderful artists that barely get a mention these days. Who knows how people's attitudes to music will change in the next 50 years, let alone 500?

    I think that the last option is the most logical.
     
    moss and Stefano G. like this.
  8. Wufnpoof

    Wufnpoof Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Boston, MA
    It depends - will post-nuclear mutant cockroaches like music, anyway?
     
    PHILLYQ and Stefano G. like this.
  9. John54

    John54 Senior Member

    Location:
    Burlington, ON
    I went with the first option. I just listened to No Milk Today by Herman's Hermits. What a great song! A person in 2514 who was interested in good music could easily have that on their list, and thousands of other pop/rock and other styles of tunes.

    I agree that every era has its own music but it's addtional, not replacement.
     
    Stefano G. likes this.
  10. head_unit

    head_unit Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles CA USA
    "Classical music" is probably not so long-lived, really, insofar as individual pieces. I should think a lot more stuff was composed than was really played live very often. In other words, "classical music" could be labeled "the compositions that are good enough to have survived all this time."

    Think about painting: OK, we have Monet, Van Gogh, a few others from that certain time period. But how many zillion paintings must have been painted while they were active? Only the "good" or "best" stuff survives.

    Tons of Dixieland jazz pumped out, but what does the public remember? Louis Armstrong. Maybe Pete Fountain. Maybe nothing.

    So there is a kind of selection bias.

    And then there is a big big elephant in the room: recording. The "500 years" of music was either played live or lost, more or less. But now all kinds of stuff can be stored and listened to divorced from live performance. That is a big yet comparatively recent change, whose impact I think we really don't know.

    I know ZERO younger people with any awareness let alone interest in jazz or classical. And I know a lot-not all, but an awful lot-whose interest is heavily hip-hop. I suspect hip-hop is processed differently in the brain versus say "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik." (Sounds like an interesting thesis topic for somebody, eh?)
     
    Stefano G. likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine