Mozart,Beethoven,Ravel,Pink Floyd,Beatles and ............fill in the blank

I believe that ABBA Gold 2092 golden vinyl anniversary edition will sell millions

 

Except that one time when Beethoven went berserk and smashed a piano... and Mozart called out "Hello Vienna!!" when he was actually in Prague...

 

I'm equally fanatical about Debussy and Ravel.

 

As much as I love the band, Pink Floyd are only going to stand the test of time because idiots think that Dark Side of the Moon is music to smoke weed to. I don't understand why that became such a phenomenon. The Beatles... well, I don't agree with the way people are over-glorifying them, but because of that, yes, they will be remembered. Yes, I think they still would have been remembered well enough if people didn't make them out to be bigger than Jesus. I just think that people are giving them way too much credit than they deserve (and I really love the band).

I'll make my choice of Bob Dylan known before I get stoned to death by Beatles fanatics.

 

Wrong. The opposite is true.

Way way off the mark in fact.

 

Beatles should be first. Always!

 

Wilson belongs up there

 

How bad is it that I've never heard of Ravel?

 

Aint gonna happen. Hes only known among the masses for the mind numbingly pretentious Keep On Rockin In the Free World.

 

The Smiths body of work will continue to gain appreciation.

 

I like them both equally, but the current general opinion among my colleagues seems to be moving away from Ravel while Debussy and Purcell both seem to be having a resurgence of study and performance. However it is not uncommon for different coasts or continents to prefer certain composers over other composers at various times. This is a very common conversation at work and Debussy has been the favorite. But I can only speak of the people I know and talk with. It wouldn't surprise me if some folks prefer Ravel and I see no harm in that.

 

There was a distinction even in the time of Mozart and Beethoven. There was popular music of the day then, however it didn't survive the test of time. The form, structure, orchestration, harmonic or polyphonic movement, and difficulty of learning the instruments performed on are all different. The guitar has frets on it, the violin and cello do not. Using a pick does not require the same amount of technique as using a bow. I'm not saying rock musicians are not amazing musicians, I think they are, but there is a difference. During the classical period, popular music like in modern times was not composed on paper and until recording devices became available most of it was passed on through the oral tradition only.

I think the bigger issue is fans of only popular music can sometimes feel defensive, which isn't necessary. One genre is not better than the other, even if it requires a different level of preperation to perform or compose. One does not need to be snobby about the other. Classical music, rock music, folk, jazz, blues are all equally wonderful forms of expression. I don't know how an internal combustion engine works, but I don't feel the need to claim a bicycle is the same as a car, truck or airplane. All are valid forms of transportation if that is your preference.

And I think this is all important relative to the OP original statement. I can debate Debussy vs Ravel, or The Stones vs The Who with the same enjoyment without needing to group them together. I do think it is interesting to think about who will be remembered from this time, while disagreeing that classical composers and rock musicians can be compared to each other. I am sure it won't be Cage, Ono or Subotnick that is remembered. I agree with everyone that it more likely will be Floyd, Beatles and Dylan.

 

This begs the question "will music as we know it still exist in 200 years time". Change is accelerating so who knows how things will be
Beam me up Scottie.

 

Pink Floyd is arguably the greatest rock band of all time, so of course they will be remembered. It's completely absurd to say otherwise. Obviously the famous pop/rock groups will be remembered. This will likely also include the Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Zeppelin, Hendrix, possibly Nirvana, etc.

 

I don't care what the masses think, and obviously neither does neil young. For my money, he is the best artist Rock and roll ever produced.

 

Hello,

You can't really compare these groups of people together, but you "can" say that at a certain point in time, technology allowed significant changes in the way that the general public could access music....We have to remember the "discoveries" & invention of electricity, radio, phonograph, recording devices, tape machines etc etc.

The classical greats wrote up to say 120 individual parts for instruments, to be played by people within orchestra's at events. (Also, a majority of classical music is instrumental)...

What we call Jazz today, was in it's time, popular music, that was recorded & sent across the air-waves through radio. (Blues had it's place here too). Jazz also allowed freedom of interpretation of the written form of music, by allowing a soloist to improvise, rather than follow a strict written part.

Rock & Roll has by far shaped the general appreciation of music in "modern" times, by suiting itself to the many new styles that have evolved over the last 70-years or so...And rock remains the most free of all these musical forms, with generally the composer also often being the performer, singer & an instrumentalist.

Also, out of each of the above state's of time, every musical ensemble has typically reduced in size too...eg., You have a 120-piece Symphony Orchestra compared to a 4-5 piece Rock ensemble...

So to fill in the blank to this question, your own personal favorite will do !!! I dare say though, that record-sales might just be the "official" winner in 200-years time, just as record sales alone determine if you make it into the Rock 'n Roll hall of fame or not by today's standards.

Who would I put in there to fill in the blank ?....

LOWELL GEORGE

Cheers,

Gregster

 

You may well do. But your opinion alone is not going to help him be as appreciated as Mozart and The Beatles in 100 years...

 

Who cares where he ranks? He'll always be remembered as a true artist.

 

Arvo Part, Nick Drake

 

Hmm, no they shouldn't.

They're not in the same stratosphere as Mozart or Beethoven.

 

...but there's only one stratosphere.

 

lol. Pink Floyd are FAR more than just DSOTM, as goods as it is. And if someone enjoys weed and music....who cares, more power to them.

 

I don't have an issue with people liking drugs, but why Dark Side Of The Moon? There's plenty of more "far-out, spacey" music out there - this is a pretty conventional sounding album that deals with a multitude of rather conventional subjects. I could understand getting stoned to Saucerful or Ummagumma or something, but Dark Side? That's like Hard Day's Night compared to Revolver or Magical Mystery Tour - very different.

I love Pink Floyd very much. I deem six or seven of their albums to be absolutely flawless (the only artist to have more than three albums I consider perfect in every way) and there's only two albums I don't really like that much (More and The Wall, for the curious). But it upsets me that this fact is clouded by weed fumes this notion that they're the "ultimate stoner band". Most people know them, or "him", as "that guy who did that 'we don't need no education' song and that 'dark side of the moon' weed song".

 

Can't think of any pop / rock artist other than the Beatles as being likely to achieve that lofty status.

 

Look, we'd had a lovely meal...and all I said was, "That piece of halibut was good enough for Bob Dylan"!